I have to agree. I would have liked to see a parallel to the first Luke/Vader fight in ESB. The first few minutes are Luke going at it, while Vader kinda shrugs him off with his 'saber -- with one hand, no less. This really made an impact as to how much of a badass Vader truly was.
And don't get me started on how Yoda should have simply force-shoved Kenobi and Skywalker out of the way of that pillar, rather than stop the pillar itself. Soooo lame.
Speaking of Vader, am I the only one who was really let down by the 30-second battle between Anakin and Dooku? I mean, this kid is destined to be the Jedi, yet this scene lacked any real tension. Even the last Darth Maul fight in E-1 was better!
I tried not to complain. I really did. But I just can't see this as anything more than a token gesture rather a legitimate "let's see if this'll work".
Firstly, I have no clue who this person is. She's obviously not mainstream. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you. It's just that I have no motivation to buy this track. I can't even locate the track on the gnutella network (okay I found 2 hosts with it, but I couldn't connect).
Second, the bitrate is horrible. I mean, it really is. I'm no audio snob, but I stopped downloading/encoding anything less than 256kbps about 2 years ago.
Contrary to others, I have no problem with the $1 price tag, as I don't have a problem with the "buy more, pay less" scheme. That is, I don't mind $1 for a single, but I wouldn't pay more than $10 for a full album in this way, regardless of the number of tracks it has.
You want to impress me, Big Label? Release the current top 5 or 10 songs in all mainstream categories (pop, R&B, classical, new age, country, rock, etc.). Offer than for a buck apiece. This would blow me away -- I'd buy a Britney Spears track just to support the effort. Even at 128kbps I'd do it, just because this would be a major scary step for the labels. Next, offer me an uncompressed file format -- straight WAV, baby! I'd pay a 50% premium over any compressed format, though I'd still not go over $10/album as any more would lead me to pay for a real CD.
The point is, if the labels offered something really revolutionary (for them), I'd take these kinds of offerings a little more seriously. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.
As someone who has 4 laying hens in his small urban backyard...
If there are no breeds of chicken that can handle the climate, then don't use those breeds! Our hens can handle the near-100F heat of summer and the 10-20F winters. If these poor farmers require poultry to live (doubtful), they can use a more hot-climate oriented bird such a guineas or quail.
I'm always a bit disgusted by modern methods of shoe-horning nature to serve our needs where other more natural varieties will fare much better by nature's own design.
As much as I hated plucking our meat birds when we slaughtered them (we ended up skinning them), the thought of denying a life form a vital and natural part of its physiology makes me ill.
There are plenty of other horrors in the poultry industry, such as de-beaking (barbaric), over crowding, and mass extermination of male chicks (in egg shops). Why add another one so KFC and Tyson and add another couple of pennies per pound to the bottom line?
I swear, modern scientists have no scruples sometimes.
It's a good thing thing those capitalist-loving
companies are willing to give up those government
mandated FCC fees on every POTS and cell phone bill.
Oh, wait... those companies would fight tooth
and nail to keep those subsidies, in spite of the
fact that they're no longer needed. The telcos have
more than enough money to expand, yet we're still
paying those fees.
I have a chain of 3 lights in a long wooden case at home that my wife uses to sprout and start her garden plants. We used to use 100W incandescent bulbs. Worked fine.
We went on an efficiency kick and replaced every bulb in our house with those 20W curly CF lights (sold at Costco @ $20 per 5). We did this with the sprouter. Didn't work so good.
If I remember my solar energy figures, one gets a nominal 1000W per square meter of direct sunlight. I'm sure I could duplicate the luminosity (correct term?) with maybe 100-200W worth of florescents, but there will not be 1000W of radiant EM energy hitting that same area (how can you, if you put < 1000W in you can't very well get 1000W out!).
I think LEDs would be even worse for plants, as they're pretty close to monochromatic light, and I think plants need a fuller spectrum anyway.
Well, anything with Jason Priestley won't win any awards, that's for sure...
It was completely a non-story.
If the movie portrayed the events that happened accurately, then it is an issue. Do we not have the labels on music now? Do retailers (some very large ones) now refuse to carry titles based on that? Not that the music industry people were heroes -- they compromised to get in favor of legislators. They sold out, and were as damaging to free speech as Tipper ever was.
I think the rating of movies is bad, quite honestly. Most theaters (all, in Utah) won't carry anything above an R rating. That means I couldn't see Showgirls or Eyes Wide Shut in their original form (NC-17 rating) on the big screen. The industry has curtailed artistic expression and consumption.
I was stuck at home, sick, a couple of weeks ago. Out of sheer boredom, I ended up watching some VH1 movie about how Tipper Gore led the charge that resulted in the "Parental Advisory" labels on music. To it's credit, it enlightened me to a battle I never knew had been fought -- and I'm a hair shy of being 30.
Anyway, this law (the video games thing), along with past issues of "censorship" in the form of government-coerced industry self-policing got me thinking.
The logic seems to be this:
Some material is harmful to minors (I can buy that)
Custodians of said minors are not competant enough to police the material themselves (I cannot accept this)
Legislate morality into the industry, rather than trust parents (I think this simply bites)
It got me thinking... If a parent (an "adult", mind you) can't be trusted to read a lyric, listen to an album, or watch a movie to determine if the material is right for their own kids (and this is easy stuff -- "yup, there's 4 scenes containing bush in Porky's, so Little Johnny can't rent it"), how the bloody hell can these same adults be expected to abide by the terms of a 20-page legalese-ridden EULA!!!
I mean, there's gotta be some precedent here, right? If a legal adult can't be trusted to interpret the dumbed-down lyrics/music/visuals of modern-day mass media, there's just no way in hell they can handle a EULA! Release the attack litigators!
I say if we adults are deemed too dumb to spot a tit in a movie or hear a naughty word in Prince's latest single, then other laws should reflect that. They shouldn't have it both ways.
And I'd much rather have the labeling laws (and similar nonsense) repealed than to have new laws passed to protect us from EULA's.
Back on topic, I have kids, and I know there's some disturbing stuff out there in theaters, in music, and on the internet. No, I'd rather my 6-year-old daughter not see porn pics on the internet or my 3-year-old son watch some guy get his spine ripped out in a video game, but, dammit, all these restrictions on content diminish what I can access now and what they can access as adults. This is what I ultimately object to. Because labels make it easy for suppliers to throttle the supply (i.e., Wal Mart will not carry "Parental Advisory" labeled music), which makes the content providers (artists) either change their creations or they're not accessible with equal footing to those who do. And that, my friends, is where this slippery slope goes. I don't think there's any real happy ground in between.
Is SSH (or any remote terminal access) workable? I have some rural property that I'd like to move out to, but I need some kind of connectivity for telecommuting. I all need is SSH.
What someone really needs to do is blatantly violate a stupid eula clause and tell the whole world.
For example, someone needs to buy a copy of SQL Server or Oracle and publish benchmarks about the product, thus violating the EULA. Or guy that M$ devel kit and write some GPL's software. Then, when they get taken to court, take it as far as it will go.
Yeah, I know... us mere mortals without bottomless pockets simply can't afford to do this. I can still dream that some tech-savy, eccentric millionaire will take on such a cause.
For me, my job is a means to an end, not an end
unto itself. As such, I value vacation time. I
have a wife and kids, and I prefer to spend my
time with them over time in the office.
My current job (at a State University) started me
at 3 weeks per year, and if I stick around I'll get
to five weeks per year. I can bank up to something
like 1040 hours (26 work weeks), then it's a
use-it-or-lose-it scheme. I also get 2 weeks of
sick leave per year, and that can be banked to 1040
hours as well. It's also pretty lax with
flex time. If I work a late night or weekend fixing
or installing a machine, it goes into a under-the-table
vacation bank (sanctioned by my manager, of course),
which I use for extra vacation/sick time.
My last job at a small software shop started at 2
weeks per year and you could only bank 4 or 6 weeks
before you lost it. There was no distinction
between sick and vacation time, just a generic "leave"
bank, which was really lame.
I'm getting paid less here (or at least I was when
I left the last job), but I feel far better off now.
My plan is to transition to a more consultant/freelance
self-employed state over the next 5-10 years, so that
I can spend even more time with my kids as they get
older (and before they leave the nest).
I guess it's all about your priorities. I know
people my age with far different priorities, who
take little time off, have no kids, and easily make
twice my salary. I know guys in sales (yuck!) that
work pretty much when and where they want to.
So here in the States, you have to taylor your job to
fit your life goals. The government won't enforce
anything more than minimum wage and safe workplaces,
which I suppose is fine (I have too much of a
libertarian tendancy to expect/want anything more).
The directions for a bottle of shampoo or a box of Hamburger Helper are more complex than a 1040! I mean really, is this all that surprising? Most tax forms seem pretty straight-forward to me.
Now, if the tax code (the laws themselves) were easier to understand than a standard EULA, then this would be news.:)
Re:Long on Talk, Short on Substance
on
On Hacktivism
·
· Score: 2
This was meant to be a visionary kind of statement, to make you sit up and think a little bit. And he clearly states that "disruptive" was in context of the status quo (of censoring entities), not disruption of services, systems, etc.
He described a problem, described the first step (design), and only hinted at implimentation (open vs closed code, and using P2P -- er, H2H -- systems), but primarily we the readers are meant to be inspired to find, rather than spoon-fed, the solutions (which may not be even be known yet).
I had to respond, since this hit us here locally during the Games last month.
Ashcroft decided to clean house at some major airports, including SLC, before the Winter Games. Quite a few illegal immigrants were detained, arrested, and (of course) fired for having false info about their citizenship.
Fine, you say. They broke the law. They should be punished.
In theory, that's fine. However, I believe this was Ashcroft grand-standing, rather than for anyone's safety. It was selective. Did they clean out any illegal immigrants from the many downtown hotels? Hell no -- the hotel industry in SLC would shut down if they did that. (I'm sure this is the case in many cities.) Even the airport allegedly turned a blind eye (some allege they even helped with the paperwork) when the illegals were filling out the forms, so they could get cheap labor.
So Ashcroft ruined many lives here in SLC (those of the airport workers and the families they supported), because it looked good to the press. They didn't go after all the illegal immigrants because it would hurt big business during an especially profitable time.
If all laws were enforced 100% and without bias, then I'm all for 'em. However, as long as pricks like Ashcroft run the show, our laws should be left alone and not made even more broad in the name of "security".
I'm happily willing to live life knowing that I might be the victim of a random terrorist attack if it means that I can retain what's left of my remaining privacy and freedom. If I had to choose between a life of 100% certainty of safety in which I had to give up my right to own/carry a gun and have my purchases/travel/etc/opinions tracked or a life with a n% certainty of safety (where n < 100 -- even below 50%) but with my freedoms, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.
This is just the first step. Remember, the ratings for movies are self-imposed. No one really forces (coerces, yes) the MPAA to rate the moveis. Yet, there's a law in Utah (and other states?) that makes it a crime to allow minors into a R-rated movie. If a movie is not rated, then it effectively will not be shown in your standard movie theater.
Once the rating/zoning is in place, providers will take the least risky (legally) route and filter. This could effectively kill the online porn business. Unless ISP's, whose sole purpose is to allow the.prn domain, begin to crop up. I can see spice.net becoming a new ISP.:)
One of her big concerns was that, as a professor of Women's Studies, she had a lot of confedential papers on her system. The backups seems to be a minor concern to her.
This wasn't a matter of the university getting to see her shopping list, but rather material from students that thought only she alone would have access to.
Protecting a student's discussion of past rape or abuse trumps a mere $10k in grafiti cleanup, in my book.
You're advocating that TV is "bad" simply because people find it so enjoyable that they do it rather than do something unpleasant just to keep from being bored. Why? Do you secretly hate people? Do want us all to suffer? Do you feel us "commoners" who don't appreciate the finer things in life, like yoga, literature and stomach crunches need to suffer along with high minded intellectuals such as yourself?
Check out Stay Free! Magazine or Adbusters. If you can find issues locally, buy one or two. I subscribed for a year (that was enough -- the ranting does get tiresome), and it was enough to jolt my sensibilities just a bit. I'd actually rate Stay Free! much better than Adbusters, as the articles are more researched and meaningful.
You will come to realize that TV is a medium for ads (these rags cover consumerism in all respects, not just TV), and , as such, you are being used as a consumer, not graciously being given entertainment. This might seem obvious, but until one takes a critical look at it, you don't necessarily know just how bad it is.
I enforced severe TV rationing in our household 1-1/2 years ago. Guess what? The kids: can actually entertain themselves now (they can uctaully use crayons and Lincoln Logs creatively); don't pester us for soda and candy-coated cereals, unlike most of the un-tamed kids we encounter at the local grocery; like to play outside! Me and my Wife: read more books and magazines; listen to more music; talk more.
I'm not saying that TV can't be used in moderation. Hell, my wife and I love a good Trek episode, Good Eats, Croc Hunter, but we don't pay for cable access (and wouldn't if we had to), and we watch maybe 4 hours a TV a week (movies not included, but those are rare). Sometimes I simply want to drool and not think about anything, but at least I ackowledge that's exactly what I do when I watch the boob-tube.
Like a lot of things, moderation is the key, and everyone must decide for themselves just how much is too much. However, I don't think the average population really can make a healthy decision about what "too much" is. And goes for a lot of stuff, not just TV. I'm not trying to be elitist here, but rather recognize some societal problems. My family has pulled itself out of a lot of the ruts I see most people in, and I wish more people would follow for their own sake.
Slashdot Mirror
And don't get me started on how Yoda should have simply force-shoved Kenobi and Skywalker out of the way of that pillar, rather than stop the pillar itself. Soooo lame.
Speaking of Vader, am I the only one who was really let down by the 30-second battle between Anakin and Dooku? I mean, this kid is destined to be the Jedi, yet this scene lacked any real tension. Even the last Darth Maul fight in E-1 was better!
Locate files with a string in them. For example:
find /etc -type f -exec grep -l hdparm {} \;
Also, using tar across pipes to copy a tree without an intermediate tar file:
tar cf - foo | (cd /bar ; tar xvf -)
I also use it over ssh in cron jobs:
tar cf - foo | ssh root@host "cd /bar ; tar xvf -"
Firstly, I have no clue who this person is. She's obviously not mainstream. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you. It's just that I have no motivation to buy this track. I can't even locate the track on the gnutella network (okay I found 2 hosts with it, but I couldn't connect).
Second, the bitrate is horrible. I mean, it really is. I'm no audio snob, but I stopped downloading/encoding anything less than 256kbps about 2 years ago.
Contrary to others, I have no problem with the $1 price tag, as I don't have a problem with the "buy more, pay less" scheme. That is, I don't mind $1 for a single, but I wouldn't pay more than $10 for a full album in this way, regardless of the number of tracks it has.
You want to impress me, Big Label? Release the current top 5 or 10 songs in all mainstream categories (pop, R&B, classical, new age, country, rock, etc.). Offer than for a buck apiece. This would blow me away -- I'd buy a Britney Spears track just to support the effort. Even at 128kbps I'd do it, just because this would be a major scary step for the labels. Next, offer me an uncompressed file format -- straight WAV, baby! I'd pay a 50% premium over any compressed format, though I'd still not go over $10/album as any more would lead me to pay for a real CD.
The point is, if the labels offered something really revolutionary (for them), I'd take these kinds of offerings a little more seriously. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.
If there are no breeds of chicken that can handle the climate, then don't use those breeds! Our hens can handle the near-100F heat of summer and the 10-20F winters. If these poor farmers require poultry to live (doubtful), they can use a more hot-climate oriented bird such a guineas or quail.
I'm always a bit disgusted by modern methods of shoe-horning nature to serve our needs where other more natural varieties will fare much better by nature's own design.
As much as I hated plucking our meat birds when we slaughtered them (we ended up skinning them), the thought of denying a life form a vital and natural part of its physiology makes me ill.
There are plenty of other horrors in the poultry industry, such as de-beaking (barbaric), over crowding, and mass extermination of male chicks (in egg shops). Why add another one so KFC and Tyson and add another couple of pennies per pound to the bottom line?
I swear, modern scientists have no scruples sometimes.
Oh, wait... those companies would fight tooth and nail to keep those subsidies, in spite of the fact that they're no longer needed. The telcos have more than enough money to expand, yet we're still paying those fees.
Yeah, capitalism works well in this country.
I thought most Hooters waitresses were working their way through college, not graduates.
Starship Troopers. ;)
Yeah, I goofed. However, I've read that the spectrum of white LEDs still isn't very wide.
References please.
I have a chain of 3 lights in a long wooden case at home that my wife uses to sprout and start her garden plants. We used to use 100W incandescent bulbs. Worked fine.
We went on an efficiency kick and replaced every bulb in our house with those 20W curly CF lights (sold at Costco @ $20 per 5). We did this with the sprouter. Didn't work so good.
If I remember my solar energy figures, one gets a nominal 1000W per square meter of direct sunlight. I'm sure I could duplicate the luminosity (correct term?) with maybe 100-200W worth of florescents, but there will not be 1000W of radiant EM energy hitting that same area (how can you, if you put < 1000W in you can't very well get 1000W out!).
I think LEDs would be even worse for plants, as they're pretty close to monochromatic light, and I think plants need a fuller spectrum anyway.
I agree totally with this guy, and I do have kids.
No kidding. Even FOX could never get away with Sex in the City or G-String Divas!
Yeah... HBO rocks! ;-)
Well, anything with Jason Priestley won't win any awards, that's for sure...
It was completely a non-story.
If the movie portrayed the events that happened accurately, then it is an issue. Do we not have the labels on music now? Do retailers (some very large ones) now refuse to carry titles based on that? Not that the music industry people were heroes -- they compromised to get in favor of legislators. They sold out, and were as damaging to free speech as Tipper ever was.
I think the rating of movies is bad, quite honestly. Most theaters (all, in Utah) won't carry anything above an R rating. That means I couldn't see Showgirls or Eyes Wide Shut in their original form (NC-17 rating) on the big screen. The industry has curtailed artistic expression and consumption.
Anyway, this law (the video games thing), along with past issues of "censorship" in the form of government-coerced industry self-policing got me thinking.
The logic seems to be this:
Some material is harmful to minors (I can buy that)
Custodians of said minors are not competant enough to police the material themselves (I cannot accept this)
Legislate morality into the industry, rather than trust parents (I think this simply bites)
It got me thinking... If a parent (an "adult", mind you) can't be trusted to read a lyric, listen to an album, or watch a movie to determine if the material is right for their own kids (and this is easy stuff -- "yup, there's 4 scenes containing bush in Porky's, so Little Johnny can't rent it"), how the bloody hell can these same adults be expected to abide by the terms of a 20-page legalese-ridden EULA!!!
I mean, there's gotta be some precedent here, right? If a legal adult can't be trusted to interpret the dumbed-down lyrics/music/visuals of modern-day mass media, there's just no way in hell they can handle a EULA! Release the attack litigators!
I say if we adults are deemed too dumb to spot a tit in a movie or hear a naughty word in Prince's latest single, then other laws should reflect that. They shouldn't have it both ways.
And I'd much rather have the labeling laws (and similar nonsense) repealed than to have new laws passed to protect us from EULA's.
Back on topic, I have kids, and I know there's some disturbing stuff out there in theaters, in music, and on the internet. No, I'd rather my 6-year-old daughter not see porn pics on the internet or my 3-year-old son watch some guy get his spine ripped out in a video game, but, dammit, all these restrictions on content diminish what I can access now and what they can access as adults. This is what I ultimately object to. Because labels make it easy for suppliers to throttle the supply (i.e., Wal Mart will not carry "Parental Advisory" labeled music), which makes the content providers (artists) either change their creations or they're not accessible with equal footing to those who do. And that, my friends, is where this slippery slope goes. I don't think there's any real happy ground in between.
Umm... < looks at post> sorry for the rant...
Is SSH (or any remote terminal access) workable? I have some rural property that I'd like to move out to, but I need some kind of connectivity for telecommuting. I all need is SSH.
What someone really needs to do is blatantly violate a stupid eula clause and tell the whole world.
For example, someone needs to buy a copy of SQL Server or Oracle and publish benchmarks about the product, thus violating the EULA. Or guy that M$ devel kit and write some GPL's software. Then, when they get taken to court, take it as far as it will go.
Yeah, I know... us mere mortals without bottomless pockets simply can't afford to do this. I can still dream that some tech-savy, eccentric millionaire will take on such a cause.
My current job (at a State University) started me at 3 weeks per year, and if I stick around I'll get to five weeks per year. I can bank up to something like 1040 hours (26 work weeks), then it's a use-it-or-lose-it scheme. I also get 2 weeks of sick leave per year, and that can be banked to 1040 hours as well. It's also pretty lax with flex time. If I work a late night or weekend fixing or installing a machine, it goes into a under-the-table vacation bank (sanctioned by my manager, of course), which I use for extra vacation/sick time.
My last job at a small software shop started at 2 weeks per year and you could only bank 4 or 6 weeks before you lost it. There was no distinction between sick and vacation time, just a generic "leave" bank, which was really lame.
I'm getting paid less here (or at least I was when I left the last job), but I feel far better off now.
My plan is to transition to a more consultant/freelance self-employed state over the next 5-10 years, so that I can spend even more time with my kids as they get older (and before they leave the nest).
I guess it's all about your priorities. I know people my age with far different priorities, who take little time off, have no kids, and easily make twice my salary. I know guys in sales (yuck!) that work pretty much when and where they want to.
So here in the States, you have to taylor your job to fit your life goals. The government won't enforce anything more than minimum wage and safe workplaces, which I suppose is fine (I have too much of a libertarian tendancy to expect/want anything more).
Now, if the tax code (the laws themselves) were easier to understand than a standard EULA, then this would be news. :)
He described a problem, described the first step (design), and only hinted at implimentation (open vs closed code, and using P2P -- er, H2H -- systems), but primarily we the readers are meant to be inspired to find, rather than spoon-fed, the solutions (which may not be even be known yet).
Ashcroft decided to clean house at some major airports, including SLC, before the Winter Games. Quite a few illegal immigrants were detained, arrested, and (of course) fired for having false info about their citizenship.
Fine, you say. They broke the law. They should be punished.
In theory, that's fine. However, I believe this was Ashcroft grand-standing, rather than for anyone's safety. It was selective. Did they clean out any illegal immigrants from the many downtown hotels? Hell no -- the hotel industry in SLC would shut down if they did that. (I'm sure this is the case in many cities.) Even the airport allegedly turned a blind eye (some allege they even helped with the paperwork) when the illegals were filling out the forms, so they could get cheap labor.
So Ashcroft ruined many lives here in SLC (those of the airport workers and the families they supported), because it looked good to the press. They didn't go after all the illegal immigrants because it would hurt big business during an especially profitable time.
If all laws were enforced 100% and without bias, then I'm all for 'em. However, as long as pricks like Ashcroft run the show, our laws should be left alone and not made even more broad in the name of "security".
I'm happily willing to live life knowing that I might be the victim of a random terrorist attack if it means that I can retain what's left of my remaining privacy and freedom. If I had to choose between a life of 100% certainty of safety in which I had to give up my right to own/carry a gun and have my purchases/travel/etc/opinions tracked or a life with a n% certainty of safety (where n < 100 -- even below 50%) but with my freedoms, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.
Once the rating/zoning is in place, providers will take the least risky (legally) route and filter. This could effectively kill the online porn business. Unless ISP's, whose sole purpose is to allow the .prn domain, begin to crop up. I can see spice.net becoming a new ISP. :)
One of her big concerns was that, as a professor of Women's Studies, she had a lot of confedential papers on her system. The backups seems to be a minor concern to her.
This wasn't a matter of the university getting to see her shopping list, but rather material from students that thought only she alone would have access to.
Protecting a student's discussion of past rape or abuse trumps a mere $10k in grafiti cleanup, in my book.
Get the source out there. Another DeCSS-like whack-a-mole is ramping up.
Check out Stay Free! Magazine or Adbusters. If you can find issues locally, buy one or two. I subscribed for a year (that was enough -- the ranting does get tiresome), and it was enough to jolt my sensibilities just a bit. I'd actually rate Stay Free! much better than Adbusters, as the articles are more researched and meaningful.
You will come to realize that TV is a medium for ads (these rags cover consumerism in all respects, not just TV), and , as such, you are being used as a consumer, not graciously being given entertainment. This might seem obvious, but until one takes a critical look at it, you don't necessarily know just how bad it is.
I enforced severe TV rationing in our household 1-1/2 years ago. Guess what? The kids: can actually entertain themselves now (they can uctaully use crayons and Lincoln Logs creatively); don't pester us for soda and candy-coated cereals, unlike most of the un-tamed kids we encounter at the local grocery; like to play outside! Me and my Wife: read more books and magazines; listen to more music; talk more.
I'm not saying that TV can't be used in moderation. Hell, my wife and I love a good Trek episode, Good Eats, Croc Hunter, but we don't pay for cable access (and wouldn't if we had to), and we watch maybe 4 hours a TV a week (movies not included, but those are rare). Sometimes I simply want to drool and not think about anything, but at least I ackowledge that's exactly what I do when I watch the boob-tube.
Like a lot of things, moderation is the key, and everyone must decide for themselves just how much is too much. However, I don't think the average population really can make a healthy decision about what "too much" is. And goes for a lot of stuff, not just TV. I'm not trying to be elitist here, but rather recognize some societal problems. My family has pulled itself out of a lot of the ruts I see most people in, and I wish more people would follow for their own sake.
I think this SinFest thread sums it up nicely. :)
People watch the Bud Bowl. Pretty close, I'd say.