The sequence is quite obvious and not at all a conspiracy theory.
The government comes out with this guideline on it's own based on shoddy science. It was a knee-jerk reaction. Fat causes heart problems therefore we have to replace it with something, and carbs seemed the most innocuous. Look at the bulk of the chart, the bottom, the part you're supposed to take in the most of; bread, cerial, rice and pasta. Processed bread, cerial, rice and pasta is terrible for you, nevermind Atkins. Not a peep about "high-fiber" in there at all.
The industry sees this and, naturally, says, "HOLY SHIT! THIS IS GREAT! It costs nothing to make a cookie, we slap 'low fat' on it and it'll sell for 40x what it costs to produce!!" You cannot do that with beef. It just won't sell. I don't care how much you spin it, nobody is going to pay $30/lb for beef. THEN, the low-fat myth is then advertized out the pooper. Pardon the double entendre. =) The consumer public sees Jack and Crap about 'high fiber' because it costs more. Why the hell would you push something that costs more to make and sells for less? Sure, it exists now, but as a niche item. Go to your nearest local highschool supermarket teller and ask how many loaves of Sunbeam she sells vs. Colon Blow Loaf.
So now the food industry has an extremely lucrative thing going on. You think that they forgot about their lobbyists??
No, no conspiracy theories. Just good business, really.
I'm not saying that Atkins is necessarily the alpha and the omega of dietary solutions, but I am suggesting that the low-fat high-carb diet was foisted upon us due to an unfortunate meeting of four events; unprecedented American "concern" with health (early 80's, think "thigh warmers" and Olivia Newton John (or maybe you'd rather not)), a knee-jerk Congress, bad science and good old-fashioned capitalism.
I'm a biiiiiiig believer in always following the money trail. And in this case, cash didn't sing, it fscking yodeled.
Boy, if only they had put this much criticism into the so-called "Food Pyramid" which doesn't make one whit of distinction between a slice of white bread and a slice of whole-grain, maybe we wouldn't be in this ****ing mess.
Of course there isn't any correlation between our governments lack of intervention in this scientific experimental disaster in which our populace played the part of the guinea pig and the fact that carbohydrates are dirt-cheap to manufacture and have the largest markup. We all know that our politicans are honest and would never, ever vote anything but their conscience no matter how much money you threw at them.
Looked at the price of a box of cerial lately?
If the low-carb craze wasn't pushed through (the sortid details are outlined in the original NYT article) by a lot of money provided by those who stood to gain, it sure as hell was kept there by it.
Frankly, I know the right way to eat. Just look at any bodybuilder. No, I'm not suggesting that you should want to look like one, but Jesus, if anyone knows how to eat properly, find one and ask, it's no secret. Skinless chicken, baked potatoes with the skin still on, brown rice. Lather, rinse, repeat. Doesn't mean you have to be this extreme, but there is your foundation. Eliminate soda from your diet alone and you'll probably lose all the weight you want.
And yes, I'm on the Atkins diet. Why?
First, I believe that when you eliminate fats, you throw out the good as well as the bad. Actually, that's certain.
Second, I have no gastrointestinal problems, ever. I had a pretty hard stomach to begin with, but it could be upset and to be blunt, zero gas now. None.
Third, no sugar swings. This means I don't crash mid-day or ever, for that matter. I get hungry but it's more of an "oh, I'm hungry" sort of thing as opposed to "dear god I can't even think unless I get something to eat." I eat whenever I'm hungry and sometimes that is 2x a day (my meals are about 400 calories each) and sometimes it's 5x a day.
No, I don't have constipation, though I don't doubt that some do. No, I don't smell funny, or at least the girlfriend has never thought so. Anyway, I'm rambling now.
michael wrote: "...could they be testing the waters for making things like switches and routers in the future?"
Uhh. Could they be seeing that (a) wireless is the Next Big Thing and (b) this is the perfect time to introduce DRM where others are hesitant to do so?
God, I hate it when people rant about "what Slashdot used to be," but...guys? Please start doing more stories like this. I'm not suggesting you stop running the pieces on Stallman or the latest kernel release or the coolest case mod, but Slash could use a little more op-ed stuff like this.
I think that the obvious reaction for the average Slashdotter will be (a) there will always be someone putting out non-DRM hardware (perhaps) and (b) I'll be able to use my current 2.5Ghz hardware for a loooooong time before it's "slow" (gamers obviously do not fit in here). This assumes that two things will not occur:
The vast majority of people (read; the EULA oblivious) will not adopt it anyway and;
Microsoft will not make it impossible to talk to untrusted machines.
I won't draw any conclusions from this and I won't talk about how the world is going to hell in a digital handbasket, but it's food for thought.
17 records out of 10 million? This is ICANN "making hay" to look like they're sticking up for the little guy and a blatant public relations move after they went ahead and pushed through WLS despite an overwhelming vote against it by pretty much everyone...except for the gTLDs (ie,.COM and.NET, which, amazingly enough, Verisign controls.).
ICANN is so in bed with Verisign it's not even funny. This is a nudge-nudge wink-wink arrangement between them so ICANN can look like they're doing their job and Verisign takes a black eye that nobody will remember in a year so that WLS happens.
You can bet your ass the first time I get pulled over I'm gonna say, "These are not the droids you're looking for," and pray that the cop finds it funny instead of realizing I just insulted his intelligence. =)
RatBastard writes: "I really wish I knew what the hell you are talking about. I've tried to parse your post into some kind of sense but I just can't do it. I can't tell what your position is at all."
(16:45:27) jason: Can you do me a favor? (16:45:38) mike: What? (16:45:42) jason: Read this post. Tell me if it makes sense to you. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38993&ci d=4170 319 (16:45:56) mike: Hang on. (16:47:21) jason: Someone complained they couldn't understand what I was saying. (16:47:26) jason: I'm wondering if it's just me, or...? (16:51:50) mike: No, it's clearly written. (16:51:54) jason: Thx.
If you can handle the 800+ pages, Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics is a well-balanced point-counterpoint style essay collection on the current state of this movement. Johnson, Plantinga, Behe, Dembski, Dawkins and Gould, just to name a few.
I'm about 300 pages in and so far it's been primarily ID proponents. The general theme seems to be that:
naturalism, the foundation upon which Darwinism exists, is dogmatic at it's core, unneccessarily restricts the boundaries of truth (ie, we don't care if God is outside the realm of the testable, we want to know if it's true),
Darwinism cannot possibly account for complex structures (see Darwin on Trial and Darwins Black Box), a certain "irreducable complexity" exists and;
since naturalism is false, an intelligent designer must account for the biodiversity and complexity that we see.
The critics fire back with an examination as to why limiting science to the knowable is fundamental and not arbitrary, easily demonstrate how the IC argument falls apart (in a nutshell, it makes the assumption that (a) only one sequence "works" and (b) only one sequence could possibly do the job). In other words, it's audience is the theists, it was never meant to be taken seriously, which is why they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals.
If you have any interest in this subject, I strongly recommend picking it up. The "neo creo" arguments are not only compelling on their face but this crowd is organized, teaching in major colleges, well-funded, and they have a plan. It would be a mistake to shrug them off as irrelevant.
John writes: "My TV broke down about six or seven years ago and I didn't get uncomfortable, edgy or irritable at all. It's still broken not because I am engaged in some heroic gesture of self-denial but because I have simply never gotten around to fixing it. After all, I hardly ever watched it anyway. Too many more interesting things to do."
Glad to hear it. Studies indicate you're abnormal. I'm still glad to hear it.
"I know several families that don't own TVs. Of course you'd probably call the religious nuts."
I'm dating a fundamentalist for the last 6 months. I, however, am an atheist. Don't get me going. =)
Zed2k writes: But why would anyone just freely come out of nowhere and say they don't watch tv? Its a meaningless comment. I read a quote online where someone said that to another person and the person replied something like, thats great, I don't go around saying I don't kill people.
Poorly phrased on my part. I've never walked up to someone and said, "Hi, I'm Jason. I don't watch tv, glad to meet you." But...and just trust me on this one...a reference to television comes up real, real quick in your average conversation. When in groups they're easy to duck but when someone asks you, "It was like that time on ______ when Bob stuck the cheese in the ________" and the fact that your confused look began long before the sentence ended...
nathanh writes: "So when you watch Taxi Driver you're not thinking of the implications of the movie? You're not thinking that Travis - for all his faults - was a victim of circumstance just as much as a victim of his own prejudice? You're not concerned about the ending of the movie, where his villainous character is worshipped in the media? You're not even THINKING about this stuff?"
Never saw it, but I get your point. To quote myself in another post I made to a similar argument:
"I don't agree and it's because of magnitude. Television is specifically programmed to have a "walkthru" effect. One show sort of segues into the next and tries to have a gradual transition between demographics. When a movie is over, it's over. If you're talking about watching a movie then another then another, yes, you're right."
nathanh continues: "My TV has classical concerts, plays, dance, ballet, movies, documentaries, science programs, political satire, etc. Are you saying that none of this makes you think? That none of this is worth your time? That none of this can teach you something? "
This is a little like the Slashdot poster who swears that all any geek wants Napster for is to listen to the songs before we buy them. It sort of ignores a few realities.
If..and that's a big flippin' if...this was the level of quality of tv and IF it was done in moderation, I'll agree. But first, it's not. It's not even close. And you have a sharp hill to climb if you want to tell me that watching someone's version of life -- even something very well done -- is better than living it in any measurable volume. My life, quite frankly, is way too interesting (not exciting, just interesting) for me to squander it like that.
"You could sell it. Or donate it to your local charity. But I think you just proved my point."
Actually, no. You've distorted reality past any sort of recognition. Aliens landing and finding your post might conclude that we all sit around, watch intricate violin concerts on television and have a fine time discussing the relative merits of the techniques employed. Television isn't nearly so helpful, its harmful, demonstrably so, both in wasted time and the indoctrination it metes out, just to name two.
No, you haven't made your point. Heck, you haven't even outlined one.
Tumbleweed writes: "By this argument, the same thing applies to movies, so great films, like, say, Casablanca or City of Lost Children, do nothing for you - you're just sitting there, doing nothing. TV and movies can also stimulate the imagination. I get great ideas from movies, and even if I didn't, what's so bad about being entertained? It's not a dirty word, you know."
Funny you should mention City, it's probably my "favorite" movie (I have about 10 of them, one for each genre, really).
I don't agree and it's because of magnitude. Television is specifically programmed to have a "walkthru" effect. One show sort of segues into the next and tries to have a gradual transition between demographics. When a movie is over, it's over. If you're talking about watching a movie then another then another, yes, you're right.
"That depends on the book, and upon the reader. I enjoy lots of tv, but I'm also a writer, photographer, and several other things."
Well, here I think it's getting unnecessarily personal, and I'll even take the blame for it. I'm not criticizing those that watch tv so much as pointing out something that people may not want to admit.
Consider this paper by the Journal of Cognitive Liberties.
" I find it interesting that someone on Slashdot, of all places, is bitching about tv. Methinks you need to take a long hard look at yourself."
I don't follow. What does reading Slashdot...have to do with bitching about television? By reading this website am I obliged to assume some median mindset and interest pool? This is entirely ad hominem.
"I'd say that more likely, the reactions are those of people who realize you're an extremist, little different from, say, someone on a macrobiotic diet. As the saying goes, "Just because noone understands you, doesn't mean you're an artist.""
This is "apples to orange" and I'll explain why. With a macrobiotic diet, you can reasonably assume the person -- unless there is some compelling reason -- is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." In other words, as you said, they're an extremist. However this doesn't apply to a person who watches no television at all because you'd have to argue that there is something on television that is more worthwhile (or, to keep in the same vein, "mentally nutritious") than doing whatever it is that I want to do. With your example, it's scientifically demonstrable that they're "losing out," with tv it's merely a matter of opinion.
"Yep, I do think that's crazy. Not as crazy as burning books, but it's certainly within the same mindset. At the very least, sell your tv to someone else.:)"
Nonsense! Burning books was done to censor and quash freedom of speech. I'm not doing anything of the sort by burning my own TV. You have the right to speak, I'm not obliged to listen to you!!
Besides... Which position really is more extreme? Extremism is in the eye of the bell curve. From my perspective, it's mighty odd that I don't know a single person who does not watch TV. Not a single one. That's extreme.
To you, I'm a bigot. To me, habitual television viewers are addicted by the very definition. The difference is that your position is an opinion, but my position is scientifically demonstrable. I'm anti-addiction.
Tumbleweed writes: People who categorize all tv as evil or stupid are guilty of stupidity themselves.
Man, this is such a flame-ready subject,...so...just bear with me for a second.
If someone is exceptionally good at stacking cards, it doesn't make me a fool for not watching him do it. Similarly, just because there is really great writing on TV doesn't change the fact that you're sitting there, doing nothing, being hand-fed the whole thing. In books the imagination is stimulated. Games can teach logic. Group activities teach teamwork. But TV just entertains. At the very *best* it is a surrogate for your own life, actually going out and doing things.
It is with this last fact in mind that I consider all TV evil and stupid.
As an experiment, introduce yourself to people for the next few weeks and mention that you haven't watched TV for x years. Watch the reactions you get. Doesn't this seem a bit odd to you? Perhaps even, dare I say, symptomatic of an addiction?
If you want to take it one step further, don't watch TV for a week. See how uncomfortable, edgy and irritable you get. They've offered financian rewards to families that could pull it off and most couldn't, citing the same types of moods that caused them to switch back on.
Better yet, burn your TV? Think that's crazy? You've just made my point.
First, because this looks so much like one, let me state emphatically that this is not a troll.
My response is good, let it die.
Video games can teach strategy, creative thinking, teamwork, etc. At least they're interactive, require input, feedback. I've no problem at all with those. Television is nothing more than thought-control on a large scale. Let's see, what's on CNN today...
Murder of two girls (affects two families). A snip about earth summit protestors (what they're protesting will be a foregone conclusion in a year). Scientist blasts Ashcroft (non-issue). Franks backs Afghan Probe (hey, we're doing something! No, nothing will come of it. I'll take bets if someone is offering.) Priestly was released from the hospital.
And that's just my rant about the news and it's capacity to turn us into the most hated, docile pricks on the planet. So what about prime-time TV, sitcoms, et al? For that, I can only point to televisions well-documented narcotic-like effects. Wake, work, watch, consume, die. No thanks. Besides, I'd like to live my life instead of living some voyeuristic jackoff existence watching someone else's idea of what it should be like.
The end of TV as we know it? Good. It doesn't help us, it doesn't teach us, it doesn't make us better, it's damaging. There are few things I would want more than to have every television go blank, permanently. So the idea of the biggies losing their revenue stream? Doesn't phase me. You'd be amazed at the looks I get when I tell people I haven't watched since 1994. Some think I'm nuts. Others will actually tell me I'm nuts. So take the thing, bring it someplace safe, and light the !@#$ing thing on fire.
The fact that you won't is the lynchpin in my argument.
This isn't a terribly insightful comment, just wanted to add my voice to the fray, but I got one of these messages the other day while on IRC (though it was irc.linux.org, so I'm guessing that they're all connected) and I even considered donating. But after reading the reply, I have to say this is a bad direction for debian to be headed in and I agree that the practice should stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps spawn a new DIY MST3k sub-genre?
The sequence is quite obvious and not at all a conspiracy theory.
The government comes out with this guideline on it's own based on shoddy science. It was a knee-jerk reaction. Fat causes heart problems therefore we have to replace it with something, and carbs seemed the most innocuous. Look at the bulk of the chart, the bottom, the part you're supposed to take in the most of; bread, cerial, rice and pasta. Processed bread, cerial, rice and pasta is terrible for you, nevermind Atkins. Not a peep about "high-fiber" in there at all.
The industry sees this and, naturally, says, "HOLY SHIT! THIS IS GREAT! It costs nothing to make a cookie, we slap 'low fat' on it and it'll sell for 40x what it costs to produce!!" You cannot do that with beef. It just won't sell. I don't care how much you spin it, nobody is going to pay $30/lb for beef. THEN, the low-fat myth is then advertized out the pooper. Pardon the double entendre. =) The consumer public sees Jack and Crap about 'high fiber' because it costs more. Why the hell would you push something that costs more to make and sells for less? Sure, it exists now, but as a niche item. Go to your nearest local highschool supermarket teller and ask how many loaves of Sunbeam she sells vs. Colon Blow Loaf.
So now the food industry has an extremely lucrative thing going on. You think that they forgot about their lobbyists??
No, no conspiracy theories. Just good business, really.
I'm not saying that Atkins is necessarily the alpha and the omega of dietary solutions, but I am suggesting that the low-fat high-carb diet was foisted upon us due to an unfortunate meeting of four events; unprecedented American "concern" with health (early 80's, think "thigh warmers" and Olivia Newton John (or maybe you'd rather not)), a knee-jerk Congress, bad science and good old-fashioned capitalism.
I'm a biiiiiiig believer in always following the money trail. And in this case, cash didn't sing, it fscking yodeled.
Mmmm. Yodels. =)
Boy, if only they had put this much criticism into the so-called "Food Pyramid" which doesn't make one whit of distinction between a slice of white bread and a slice of whole-grain, maybe we wouldn't be in this ****ing mess.
Of course there isn't any correlation between our governments lack of intervention in this scientific experimental disaster in which our populace played the part of the guinea pig and the fact that carbohydrates are dirt-cheap to manufacture and have the largest markup. We all know that our politicans are honest and would never, ever vote anything but their conscience no matter how much money you threw at them.
Looked at the price of a box of cerial lately?
If the low-carb craze wasn't pushed through (the sortid details are outlined in the original NYT article) by a lot of money provided by those who stood to gain, it sure as hell was kept there by it.
Frankly, I know the right way to eat. Just look at any bodybuilder. No, I'm not suggesting that you should want to look like one, but Jesus, if anyone knows how to eat properly, find one and ask, it's no secret. Skinless chicken, baked potatoes with the skin still on, brown rice. Lather, rinse, repeat. Doesn't mean you have to be this extreme, but there is your foundation. Eliminate soda from your diet alone and you'll probably lose all the weight you want.
And yes, I'm on the Atkins diet. Why?
First, I believe that when you eliminate fats, you throw out the good as well as the bad. Actually, that's certain.
Second, I have no gastrointestinal problems, ever. I had a pretty hard stomach to begin with, but it could be upset and to be blunt, zero gas now. None.
Third, no sugar swings. This means I don't crash mid-day or ever, for that matter. I get hungry but it's more of an "oh, I'm hungry" sort of thing as opposed to "dear god I can't even think unless I get something to eat." I eat whenever I'm hungry and sometimes that is 2x a day (my meals are about 400 calories each) and sometimes it's 5x a day.
No, I don't have constipation, though I don't doubt that some do. No, I don't smell funny, or at least the girlfriend has never thought so. Anyway, I'm rambling now.
michael wrote:
"...could they be testing the waters for making things like switches and routers in the future?"
Uhh. Could they be seeing that (a) wireless is the Next Big Thing and (b) this is the perfect time to introduce DRM where others are hesitant to do so?
This is a no-brainer given their history.
Uhhh. I really liked Keaton as Batman.
God, I hate it when people rant about "what Slashdot used to be," but ...guys? Please start doing more stories like this. I'm not suggesting you stop running the pieces on Stallman or the latest kernel release or the coolest case mod, but Slash could use a little more op-ed stuff like this.
Don't mod me up, just think about it.
The vast majority of people (read; the EULA oblivious) will not adopt it anyway and;
Microsoft will not make it impossible to talk to untrusted machines.
I won't draw any conclusions from this and I won't talk about how the world is going to hell in a digital handbasket, but it's food for thought.
How about chips that heckle you for buying Swiss furniture in the first place?
17 records out of 10 million? This is ICANN "making hay" to look like they're sticking up for the little guy and a blatant public relations move after they went ahead and pushed through WLS despite an overwhelming vote against it by pretty much everyone ...except for the gTLDs (ie, .COM and .NET, which, amazingly enough, Verisign controls.).
ICANN is so in bed with Verisign it's not even funny. This is a nudge-nudge wink-wink arrangement between them so ICANN can look like they're doing their job and Verisign takes a black eye that nobody will remember in a year so that WLS happens.
Do not be fooled.
You can bet your ass the first time I get pulled over I'm gonna say, "These are not the droids you're looking for," and pray that the cop finds it funny instead of realizing I just insulted his intelligence. =)
RatBastard writes:
i d=4170 319
"I really wish I knew what the hell you are talking about. I've tried to parse your post into some kind of sense but I just can't do it. I can't tell what your position is at all."
(16:45:27) jason: Can you do me a favor?
(16:45:38) mike: What?
(16:45:42) jason: Read this post. Tell me if it makes sense to you.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38993&c
(16:45:56) mike: Hang on.
(16:47:21) jason: Someone complained they couldn't understand what I was saying.
(16:47:26) jason: I'm wondering if it's just me, or...?
(16:51:50) mike: No, it's clearly written.
(16:51:54) jason: Thx.
Read it again, I guess.
I'm about 300 pages in and so far it's been primarily ID proponents. The general theme seems to be that:
The critics fire back with an examination as to why limiting science to the knowable is fundamental and not arbitrary, easily demonstrate how the IC argument falls apart (in a nutshell, it makes the assumption that (a) only one sequence "works" and (b) only one sequence could possibly do the job). In other words, it's audience is the theists, it was never meant to be taken seriously, which is why they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals.
If you have any interest in this subject, I strongly recommend picking it up. The "neo creo" arguments are not only compelling on their face but this crowd is organized, teaching in major colleges, well-funded, and they have a plan. It would be a mistake to shrug them off as irrelevant.
I have one bit of advice for this guy; "Make something better and we'll use yours."
I have one factoid for this guy; "Cached copy."
He can start there.
No, it's just you. I'm a nut too.
http://www.nofaith.org/
That's me. Ignore the blond hair. I don't know what I was thinking.
John writes:
"My TV broke down about six or seven years ago and I didn't get uncomfortable, edgy or irritable at all. It's still broken not because I am engaged in some heroic gesture of self-denial but because I have simply never gotten around to fixing it. After all, I hardly ever watched it anyway. Too many more interesting things to do."
Glad to hear it. Studies indicate you're abnormal. I'm still glad to hear it.
"I know several families that don't own TVs. Of course you'd probably call the religious nuts."
I'm dating a fundamentalist for the last 6 months. I, however, am an atheist. Don't get me going. =)
Zed2k writes:
...and just trust me on this one ...a reference to television comes up real, real quick in your average conversation. When in groups they're easy to duck but when someone asks you, "It was like that time on ______ when Bob stuck the cheese in the ________" and the fact that your confused look began long before the sentence ended...
But why would anyone just freely come out of nowhere and say they don't watch tv? Its a meaningless comment. I read a quote online where someone said that to another person and the person replied something like, thats great, I don't go around saying I don't kill people.
Poorly phrased on my part. I've never walked up to someone and said, "Hi, I'm Jason. I don't watch tv, glad to meet you." But
nathanh writes:
..and that's a big flippin' if ...this was the level of quality of tv and IF it was done in moderation, I'll agree. But first, it's not. It's not even close. And you have a sharp hill to climb if you want to tell me that watching someone's version of life -- even something very well done -- is better than living it in any measurable volume. My life, quite frankly, is way too interesting (not exciting, just interesting) for me to squander it like that.
"So when you watch Taxi Driver you're not thinking of the implications of the movie? You're not thinking that Travis - for all his faults - was a victim of circumstance just as much as a victim of his own prejudice? You're not concerned about the ending of the movie, where his villainous character is worshipped in the media? You're not even THINKING about this stuff?"
Never saw it, but I get your point. To quote myself in another post I made to a similar argument:
"I don't agree and it's because of magnitude. Television is specifically programmed to have a "walkthru" effect. One show sort of segues into the next and tries to have a gradual transition between demographics. When a movie is over, it's over. If you're talking about watching a movie then another then another, yes, you're right."
nathanh continues:
"My TV has classical concerts, plays, dance, ballet, movies, documentaries, science programs, political satire, etc. Are you saying that none of this makes you think? That none of this is worth your time? That none of this can teach you something? "
This is a little like the Slashdot poster who swears that all any geek wants Napster for is to listen to the songs before we buy them. It sort of ignores a few realities.
If
"You could sell it. Or donate it to your local charity. But I think you just proved my point."
Actually, no. You've distorted reality past any sort of recognition. Aliens landing and finding your post might conclude that we all sit around, watch intricate violin concerts on television and have a fine time discussing the relative merits of the techniques employed. Television isn't nearly so helpful, its harmful, demonstrably so, both in wasted time and the indoctrination it metes out, just to name two.
No, you haven't made your point. Heck, you haven't even outlined one.
Tumbleweed writes:
...have to do with bitching about television? By reading this website am I obliged to assume some median mindset and interest pool? This is entirely ad hominem.
:)"
"By this argument, the same thing applies to movies, so great films, like, say, Casablanca or City of Lost Children, do nothing for you - you're just sitting there, doing nothing. TV and movies can also stimulate the imagination. I get great ideas from movies, and even if I didn't, what's so bad about being entertained? It's not a dirty word, you know."
Funny you should mention City, it's probably my "favorite" movie (I have about 10 of them, one for each genre, really).
I don't agree and it's because of magnitude. Television is specifically programmed to have a "walkthru" effect. One show sort of segues into the next and tries to have a gradual transition between demographics. When a movie is over, it's over. If you're talking about watching a movie then another then another, yes, you're right.
"That depends on the book, and upon the reader. I enjoy lots of tv, but I'm also a writer, photographer, and several other things."
Well, here I think it's getting unnecessarily personal, and I'll even take the blame for it. I'm not criticizing those that watch tv so much as pointing out something that people may not want to admit.
Consider this paper by the Journal of Cognitive Liberties.
" I find it interesting that someone on Slashdot, of all places, is bitching about tv. Methinks you need to take a long hard look at yourself."
I don't follow. What does reading Slashdot
"I'd say that more likely, the reactions are those of people who realize you're an extremist, little different from, say, someone on a macrobiotic diet. As the saying goes, "Just because noone understands you, doesn't mean you're an artist.""
This is "apples to orange" and I'll explain why. With a macrobiotic diet, you can reasonably assume the person -- unless there is some compelling reason -- is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." In other words, as you said, they're an extremist. However this doesn't apply to a person who watches no television at all because you'd have to argue that there is something on television that is more worthwhile (or, to keep in the same vein, "mentally nutritious") than doing whatever it is that I want to do. With your example, it's scientifically demonstrable that they're "losing out," with tv it's merely a matter of opinion.
"Yep, I do think that's crazy. Not as crazy as burning books, but it's certainly within the same mindset. At the very least, sell your tv to someone else.
Nonsense! Burning books was done to censor and quash freedom of speech. I'm not doing anything of the sort by burning my own TV. You have the right to speak, I'm not obliged to listen to you!!
Besides... Which position really is more extreme? Extremism is in the eye of the bell curve. From my perspective, it's mighty odd that I don't know a single person who does not watch TV. Not a single one. That's extreme.
To you, I'm a bigot. To me, habitual television viewers are addicted by the very definition. The difference is that your position is an opinion, but my position is scientifically demonstrable. I'm anti-addiction.
Tumbleweed writes:
...so ...just bear with me for a second.
People who categorize all tv as evil or stupid are guilty of stupidity themselves.
Man, this is such a flame-ready subject,
If someone is exceptionally good at stacking cards, it doesn't make me a fool for not watching him do it. Similarly, just because there is really great writing on TV doesn't change the fact that you're sitting there, doing nothing, being hand-fed the whole thing. In books the imagination is stimulated. Games can teach logic. Group activities teach teamwork. But TV just entertains. At the very *best* it is a surrogate for your own life, actually going out and doing things.
It is with this last fact in mind that I consider all TV evil and stupid.
As an experiment, introduce yourself to people for the next few weeks and mention that you haven't watched TV for x years. Watch the reactions you get. Doesn't this seem a bit odd to you? Perhaps even, dare I say, symptomatic of an addiction?
If you want to take it one step further, don't watch TV for a week. See how uncomfortable, edgy and irritable you get. They've offered financian rewards to families that could pull it off and most couldn't, citing the same types of moods that caused them to switch back on.
Better yet, burn your TV? Think that's crazy? You've just made my point.
First, because this looks so much like one, let me state emphatically that this is not a troll.
My response is good, let it die.
Video games can teach strategy, creative thinking, teamwork, etc. At least they're interactive, require input, feedback. I've no problem at all with those. Television is nothing more than thought-control on a large scale. Let's see, what's on CNN today...
Murder of two girls (affects two families).
A snip about earth summit protestors (what they're protesting will be a foregone conclusion in a year).
Scientist blasts Ashcroft (non-issue).
Franks backs Afghan Probe (hey, we're doing something! No, nothing will come of it. I'll take bets if someone is offering.)
Priestly was released from the hospital.
By UN estimates, 1,500,000 million kids have died due to our embargo on Iraq -- which hasn't even so much as scratched our target, Saddaam -- and Dubya is quite eager to provide us with Part Deux at a cost of 80 billion. Oh, right, almost forgot -- defense budget for 2003 is 773 billion even without this added expense, while eduction is only slated for 50B.
And that's just my rant about the news and it's capacity to turn us into the most hated, docile pricks on the planet. So what about prime-time TV, sitcoms, et al? For that, I can only point to televisions well-documented narcotic-like effects. Wake, work, watch, consume, die. No thanks. Besides, I'd like to live my life instead of living some voyeuristic jackoff existence watching someone else's idea of what it should be like.
The end of TV as we know it? Good. It doesn't help us, it doesn't teach us, it doesn't make us better, it's damaging. There are few things I would want more than to have every television go blank, permanently. So the idea of the biggies losing their revenue stream? Doesn't phase me. You'd be amazed at the looks I get when I tell people I haven't watched since 1994. Some think I'm nuts. Others will actually tell me I'm nuts. So take the thing, bring it someplace safe, and light the !@#$ing thing on fire.
The fact that you won't is the lynchpin in my argument.
I'll bet you a wooden nickel that two of them go under because this hit slashdot.
This isn't a terribly insightful comment, just wanted to add my voice to the fray, but I got one of these messages the other day while on IRC (though it was irc.linux.org, so I'm guessing that they're all connected) and I even considered donating. But after reading the reply, I have to say this is a bad direction for debian to be headed in and I agree that the practice should stop.
Wups. "LCD", not "LED". I suck. =)
Woohoo! =D
I used to be sad that there were so many emerging technologies I'd never get to see. I'm less sad after reading this.