No, the difference being a producer holds a sign up telling people WHEN to laugh.
I know from personal experience that they used to do that in the seventies. I don't have evidence either way whether they still do this. Also, I'd expect it to be a monitor. A sign is so... last century.
Looking at some of the comments here, I'd say that nerds are not easily amused at all. Probably all that pent up rage from being picked on early in life.
You're right. I freely admit I'm a geek. Even as an older adult I'm still socially awkward. (I tell people I'm better in print than in real life.) And yes, I've learned to laugh at myself. I have geek friends who have learned to laugh at themselves. It's a natural growth for geeks, but sadly one that a significant percentage of geeks never experience.
This is plainly wrong. Too many little jokes require at least some scientific background, and the show tries to be scientificially correct. The formulae at the whiteboards actually make sense and really belong to quantum physics or astronomical problems. Yes, non-science people get their fair share of the usual sitcom jokes for laughing at, but there is a second layer which is not for them, but for us nerds and geeks.
Exactly. I'm from an engineering background, and loved how Howard's mishaps related to real news items. Like when he and his date tried to drive a Mars rover after a night of drinking and got Spirit stuck in the sand.
As geeks, we may be incapable of noticing this, but NON-GEEKS WOULDN'T GET MANY OF THE JOKES. In some cases, Lorre explains a joke in the closing vanity card.
We dvr TBBT so we can read Lorre's Vanity Card at the end of the show. (Side note: Lorre really needs to get over the last election. Yes, it happened. Constantly grousing about it won't change that.)
The most hilarious vanity card, in my opinion, in the entire run of TBBT, was the time Lorre wrote several paragraphs, mathematical formula and graphs to explain a joke that non-geeks wouldn't get.
I went through all of that, including wearing clothes my mom made me, and being terrible in every single sport except archery. (Really, archery is just applied mechanics combined with some physics.)
I was harassed on a daily basis at school. I learned all the ways home where the jocks were less likely to see me. I'm sure this sounds familiar.
Then midway thorugh high school, I started karate classes, and found that I was pretty good at it. Again, it's just physics and some applied mechanics, plus reaction training. By far the most difficult part was not thinking about what I was doing, and let reactions take over. And for the first time in my entire life, I started to fill out, gain muscle mass, and by my senior year the jocks started leaving me alone.
I retained the awkwardness and social ineptitude of course, never went to any dances, and didn't start dating until college. I'm married with an adult offspring, and I still have trouble with social interaction. I tend to analyze conversation too much.
But I look back at all that now, and I have to laugh at myself. Yes, I've been financially successful, I've traveled around the world, and generally lived a remarkable life, when most of those jocks are now in dead-end job and spend weekends watching sports on the couch. (Gleaned from classmates.com.)
Humor is a way to admit our faults and become comfortable with them. I absolutely suck at sports. I freely admit it. I couldn't hacky-sack with a gun to my head. About the only physical thing I'm good at is protecting myself and physically hurting people. (I still train, and hold a second degree black belt in two different styles now. Next year I'm testing for 3rd in an obscure style nobody has heard of. There's a surprising amount of subtle ways to defend one's self. It's a technically rich area, and holds my attention as a geek.)
I enjoy TBBT because, after 30 years in engineering and IT, I've known a lot of people like them. Hell, I am them. The character that needs alcohol to talk to women. The borderline-autistic genius. The brilliant and savvy scientist who's troubled emotional past makes social interaction problematic. The engineer who is incapable of understanding why the way he interacts with women keeps landing him in HR. (I have embarrassing memories of being *that* person also, years ago.)
So there's pretty much three choices: (1) We can decide that our social deficiencies are really advantages. I think that's a dangerous way to think and probably indicates therapy. (2) We can accept our foibles as such and learn to laugh at ourselves. (3) We can eat a gun.
Problem is, geeks would be incapable of making a comedy about themselves. They'd be so wrapped up in minor technical points in the script that they'd never get any filming done.
Now, a sitcom about geeks trying to make a sitcom -- that could be funny.
I suspect that geeks generally lack the part of the brain that allows them to laugh at themselves. Kinda like reptiles lack that area of the brain that would allow them to experience emotional attachment.
So those four cfls lasted you thirthy years. I highly doubt four leds will last you that long. either the leds will burn out, or the integrated power supplies will fail, or both.
passphrase : minima
Yes they did. It was truly remarkable.
As to whether LEDs will last that long, we'll see. I suspect that the first batch of LEDs I've bought will have an exceptional lifespan. The bulbs I buy later, say, in those Costco blister packs, won't last any longer than incandescent bulbs did. But again, we'll see.
Ok, but I wasn't even talking about breakage in the house. In 30 years I haven't broken a single CFL, so the hue and cry of mercury hazards in the home have been largely overblown in my experience.
I think the real issue is mercury in the landfill. Now, I know, you're supposed to recycle CFLs, not throw them in the trash, and I'm sure that us highly educated and ethical people are all doing that [1]. But what do you think Ma and Pa Kettle are doing with theirs?
[1]. Actually, our recycling center won't take them. Every six months or so there will be a "hazardous waste" drive in our area, that'll take fluorescent bulbs and CFLs, but who actually does that?
I was being facetious. The price for LEDs has gone down to the point where I buy only LEDs now for all applications for which an LED solution exists. This includes replacing the few remaining incandescents on my motorcycle. This most especially includes replacing all those horrible CFLs scattered through the house.
But besides the usual benefits, (long life, instant-on (compared to CFLs), low power) there's one I haven't seen mentioned yet: They look nice. I have a few vintage light stands indoors, (inherited from my grandparents) and carriage house - style lights outside, and CFLs always looked idiotic in them. But you can get really nice retro-vintage glass LED bulbs that look good in vintage appliances. And they don't really cost any more than regular LED bulbs.
As far as saving money, I really haven't seen much of a savings from running CFLs since the 1990's, which has led me to conclude that light must be a small percentage of our total power bill. If the price of bulbs is down in the noise, and the difference in the electric bill is also down in the noise, then it really doesn't matter what bulb you buy. At least, as an individual household.
They had LED bulbs before any incandescent bulb ban was in place.
No, previous anonymous coward has a point. They existed, true, but they wouldn't be affordable until they were popular, which creates a chicken-and-egg issue.
For LEDs, this appears to have been a beneficial move. But the US tried to ban incandescents when the only affordable alternative was CFLs, which was a crappy technology. If the government is going to interfere with our lives, the least they could do is pick a decent product.
Did you also notice that the CFLs dim significantly over time as well (and sometimes take a long time to actually start)? I use CFL for outside ('cause if the break, the mercury is not in my home) and when the temperature dips, they take a long time to warm up. LEDs, no such issue...
CAP === 'occupied'
Yes, I did discover all of that. I had misgivings about CFLs from the start because of the reasons you state (including mercury -- yeah, I know they only contain as much as a thermometer, but who keeps 40 thermometers in their home?) but sort-of threw myself into the fervor when they started to become available in the nineties. Because hey, I'm a geek, and they were kinda geeky at the time. By the early thousands I was sick to death of them and hoping for a replacement soon.
I suspect halogens will also still be allowed in "hard use" instances, like the lights very high up on towers in harsh weather.
Just coincidentally, I'm in the process of switching from those damned CFLs to LEDs. I say "damned" because although they initially met the promise of long life [1], later "value engineered" bulbs didn't last any longer, in my experience, than the incandescents they replaced. I'm really hoping LEDs don't fall to the same process -- value engineered to a pale shadow of their original glory.
I always felt that CFLs were a stopgap solution until we found a practical low power light bulb. It appears that LED is that solution, but it may be too early to tell.
[1]. It so happens, of the four original CFLs I bought in the 1990's, the last one -- the back porch light, stopped working last night. And will be replaced with an LED. During that time, I've had many many CFLs fail, some in the space of only a few months. In quantity, they really weren't manufactured very well.
So, the study basically repeats stuff we've already known for a long time. Only the title has changed. The conclusions haven't even changed much. I heard the same stuff in high school a (ahem...) long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the difference being a producer holds a sign up telling people WHEN to laugh.
I know from personal experience that they used to do that in the seventies. I don't have evidence either way whether they still do this. Also, I'd expect it to be a monitor. A sign is so... last century.
Looking at some of the comments here, I'd say that nerds are not easily amused at all. Probably all that pent up rage from being picked on early in life.
Yet TBBT is still immensely popular, and The IT Crowd (which I personally really enjoyed) petered out after four years.
?? Both shows are popular.
Yep, I certainly did.
You're right. I freely admit I'm a geek. Even as an older adult I'm still socially awkward. (I tell people I'm better in print than in real life.) And yes, I've learned to laugh at myself. I have geek friends who have learned to laugh at themselves. It's a natural growth for geeks, but sadly one that a significant percentage of geeks never experience.
This is plainly wrong. Too many little jokes require at least some scientific background, and the show tries to be scientificially correct. The formulae at the whiteboards actually make sense and really belong to quantum physics or astronomical problems. Yes, non-science people get their fair share of the usual sitcom jokes for laughing at, but there is a second layer which is not for them, but for us nerds and geeks.
Exactly. I'm from an engineering background, and loved how Howard's mishaps related to real news items. Like when he and his date tried to drive a Mars rover after a night of drinking and got Spirit stuck in the sand.
As geeks, we may be incapable of noticing this, but NON-GEEKS WOULDN'T GET MANY OF THE JOKES. In some cases, Lorre explains a joke in the closing vanity card.
s/laughtrack/live audience/g
The difference being, with a live audience, the jokes have to actually be funny to someone.
Zoom.
We dvr TBBT so we can read Lorre's Vanity Card at the end of the show. (Side note: Lorre really needs to get over the last election. Yes, it happened. Constantly grousing about it won't change that.)
The most hilarious vanity card, in my opinion, in the entire run of TBBT, was the time Lorre wrote several paragraphs, mathematical formula and graphs to explain a joke that non-geeks wouldn't get.
It is a word, it's just not the word I meant.
I went through all of that, including wearing clothes my mom made me, and being terrible in every single sport except archery. (Really, archery is just applied mechanics combined with some physics.)
I was harassed on a daily basis at school. I learned all the ways home where the jocks were less likely to see me. I'm sure this sounds familiar.
Then midway thorugh high school, I started karate classes, and found that I was pretty good at it. Again, it's just physics and some applied mechanics, plus reaction training. By far the most difficult part was not thinking about what I was doing, and let reactions take over. And for the first time in my entire life, I started to fill out, gain muscle mass, and by my senior year the jocks started leaving me alone.
I retained the awkwardness and social ineptitude of course, never went to any dances, and didn't start dating until college. I'm married with an adult offspring, and I still have trouble with social interaction. I tend to analyze conversation too much.
But I look back at all that now, and I have to laugh at myself. Yes, I've been financially successful, I've traveled around the world, and generally lived a remarkable life, when most of those jocks are now in dead-end job and spend weekends watching sports on the couch. (Gleaned from classmates.com.)
Humor is a way to admit our faults and become comfortable with them. I absolutely suck at sports. I freely admit it. I couldn't hacky-sack with a gun to my head. About the only physical thing I'm good at is protecting myself and physically hurting people. (I still train, and hold a second degree black belt in two different styles now. Next year I'm testing for 3rd in an obscure style nobody has heard of. There's a surprising amount of subtle ways to defend one's self. It's a technically rich area, and holds my attention as a geek.)
I enjoy TBBT because, after 30 years in engineering and IT, I've known a lot of people like them. Hell, I am them. The character that needs alcohol to talk to women. The borderline-autistic genius. The brilliant and savvy scientist who's troubled emotional past makes social interaction problematic. The engineer who is incapable of understanding why the way he interacts with women keeps landing him in HR. (I have embarrassing memories of being *that* person also, years ago.)
So there's pretty much three choices: (1) We can decide that our social deficiencies are really advantages. I think that's a dangerous way to think and probably indicates therapy. (2) We can accept our foibles as such and learn to laugh at ourselves. (3) We can eat a gun.
I prefer 2.
Problem is, geeks would be incapable of making a comedy about themselves. They'd be so wrapped up in minor technical points in the script that they'd never get any filming done.
Now, a sitcom about geeks trying to make a sitcom -- that could be funny.
I suspect that geeks generally lack the part of the brain that allows them to laugh at themselves. Kinda like reptiles lack that area of the brain that would allow them to experience emotional attachment.
So those four cfls lasted you thirthy years.
I highly doubt four leds will last you that long. either the leds will burn out, or the integrated power supplies will fail, or both.
passphrase : minima
Yes they did. It was truly remarkable.
As to whether LEDs will last that long, we'll see. I suspect that the first batch of LEDs I've bought will have an exceptional lifespan. The bulbs I buy later, say, in those Costco blister packs, won't last any longer than incandescent bulbs did. But again, we'll see.
Ok, but I wasn't even talking about breakage in the house. In 30 years I haven't broken a single CFL, so the hue and cry of mercury hazards in the home have been largely overblown in my experience.
I think the real issue is mercury in the landfill. Now, I know, you're supposed to recycle CFLs, not throw them in the trash, and I'm sure that us highly educated and ethical people are all doing that [1]. But what do you think Ma and Pa Kettle are doing with theirs?
[1]. Actually, our recycling center won't take them. Every six months or so there will be a "hazardous waste" drive in our area, that'll take fluorescent bulbs and CFLs, but who actually does that?
I was being facetious. The price for LEDs has gone down to the point where I buy only LEDs now for all applications for which an LED solution exists. This includes replacing the few remaining incandescents on my motorcycle. This most especially includes replacing all those horrible CFLs scattered through the house.
But besides the usual benefits, (long life, instant-on (compared to CFLs), low power) there's one I haven't seen mentioned yet: They look nice. I have a few vintage light stands indoors, (inherited from my grandparents) and carriage house - style lights outside, and CFLs always looked idiotic in them. But you can get really nice retro-vintage glass LED bulbs that look good in vintage appliances. And they don't really cost any more than regular LED bulbs.
As far as saving money, I really haven't seen much of a savings from running CFLs since the 1990's, which has led me to conclude that light must be a small percentage of our total power bill. If the price of bulbs is down in the noise, and the difference in the electric bill is also down in the noise, then it really doesn't matter what bulb you buy. At least, as an individual household.
They had LED bulbs before any incandescent bulb ban was in place.
No, previous anonymous coward has a point. They existed, true, but they wouldn't be affordable until they were popular, which creates a chicken-and-egg issue.
For LEDs, this appears to have been a beneficial move. But the US tried to ban incandescents when the only affordable alternative was CFLs, which was a crappy technology. If the government is going to interfere with our lives, the least they could do is pick a decent product.
Did you also notice that the CFLs dim significantly over time as well
(and sometimes take a long time to actually start)? I use CFL for
outside ('cause if the break, the mercury is not in my home) and when
the temperature dips, they take a long time to warm up. LEDs, no such
issue...
CAP === 'occupied'
Yes, I did discover all of that. I had misgivings about CFLs from the start because of the reasons you state (including mercury -- yeah, I know they only contain as much as a thermometer, but who keeps 40 thermometers in their home?) but sort-of threw myself into the fervor when they started to become available in the nineties. Because hey, I'm a geek, and they were kinda geeky at the time. By the early thousands I was sick to death of them and hoping for a replacement soon.
The price is coming down. Only 18 times as much now.
I suspect halogens will also still be allowed in "hard use" instances, like the lights very high up on towers in harsh weather.
Just coincidentally, I'm in the process of switching from those damned CFLs to LEDs. I say "damned" because although they initially met the promise of long life [1], later "value engineered" bulbs didn't last any longer, in my experience, than the incandescents they replaced. I'm really hoping LEDs don't fall to the same process -- value engineered to a pale shadow of their original glory.
I always felt that CFLs were a stopgap solution until we found a practical low power light bulb. It appears that LED is that solution, but it may be too early to tell.
[1]. It so happens, of the four original CFLs I bought in the 1990's, the last one -- the back porch light, stopped working last night. And will be replaced with an LED. During that time, I've had many many CFLs fail, some in the space of only a few months. In quantity, they really weren't manufactured very well.
So, the study basically repeats stuff we've already known for a long time. Only the title has changed. The conclusions haven't even changed much. I heard the same stuff in high school a (ahem...) long time ago.
They *could* but then they would lose all the legel monopolistic practices of cablecos all over the US.
Well then, screw 'em.