Yeah, remember when the history channel had actual programs about real history. Good programs. After a year of reruns, I think the channel needs to be renamed. It should be the World War 2 channel. Maybe a mention of the constant reruns of vietnam airplanes and ufo/histories-mysteries(like why teh channel can't play the good reruns). And at least half the programming is ripped off from the BBC. Heck, a few good nova episodes would be better than Spock droning on about 60's tinfoil-hatery.
They are probably in denial becuase what happens if tv is doomed. How can they hope to compete? If they try something radically different, not only do they lose a lot with their current investments but also such change will require vast new investments. Plus, their is no evidence to suggest that change will be good. At the very least, eveyone will have to go out and buy a tivo like box and how many do you think will really do that? Most will just not get one and stick entirely with the net etc.. They'll lose more than they gain with such a change. The fact is television will never be bigger than it is today. It is doomed to become a smaller market. There is little anyone at Fox can do about it. The chance the study is wrong is the only hope they have that the future for television won't be the end of the golden age.
And when they do get a good show and people realize it, they cancel it! Farscape. Firefly. Countless others. The chappelle show is the only good thing on comedy central. The fact that crank yankers made it to a second season is sickening. Jon Stewart is getting cliche. The man show is reptitive and getting slimier by the episode. Colin Quinn isn't so funny after a decade. Neither is Dennis Miller. The only really good thing I've seen was the project searchlight or something with Dennis Leary. That was pretty good for five minutes, but then it became obvious it was all staged - just like the rest of reality tv.
As for american idol - I thought the 'granny loving' one was hysterical but that was it. Suprisingly, I heard it was on while on the internet and as soon as it went off, i went right back to chatting.
Stargate is still around. But even I have to admit, stargate is near the end of its lifespan. The story quality has already begun to drop (the season finale was some of the worst acting and writing I have ever seen - the conversation between the president and Annubis was painfully poor.) In addition, the cast all seem tired of making the shows. They really have nothing much left for Daniel's character to do. Tilks'(sic) story seems complete. The doctor's dead and the general doesn't seem to be sticking around. The only thing really left is for carter and mygyver (oh yeah, O'neill) to get it on. And even they look tired. Watch Anderson over the last couple of episodes - he looks like he is about to say fuck it and walk away. They've taken care of most of the gould. The Asgaurd who were supposed to help if they ever beat the replicators are no where in sight. The Nox are still sitting on their asses. The ancients don't seem to be doing much. The series have little left to continue on. I hear they are getting a new series too with an all new enemy (spinoff Atlantis) but I think the orginalilty which was the heart of the series isn't pumping anymore. Atlantis will rpobably be a new Voyager and if Stargate gets another season it seems it will be to just conclude any loose ends.
"At least there aren't ads in the middle of my game."
Their have been ads in video games going back to Duke Nukem. Remember? Those porn posters made that game...
As for the television, its stuck in the 80's and early 90's were men were supposed to be 'sensitive' or some shit. You have got the biggest bunch of losers and wimps on tv. As a guy who is actually straight and not a metrosexual, there is nothing worth watching. Oddly enough, now it is the women who are supposed to be strong while all the guys have to think aabout peoples feelings. Take your average television show. We used to beat the shit of losers like that in high school where if a girl acted like they did on televison, she'd have been labeled a lesbian.
A better option is go to a game store and look through their clearance sections. You can get all kinds of fun stuff for only 4-5 dollars at most a game. Sure they are a little old but their still great games and a lot more fun then watching TV. Heck, even Diakatana was better than watching the dumbass creation kit called TV.
It's liek the Sims - would you rather pretend or watch reality? Or would you rather go outside and actually experience it? You would be amazed by the weird looks I get when I say I spend more time outside then in front of a television.
I thought the first survivor was pretty good. It was fun to watch ppl treat each other like garbage, stab each other in the back, and completely abandon any morality they may have ahd at the beginning of the show. But it gets tiring after awhile. There is always that point when a person goes from acting seductively to just acting like a slut and reality tv has passed that point.
The point I realized comercials were out of control? When they began to play some comercials twice during the same comercial break. I think these companies need to face facts: if we don't want your product, shoving a trillion commercials down our throats isn't going to change that. I don't want a damn Bowflex!
But taking risks might mean they lose money. Oh my god, we can't let that happen. Got to stick with the same formulaic crap until we drive it into the ground. John Edwards gets messages from the dead on TV? Well, so do I.
If the entertainment industry began to charge reasonable prices for their products, maybe they wouldn't have so many ppl stealing them instead of buying them. I have no problem supporting an artist if he acts respectably. But I have no wish to support the drug habits of wasted wretchs or the narisistic habits of an executive who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the cd. I'll pay so Lars Ulrich can make more cds but don't expect me to also pay extra so he can drive a gold-plated ferrari too.
I think the parent poster was trying to make the point that Van Gogh's don't need millions of dollars to do their art where televison stars keep demanding outrageous salaries. If maybe, just maybe, actors expected reasonable salaries instead of these ridiculous fortunes, television would not cost so much to make. If we get rid of these greedy self-whorshipping irresponsible narcisists, their will still be good television.
May have more to do with the fact that their is nothing worth watching on and less on the alternative entertainment that now exists. The execs. told us exactly what they think of us when they cancelled farscape: your demograhic doesn't matter. Well, now it seems it does. Other than Star trek (which isn't very good), adult swim, and stargate, their is really nothing for ppl our age on tv. If we didn't have the Internet to escape to, we would just be going out instead - not watching shit we don't want to see. If they aren't going to produce stuff we wat to watch, we won't.
But I hear Boxsters aren't good cars. They have all kinds of problems and are in need of almost constant repair. Since the parts have to be shipped from germany or something, all those repairs cost a fortune. End result: tag an extra 10 grand to the price tag to get the real cost of it.
Someone puts a mb in a capt. crunch box and it starts whistling? Really, this is like the time back in high school when one of the non-techies discovered he could set up his computer so that the cpu could be seen outside the box. The big answer was: so what? It's just a stupid little square. Same here. What's next? Putting it in a carboard cut out of britney spears?
It's an attempt to maintain traditions. The same happened during the Roman empire aroudn the time of Augustus. One of the reasons they thought the republic had grown unstable (about 100 years of on/off civil war) was becuase the old traditions had been lost. So by reasserting those traditions, Augustus hoped to stabalize the nation. A little reform is good, a lot threatens the social fabric of a siociety. MP's in England did the same during the reign of Victoria. Rather than have a constant massive amount of reforms, they instead chose to reform in bursts with long sections in between for the nation to stabalize. Furthermore, these traditions provide the basic fabric that holds society together. We all share common practices and common beliefs. one of those happens to be marriage. If you attack the tradition, you attack the fabric of siociety. The question thus becoems more than just rights.
I'm straight and personally I see any other choice of sexuality as being stupid. It is an evolutionary dead end. Though as an american I am against discrimination, I don't see the marriage question as discrimination, more as accomadation. We have an age old practice that dates back to god knows when. Why should we change it just to accomadate you? You want to live together? Fine. I don't think anyone has a problem with you doing that. But call it something else. I have no problem setting the legal definitions so they are treated the same but I don't see any reason to alter the institution of marriage itself. It would be like the politically correct changes being made to literature. That is how it is was written. That is the way it was, deal with it. Same thing here. Marriage is what it is. Deal with it.
"Why aren't we liberating the Libyans from Gaddafi?"
After Reagan showed he meant business and tried to kill him, he shut up and began to behave. So we don't have to do anything more their for awhile.
"Why aren't we liberating the various African countries from their leaders?"
In many african countries, the control of the government doesn't even extend to the whole of the capital city let alone beyond it. After the various revolutions that broke Africa from the yoke of imperialism, much of the continent has been stuck in perpetual civil wars. If we went, chances are we might unite them against us as more imperialists but as soon as we left it would all fall apart again. In addition, we are not the world's policeman (a lesson we learned in Vietnam). We can overextend oursleves and in fact are close to doing that now. As a result, we can really only afford to get involved in places that have a major bearing on our national interests, and quite frankly, Africa isn't one of them.
"Why aren't we liberating the Chinese from their authoritarian government?"
It's like pre-WWI. Everyone is doing their best to avoid war between any of the major governments. Its a fragile peace that has existed since WW2. China has 20 nukes and a really big army. To beat them, we would probably either need to use our nukes or fight a long drawn campaign of attrition. In addition, it would draw in much of the rest of the world. In short, it would be messy with no gurantee of victory. One of the other lessons we learned in 'nam was to only fight wars we knew we could win. We might lose to china. Eiher way, a lot of chinese would die and a lot of needless destruction would occur that isn' really worth it. China is moving towards democracy, if incredibly slowly, and the chinese are better off with what they have. What they'd get really wouldn't be worth what the world would have to pay to give it to them.
"how about a country right off our own shore, Cuba?"
Castro's days are numbered and with it the communist regime. When he dies, we'll just influence the cuban to put in a democratic government and hence win the invasion without having to invade. If we did invade, we'd have to rebuild it, a lot of cubas would die and maybe some americans, and we'd just end up at best in the same boat as we would if we just wait for castro's death. Why make an unnecessary mess?
So why Iraq? Well, when Saddam died, at best he would be replaced by islamic hardliners and we would just end up with another Iran or another Syria. Plus, putting in a government favorable to us in the middle east is in our national interests, not only in fighting the war on terror but also for the obvious economic reasons. It is simply in our national interests to have a favorable country (in both deeds as well as words) in the middle east other than Israel. We are going to have to get used to the fact that if we want to continue to drive SUV's when the worlds cheap oil diminshes (due largely to china's increasing demand for it along with purposeful decreased production of it by OPEC to create artificial scarcity), we are going to have to start laying claim to it and that claim will cost us. Just another step down the road of Fallout.
He is trying to make up for the fact that all our jobs are going to India by supplying toys. he is trying to get us to vote for him by providing bread and circuses to get our minds off the real problems.
It's like Alladin's lamp. You rub the numbers and make a wish. Then you sit back and expect some type of genie-like magical force to make it come true.
Actually, you want to run on your record AND provide a vision of the future. Where you were and where your going must both be addressed. Unfortunatley, Bush's record isn't so great and so few believe he'll be able to make his vision's a reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Janus, the two faced god. They claim to help the users and then stab them in the back for the sake of the corporations.
If I can't afford it.
So Kerry's state is better than Bush's state when it comes to a matter that would interest the high-tech demograhic. Yeah, nothing political here...
Yeah, remember when the history channel had actual programs about real history. Good programs. After a year of reruns, I think the channel needs to be renamed. It should be the World War 2 channel. Maybe a mention of the constant reruns of vietnam airplanes and ufo/histories-mysteries(like why teh channel can't play the good reruns). And at least half the programming is ripped off from the BBC. Heck, a few good nova episodes would be better than Spock droning on about 60's tinfoil-hatery.
They are probably in denial becuase what happens if tv is doomed. How can they hope to compete? If they try something radically different, not only do they lose a lot with their current investments but also such change will require vast new investments. Plus, their is no evidence to suggest that change will be good. At the very least, eveyone will have to go out and buy a tivo like box and how many do you think will really do that? Most will just not get one and stick entirely with the net etc.. They'll lose more than they gain with such a change. The fact is television will never be bigger than it is today. It is doomed to become a smaller market. There is little anyone at Fox can do about it. The chance the study is wrong is the only hope they have that the future for television won't be the end of the golden age.
And when they do get a good show and people realize it, they cancel it! Farscape. Firefly. Countless others. The chappelle show is the only good thing on comedy central. The fact that crank yankers made it to a second season is sickening. Jon Stewart is getting cliche. The man show is reptitive and getting slimier by the episode. Colin Quinn isn't so funny after a decade. Neither is Dennis Miller. The only really good thing I've seen was the project searchlight or something with Dennis Leary. That was pretty good for five minutes, but then it became obvious it was all staged - just like the rest of reality tv.
As for american idol - I thought the 'granny loving' one was hysterical but that was it. Suprisingly, I heard it was on while on the internet and as soon as it went off, i went right back to chatting.
Stargate is still around. But even I have to admit, stargate is near the end of its lifespan. The story quality has already begun to drop (the season finale was some of the worst acting and writing I have ever seen - the conversation between the president and Annubis was painfully poor.) In addition, the cast all seem tired of making the shows. They really have nothing much left for Daniel's character to do. Tilks'(sic) story seems complete. The doctor's dead and the general doesn't seem to be sticking around. The only thing really left is for carter and mygyver (oh yeah, O'neill) to get it on. And even they look tired. Watch Anderson over the last couple of episodes - he looks like he is about to say fuck it and walk away. They've taken care of most of the gould. The Asgaurd who were supposed to help if they ever beat the replicators are no where in sight. The Nox are still sitting on their asses. The ancients don't seem to be doing much. The series have little left to continue on. I hear they are getting a new series too with an all new enemy (spinoff Atlantis) but I think the orginalilty which was the heart of the series isn't pumping anymore. Atlantis will rpobably be a new Voyager and if Stargate gets another season it seems it will be to just conclude any loose ends.
"At least there aren't ads in the middle of my game."
Their have been ads in video games going back to Duke Nukem. Remember? Those porn posters made that game...
As for the television, its stuck in the 80's and early 90's were men were supposed to be 'sensitive' or some shit. You have got the biggest bunch of losers and wimps on tv. As a guy who is actually straight and not a metrosexual, there is nothing worth watching. Oddly enough, now it is the women who are supposed to be strong while all the guys have to think aabout peoples feelings. Take your average television show. We used to beat the shit of losers like that in high school where if a girl acted like they did on televison, she'd have been labeled a lesbian.
"There is a show on Spike that takes odd Japanese game shows and redubs them it seems to be hit and miss, but when it hits it's pretty good."
Don't get eliminated!
A better option is go to a game store and look through their clearance sections. You can get all kinds of fun stuff for only 4-5 dollars at most a game. Sure they are a little old but their still great games and a lot more fun then watching TV. Heck, even Diakatana was better than watching the dumbass creation kit called TV.
It's liek the Sims - would you rather pretend or watch reality? Or would you rather go outside and actually experience it? You would be amazed by the weird looks I get when I say I spend more time outside then in front of a television.
I thought the first survivor was pretty good. It was fun to watch ppl treat each other like garbage, stab each other in the back, and completely abandon any morality they may have ahd at the beginning of the show. But it gets tiring after awhile. There is always that point when a person goes from acting seductively to just acting like a slut and reality tv has passed that point.
The point I realized comercials were out of control? When they began to play some comercials twice during the same comercial break. I think these companies need to face facts: if we don't want your product, shoving a trillion commercials down our throats isn't going to change that. I don't want a damn Bowflex!
But taking risks might mean they lose money. Oh my god, we can't let that happen. Got to stick with the same formulaic crap until we drive it into the ground. John Edwards gets messages from the dead on TV? Well, so do I.
If the entertainment industry began to charge reasonable prices for their products, maybe they wouldn't have so many ppl stealing them instead of buying them. I have no problem supporting an artist if he acts respectably. But I have no wish to support the drug habits of wasted wretchs or the narisistic habits of an executive who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the cd. I'll pay so Lars Ulrich can make more cds but don't expect me to also pay extra so he can drive a gold-plated ferrari too.
I think the parent poster was trying to make the point that Van Gogh's don't need millions of dollars to do their art where televison stars keep demanding outrageous salaries. If maybe, just maybe, actors expected reasonable salaries instead of these ridiculous fortunes, television would not cost so much to make. If we get rid of these greedy self-whorshipping irresponsible narcisists, their will still be good television.
May have more to do with the fact that their is nothing worth watching on and less on the alternative entertainment that now exists. The execs. told us exactly what they think of us when they cancelled farscape: your demograhic doesn't matter. Well, now it seems it does. Other than Star trek (which isn't very good), adult swim, and stargate, their is really nothing for ppl our age on tv. If we didn't have the Internet to escape to, we would just be going out instead - not watching shit we don't want to see. If they aren't going to produce stuff we wat to watch, we won't.
But I hear Boxsters aren't good cars. They have all kinds of problems and are in need of almost constant repair. Since the parts have to be shipped from germany or something, all those repairs cost a fortune. End result: tag an extra 10 grand to the price tag to get the real cost of it.
I type becuase no can read my handwriting, not even a computer.
Someone puts a mb in a capt. crunch box and it starts whistling? Really, this is like the time back in high school when one of the non-techies discovered he could set up his computer so that the cpu could be seen outside the box. The big answer was: so what? It's just a stupid little square. Same here. What's next? Putting it in a carboard cut out of britney spears?
It's an attempt to maintain traditions. The same happened during the Roman empire aroudn the time of Augustus. One of the reasons they thought the republic had grown unstable (about 100 years of on/off civil war) was becuase the old traditions had been lost. So by reasserting those traditions, Augustus hoped to stabalize the nation. A little reform is good, a lot threatens the social fabric of a siociety. MP's in England did the same during the reign of Victoria. Rather than have a constant massive amount of reforms, they instead chose to reform in bursts with long sections in between for the nation to stabalize. Furthermore, these traditions provide the basic fabric that holds society together. We all share common practices and common beliefs. one of those happens to be marriage. If you attack the tradition, you attack the fabric of siociety. The question thus becoems more than just rights.
I'm straight and personally I see any other choice of sexuality as being stupid. It is an evolutionary dead end. Though as an american I am against discrimination, I don't see the marriage question as discrimination, more as accomadation. We have an age old practice that dates back to god knows when. Why should we change it just to accomadate you? You want to live together? Fine. I don't think anyone has a problem with you doing that. But call it something else. I have no problem setting the legal definitions so they are treated the same but I don't see any reason to alter the institution of marriage itself. It would be like the politically correct changes being made to literature. That is how it is was written. That is the way it was, deal with it. Same thing here. Marriage is what it is. Deal with it.
"Why aren't we liberating the Libyans from Gaddafi?"
After Reagan showed he meant business and tried to kill him, he shut up and began to behave. So we don't have to do anything more their for awhile.
"Why aren't we liberating the various African countries from their leaders?"
In many african countries, the control of the government doesn't even extend to the whole of the capital city let alone beyond it. After the various revolutions that broke Africa from the yoke of imperialism, much of the continent has been stuck in perpetual civil wars. If we went, chances are we might unite them against us as more imperialists but as soon as we left it would all fall apart again. In addition, we are not the world's policeman (a lesson we learned in Vietnam). We can overextend oursleves and in fact are close to doing that now. As a result, we can really only afford to get involved in places that have a major bearing on our national interests, and quite frankly, Africa isn't one of them.
"Why aren't we liberating the Chinese from their authoritarian government?"
It's like pre-WWI. Everyone is doing their best to avoid war between any of the major governments. Its a fragile peace that has existed since WW2. China has 20 nukes and a really big army. To beat them, we would probably either need to use our nukes or fight a long drawn campaign of attrition. In addition, it would draw in much of the rest of the world. In short, it would be messy with no gurantee of victory. One of the other lessons we learned in 'nam was to only fight wars we knew we could win. We might lose to china. Eiher way, a lot of chinese would die and a lot of needless destruction would occur that isn' really worth it. China is moving towards democracy, if incredibly slowly, and the chinese are better off with what they have. What they'd get really wouldn't be worth what the world would have to pay to give it to them.
"how about a country right off our own shore, Cuba?"
Castro's days are numbered and with it the communist regime. When he dies, we'll just influence the cuban to put in a democratic government and hence win the invasion without having to invade. If we did invade, we'd have to rebuild it, a lot of cubas would die and maybe some americans, and we'd just end up at best in the same boat as we would if we just wait for castro's death. Why make an unnecessary mess?
So why Iraq? Well, when Saddam died, at best he would be replaced by islamic hardliners and we would just end up with another Iran or another Syria. Plus, putting in a government favorable to us in the middle east is in our national interests, not only in fighting the war on terror but also for the obvious economic reasons. It is simply in our national interests to have a favorable country (in both deeds as well as words) in the middle east other than Israel. We are going to have to get used to the fact that if we want to continue to drive SUV's when the worlds cheap oil diminshes (due largely to china's increasing demand for it along with purposeful decreased production of it by OPEC to create artificial scarcity), we are going to have to start laying claim to it and that claim will cost us. Just another step down the road of Fallout.
He is trying to make up for the fact that all our jobs are going to India by supplying toys. he is trying to get us to vote for him by providing bread and circuses to get our minds off the real problems.
It's like Alladin's lamp. You rub the numbers and make a wish. Then you sit back and expect some type of genie-like magical force to make it come true.
Actually, you want to run on your record AND provide a vision of the future. Where you were and where your going must both be addressed. Unfortunatley, Bush's record isn't so great and so few believe he'll be able to make his vision's a reality.