You're not only missing his point, you seem to be trying to actively avoid it. The fact is, 99% of everything is crap. And just because I enjoy something doesn't make it high art. I mean, I love BBT and I loved My Name Is Earl, but I doubt either one will ever be considered "high art" any more than Jersey Shore.
They've been rerunning Rawhide on MeTV; I was a kid when it was on (actually it started before I was born), and it is surprisingly good, often insightful.
I think it's an unwarranted assumption that prices have gone down because government isn't doing it. I paid $600 for a 25 inch TV in 1976, you can get a flat screen hi res one that size for 1/5th that much today. An IBM-PC was four or five thousand dollars, and government never made TVs or computers.
More likely the costs have gone down because of advances in science and technology, just like with computers and TVs.
At some point, it is simply perverse not to be aware of the real world around you.
What do the Beatles and Lady Gaga have to do with the world around me? They're not IN the world around ME.
You can be aware of things like chart stars, popular reality TV series, bestselling novels and so on without having either to like or consume them.
You can, but it isn't required. As I'm one who's always shunned and despised the worship of celebrities, I don't give a damn about some Hollywood bimbo's drug addiction, no matter how talented they are.
I'd dearly love to watch a news show without hearing about "dancing with the stars." If I wanted to know about that incredibly stupid show I'd just watch the damned thing.</crochety old man>
Mozart, Picasso, Warhol, and all the other names considered to be "real arts and culture" started out as "frivolous and trite" pop culture.
No they didn't. Mozart became "pop culture" when he got a little too weird and the rich folks stopped paying him. None of the other pop stars of his culture are remembered today.
Picasso was never considered "pop culture". Warhol practically invented "pop art". None of the painters who were showcased in the galleries when Van Gogh couldn't sell any paintings are remembered today.
Not all great art was popular, and little that was popular is considered great art, But your "standing the test of time" is correct. 99.9% of everything you read and watch and listen to will be forgotten a hundred years from now, but there are true artists now as there always was, and they will be remembered.
And I thought I was a "heavy user". Which leads me to believe that the true "heaviest users" must really be sucking up some serious bandwidth -- these are probably all the guys starting and hosting torrents, though,. . .
I'm hosting torrents every time I turn the computer on. I watch TV on the computer, listen to the radio on the computer (any radio station in the whole world is available on the internet), and AT&T hasn't ever squealed about my useage.
I never quite understood the moral panic that seems to appear when this comes up. Asking people to pay for what they use doesn't seem like *that* radical a concept to me.
It does when what you're being forced to buy used to be free. Are you willing to pay for air? Rainwater for your garden? I just HATE the love and worship of money. If my electricity had been unmetered all my life then yes, I'd howl if they started putting electric meters in.
If you make a lot of cell phone calls, your bill goes up
No it doesn't, I'm on BOOST mobile. Flat $45 per month, unlimited calls, long distance, text, SMS, walkie talkie, 411, email, and internet.
If you eat more, you pay more for the groceries
Not necessarily. Steak costs a lot more than chicken.
And before someone says, "I'm paying for X megabits/second, I should get that!", please understand that your...
All I need to understand is the contract you signed with me. I don't care about your problems, they're there for you to solve.
Monitor The term "monitor" is often used synonymously with "computer screen" or "display." The monitor displays the computer's user interface and open programs, allowing the user to interact with the computer, typically using the keyboard and mouse.
Older computer monitors were built using cathode ray tubes (CRTs), which made them rather heavy and caused them to take up a lot of desk space. Most modern monitors are built using LCD technology and are commonly referred to as flat screen displays. These thin monitors take up much less space than the older CRT displays. This means people with LCD monitors have more desk space to clutter up with stacks of papers, pens, and other objects.
"Monitor" can also be used as a verb. A network administrator may monitor network traffic, which means he watches the traffic to make sure the bandwidth usage is within a certain limit and checks to see what external sources may be attempting to access the network. Software programs may monitor the system's CPU performance as well as RAM and hard disk usage.
Finally, monitors also refer to speakers used for monitoring sound. Audio engineers typically use "studio monitors" to listen to recordings. These high-end speakers allow the engineers to accurately mix and master audio tracks. So a sound mixer could be monitoring a recording visually using a computer monitor, while monitoring the sound using audio monitors at the same. As you can tell, "monitor" serves as a rather multipurpose word.
Hmm, nothing there about resolution. Maybe my old IBM had a monitor and you (and whoever modded you "insightful") are ignorant?
But are they sharing the experience with other people in the living room while on a comfortable recliner or sofa
Cnsidering that most TVs have HDMI ports and many have built in wifi now (my mom's new TV even has USB ports), why not? I know I'd much rather watch BBT on the 42 inch TV than on the notebook's little screen.
The difference is the history. People don't think of their phones as computers, even though they are, they're phones. Phones have always had metered use for long distance calls back in the landline days, and cell phones have always had metered use (recently some are offering unmetered use, mine does). The internet, otoh, has always been unmetered and I think people will howl if they start trying to meter it.
I haven't had a landline since 2002, and I haven't had cable since 2009. However, AT&T did get me back as a DSL customer. I'm not into FPS any more, so the speed is fine; I can stream a radio broadcast while watching Hulu while uploading distros on BT with no skipping or stuttering, even watching on the notebook using the wifi connection.
I still watch TV once in a while, but I use an antenna. Usually, though, since the main computer is using the TV as a monitor, I watch TV over the internet.
While broadcast and cable TV may be down in viewership
Cable viewership can be measured easily by the cable company, but how can over the air viewership possibly be measured? Comcast lost me as a customer quite a while ago, and I switched to their competetion -- an antenna. I have no Nielson box, how can they possibly know if I even turn the set on? By any measurable metric, I don't have a TV even though there are two in the house.
This is, I think, why people don't trust statistics, because so many "statistics" are entirely bogus. Less TV ownership? I haven't bought a TV in nine years, how are they counting me?
They spew "statistics" about drug use, how can they have a clue? They can enumerate drug siezures and arrests, but there's no way possible to know how many people are using illegal drugs. But that doesn't stop them from giving "statistics".
Actually, you are making one very honest, but very big mistake. You think that the next generation are just like you, they know what TV is, they like it, they watch it. Which is, simply said, not true.
Nope, you're the one making an honest mistake, and it's a mistake every generation of youth makes. "We're not like our parents!" Perfactly understandable, I held that view once. But it's a faulty view.
Sure, you download rather than buying a record, just like we listened to LPs instead of 33 1/3s our paents listend to. They listened to staticky monophonic jazz on AM, we listened to rock and roll in stereo on FM, but in the end we're all still enjoying music. My parents generation had no TV, but the movie theaters and studios didn't die when TV was invented.
Things go in cycles, although every crest of the sine is a little different. People are the same as they ever were, including bitching about the younger generation.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
That quote was over 2000 years old, from Aristotle. Some things never change, and people are one of those things.
That's what you get for resisting unionization. Bargain collectively, not individually. You alone have no power, you together with all the shop's workers are powerful enough to shut the damned place down.
Because most of what is there is just plain crap and more annoying than entertaining.
Well, TV has always been mostly crap, but I do think it's worse than I've ever seen it. The only thing I watch any more is Big Bang Theory, and the morning news shows just to keep me occupied while I drink my coffee and wake up.
I was pissed off last night, they pre-empted BBT for some local show about bullying. Guess I'll catch that episode on the internet.
I refuse to watch movies on TV, especially comedies; the censorship totally ruins it. What's odd is, for example, "The Terminator" they show Arnold ripping a guy's heart out, all sorts of carnage in the disco, shooting a middle aged woman in the forehead, cutting his eyeball out, but they censor the "fuck you, asshole." WTF is wrong with those people?
Oldie but goodie indeed, always liked that one. I haven't read the linked article, but it is one of many (probably all cannibalized from each other) and I've seen a few.
It's misleading to the point of possibly (or probably even) being false. Just because sales have fallen doesn't mean ownership has fallen. I haven't bought a TV since 2002, so they probably count me as a "household without a TV" despite the fact that there are two in the house (one of which hasn't been turned on in years).
A more accurate headline would be "TV sales decrease for the first time since 1970".
Considering AC's "between you and your employer and not part of some collective bargaining union crap", I'd bet money that he's either a PHB, ignorant, or a moron, because those are the only three groups that are against unions.
It's just stupid. Workers bargain collectively and they have power. Bargain by yourself and its management's way or GTFO. Management hates unions because unions prevent them from fucking over the workers. That's ALL unions do, is to keep their members from being exploited. And the union dues are a very tiny price to pay, and in fact without the union your pay would likely be far lower than it is even after the dues are deducted.
I think what he was saying was if the law mandates decent working conditions, unions are rarely necessary. When government throws workers under the bus to fend for themselves, they have little choice but to organize.
As I'm pro-union, maybe this is the silver lining.
It's already irrelevant at my house, I dropped cable a long tome ago. With a tuner box, the computer using the TV as a monitor, hulu, and all the networks airing their shows in the internet, why do I need cable at all?
AT&T is my ISP, and though I read they're supposed to be instituting caps, I have the radio streaming before work, and either TV or radio streaming in the evening. Plus BitTorrent is spewing bits of Linux distros and open source books (inclusing my own), but they haven't said a word about my useage.
Now, I think we all understand that, if hard choices have to be made, everybody likes a team player, yes?
The trouble is, the man at the top, the CEO, is NOT a team player. He'll throw every other employee, as well as the company itself, under the bus if it would benefit him (see: banking sector, airlines). You want a raise? Fine, raise my pay first. You want me to take a pay cut? You take yours first.
"Forward!" he cried from the rear, and the front rank died. The general sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd probably like his early, pre-cubist work. Most laymen who see an early Picasso say "wow, he could really paint?"
You're not only missing his point, you seem to be trying to actively avoid it. The fact is, 99% of everything is crap. And just because I enjoy something doesn't make it high art. I mean, I love BBT and I loved My Name Is Earl, but I doubt either one will ever be considered "high art" any more than Jersey Shore.
They've been rerunning Rawhide on MeTV; I was a kid when it was on (actually it started before I was born), and it is surprisingly good, often insightful.
nope you want the communication system using neutrino's.
Using the neutrino's WHAT? Finish the sentence!
I think it's an unwarranted assumption that prices have gone down because government isn't doing it. I paid $600 for a 25 inch TV in 1976, you can get a flat screen hi res one that size for 1/5th that much today. An IBM-PC was four or five thousand dollars, and government never made TVs or computers.
More likely the costs have gone down because of advances in science and technology, just like with computers and TVs.
At some point, it is simply perverse not to be aware of the real world around you.
What do the Beatles and Lady Gaga have to do with the world around me? They're not IN the world around ME.
You can be aware of things like chart stars, popular reality TV series, bestselling novels and so on without having either to like or consume them.
You can, but it isn't required. As I'm one who's always shunned and despised the worship of celebrities, I don't give a damn about some Hollywood bimbo's drug addiction, no matter how talented they are.
I'd dearly love to watch a news show without hearing about "dancing with the stars." If I wanted to know about that incredibly stupid show I'd just watch the damned thing.</crochety old man>
The general public in America is so apathetic anymore that this is inevitable.
Then where did OWS come from?
Mozart, Picasso, Warhol, and all the other names considered to be "real arts and culture" started out as "frivolous and trite" pop culture.
No they didn't. Mozart became "pop culture" when he got a little too weird and the rich folks stopped paying him. None of the other pop stars of his culture are remembered today.
Picasso was never considered "pop culture". Warhol practically invented "pop art". None of the painters who were showcased in the galleries when Van Gogh couldn't sell any paintings are remembered today.
Not all great art was popular, and little that was popular is considered great art, But your "standing the test of time" is correct. 99.9% of everything you read and watch and listen to will be forgotten a hundred years from now, but there are true artists now as there always was, and they will be remembered.
And I thought I was a "heavy user". Which leads me to believe that the true "heaviest users" must really be sucking up some serious bandwidth -- these are probably all the guys starting and hosting torrents, though,. . .
I'm hosting torrents every time I turn the computer on. I watch TV on the computer, listen to the radio on the computer (any radio station in the whole world is available on the internet), and AT&T hasn't ever squealed about my useage.
I never quite understood the moral panic that seems to appear when this comes up. Asking people to pay for what they use doesn't seem like *that* radical a concept to me.
It does when what you're being forced to buy used to be free. Are you willing to pay for air? Rainwater for your garden? I just HATE the love and worship of money. If my electricity had been unmetered all my life then yes, I'd howl if they started putting electric meters in.
If you make a lot of cell phone calls, your bill goes up
No it doesn't, I'm on BOOST mobile. Flat $45 per month, unlimited calls, long distance, text, SMS, walkie talkie, 411, email, and internet.
If you eat more, you pay more for the groceries
Not necessarily. Steak costs a lot more than chicken.
And before someone says, "I'm paying for X megabits/second, I should get that!", please understand that your...
All I need to understand is the contract you signed with me. I don't care about your problems, they're there for you to solve.
It ain't a monitor until it does at least 1920x1200
So computers didn't have monitors until this century? Funny, I thought that green screen hooked up to my old IBM XT was a monitor. Hmm, let's google. Noun 1. computer monitor - a device that displays signals on a computer screen
Hmm, nothing there about resolution. Maybe my old IBM had a monitor and you (and whoever modded you "insightful") are ignorant?
But are they sharing the experience with other people in the living room while on a comfortable recliner or sofa
Cnsidering that most TVs have HDMI ports and many have built in wifi now (my mom's new TV even has USB ports), why not? I know I'd much rather watch BBT on the 42 inch TV than on the notebook's little screen.
The difference is the history. People don't think of their phones as computers, even though they are, they're phones. Phones have always had metered use for long distance calls back in the landline days, and cell phones have always had metered use (recently some are offering unmetered use, mine does). The internet, otoh, has always been unmetered and I think people will howl if they start trying to meter it.
I haven't had a landline since 2002, and I haven't had cable since 2009. However, AT&T did get me back as a DSL customer. I'm not into FPS any more, so the speed is fine; I can stream a radio broadcast while watching Hulu while uploading distros on BT with no skipping or stuttering, even watching on the notebook using the wifi connection.
I still watch TV once in a while, but I use an antenna. Usually, though, since the main computer is using the TV as a monitor, I watch TV over the internet.
While broadcast and cable TV may be down in viewership
Cable viewership can be measured easily by the cable company, but how can over the air viewership possibly be measured? Comcast lost me as a customer quite a while ago, and I switched to their competetion -- an antenna. I have no Nielson box, how can they possibly know if I even turn the set on? By any measurable metric, I don't have a TV even though there are two in the house.
This is, I think, why people don't trust statistics, because so many "statistics" are entirely bogus. Less TV ownership? I haven't bought a TV in nine years, how are they counting me?
They spew "statistics" about drug use, how can they have a clue? They can enumerate drug siezures and arrests, but there's no way possible to know how many people are using illegal drugs. But that doesn't stop them from giving "statistics".
A digital tuner box for an analog TV is only forty bucks, that's what I use for my nine year old TV.
Actually, you are making one very honest, but very big mistake. You think that the next generation are just like you, they know what TV is, they like it, they watch it. Which is, simply said, not true.
Nope, you're the one making an honest mistake, and it's a mistake every generation of youth makes. "We're not like our parents!" Perfactly understandable, I held that view once. But it's a faulty view.
Sure, you download rather than buying a record, just like we listened to LPs instead of 33 1/3s our paents listend to. They listened to staticky monophonic jazz on AM, we listened to rock and roll in stereo on FM, but in the end we're all still enjoying music. My parents generation had no TV, but the movie theaters and studios didn't die when TV was invented.
Things go in cycles, although every crest of the sine is a little different. People are the same as they ever were, including bitching about the younger generation.
That quote was over 2000 years old, from Aristotle. Some things never change, and people are one of those things.
That's what you get for resisting unionization. Bargain collectively, not individually. You alone have no power, you together with all the shop's workers are powerful enough to shut the damned place down.
Because most of what is there is just plain crap and more annoying than entertaining.
Well, TV has always been mostly crap, but I do think it's worse than I've ever seen it. The only thing I watch any more is Big Bang Theory, and the morning news shows just to keep me occupied while I drink my coffee and wake up.
I was pissed off last night, they pre-empted BBT for some local show about bullying. Guess I'll catch that episode on the internet.
I refuse to watch movies on TV, especially comedies; the censorship totally ruins it. What's odd is, for example, "The Terminator" they show Arnold ripping a guy's heart out, all sorts of carnage in the disco, shooting a middle aged woman in the forehead, cutting his eyeball out, but they censor the "fuck you, asshole." WTF is wrong with those people?
Yep, i already stopped my cable bill, and i am not going back, do you hear me Rogers? Bell? No? Then go #$%^#^%[NO CARRIER]
Oldie but goodie indeed, always liked that one. I haven't read the linked article, but it is one of many (probably all cannibalized from each other) and I've seen a few.
It's misleading to the point of possibly (or probably even) being false. Just because sales have fallen doesn't mean ownership has fallen. I haven't bought a TV since 2002, so they probably count me as a "household without a TV" despite the fact that there are two in the house (one of which hasn't been turned on in years).
A more accurate headline would be "TV sales decrease for the first time since 1970".
Voyager has to be the coolest space probe ever.
Yes, literally as well as figuratively. Pretty damned cold out there past the Kupier belt!
Considering AC's "between you and your employer and not part of some collective bargaining union crap", I'd bet money that he's either a PHB, ignorant, or a moron, because those are the only three groups that are against unions.
It's just stupid. Workers bargain collectively and they have power. Bargain by yourself and its management's way or GTFO. Management hates unions because unions prevent them from fucking over the workers. That's ALL unions do, is to keep their members from being exploited. And the union dues are a very tiny price to pay, and in fact without the union your pay would likely be far lower than it is even after the dues are deducted.
I think what he was saying was if the law mandates decent working conditions, unions are rarely necessary. When government throws workers under the bus to fend for themselves, they have little choice but to organize.
As I'm pro-union, maybe this is the silver lining.
It's already irrelevant at my house, I dropped cable a long tome ago. With a tuner box, the computer using the TV as a monitor, hulu, and all the networks airing their shows in the internet, why do I need cable at all?
AT&T is my ISP, and though I read they're supposed to be instituting caps, I have the radio streaming before work, and either TV or radio streaming in the evening. Plus BitTorrent is spewing bits of Linux distros and open source books (inclusing my own), but they haven't said a word about my useage.
*knocks on wood*
Now, I think we all understand that, if hard choices have to be made, everybody likes a team player, yes?
The trouble is, the man at the top, the CEO, is NOT a team player. He'll throw every other employee, as well as the company itself, under the bus if it would benefit him (see: banking sector, airlines). You want a raise? Fine, raise my pay first. You want me to take a pay cut? You take yours first.
"Forward!" he cried from the rear, and the front rank died. The general sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.
"Team player" my ass!