View Full Version : So there are those of us who are not tv people......
ToomuchStuff
1-31-16, 12:36am
Get a laugh at it.
I was looking at some stuff on Youtube and saw something by a comedian I enjoy and I found a show he did on TV and how bad it is/was.
How TV ruined your life
Charlie Booker is the comedian.
There is some language and more mature content, but I wouldn't call it anything adult.
In case you want a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9z9D0M7eaA&list=PL907B2831FBA421A2&index=10
So where is the line between being entertained by TV and being entertained by YouTube? I'm not trolling; I genuinely want to understand the delineation. Right now I don't see it (no pun intended).
I suppose some will say commercials.
Good question, Steve. I don't have TV as I simply don't watch it enough. I rarely watch Youtube either but don't see much difference other than the monthly TV rate. I use my WiFi for all the internet, IPhone for internet music connection etc., so pay for WiFi at $51 which includes the 13% tax. When I get the hang of it, I will watch AppleTV via the WiFi as well but not sure how much use I will make of it.
I suppose some will say commercials.
That's a big one - another big one is watching what you want to watch when you want to watch it. Trolling YouTube or Netflix or Hulu is not like flicking through the cable channels.
I think a down for some people would be not being able to talk to someone about the latest episode of whatever is popular this week. Even if you watch the same show, you're often not in the same place.
In the age of the DVR, I don't see a lot of differences between the various TV (and it's all TV) delivery systems. I suspect some methods may have a bit more snob appeal (techno or cultural) than others. Much like the people who insist "It sounds better on vinyl", there may be those who channel a bit of status anxiety through their choice of screen.
I suppose some will say commercials.
Unless you use adblock they both have them.
Unless you use adblock they both have them.
I use something similar to AdBlock and I still see pre-roll ads on many YouTube (and Vimeo and others) videos.
So, besides the ease with which one can watch certain content on-demand (and obvious technical transmission differences) I'm sensing there isn't much of a difference...
I use something similar to AdBlock and I still see pre-roll ads on many YouTube (and Vimeo and others) videos.
So, besides the ease with which one can watch certain content on-demand (and obvious technical transmission differences) I'm sensing there isn't much of a difference...
I would agree that there's not much difference. After all, is it really a meaningful difference whether I sit and veg out watching HGTV vs. Kirsten Dirksen's or Deek Diedricksen's youtube channels?
I use adblock plus and don't get pre-video ads on youtube. I vaguely seem to remember having to change it from the default settings that allow ads on certain sites.
ToomuchStuff
2-2-16, 3:51pm
When it comes to being entertained, I don't think there is a line between tv, youtube, books, etc.
Youtube does allow one to find options NOT available in my country otherwise, as well as timeshifting (no dvr and subscription required, person or people don't have to be alive and being broadcast over airwaves), and the mentioned Adblocking stuff (when it works, recent security update fights with it, so it needs an update it hasn't got yet), as well as other means of blocking (hosts file).
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-16, 4:18pm
Most of what I watch on youtube is 5 minutes. Ok much of what I watch on youtube is songs I guess and so half the time I don't even watch. How does that differ from t.v. well I guess it doesn't differ from the MTV of 30 some years ago ...
ToomuchStuff
2-2-16, 4:54pm
Most of what I watch on youtube is 5 minutes. Ok much of what I watch on youtube is songs I guess and so half the time I don't even watch. How does that differ from t.v. well I guess it doesn't differ from the MTV of 30 some years ago ...
Using it as a radio to hear artists I only hear on a certain radio station, is one way I use it, to find new music and timeshift it. (verses tv, with no timeshift) It also is great for finding their names or how to videos. (can't do that on TV)
Can one of the moderators look at the sentence below, and see if they see something after the last letter? My system is doing the sentence jump thing again (multiple posts), so I am trying to determine if I am doing something typing, or if it is software, etc.
And thank you!
Using it as a radio to hear artists I only hear on a certain radio sta
Can one of the moderators look at the sentence below, and see if they see something after the last letter? My system is doing the sentence jump thing again (multiple posts), so I am trying to determine if I am doing something typing, or if it is software, etc.
And thank you!
Using it as a radio to hear artists I only hear on a certain radio sta
This is what I see.
I am a member of my local NPR affiliate that plays classical music that I enjoy.
I remember when TV, newspapers, radios, magazines and books were the mediums available. News was at 6 pm unless someone was assassinated. Time, Newsweek and the Saturday Evening Post had both entertaining and informative articles, although certainly mainstream.
What I fear is that society is losing its ability to read deeply which I think is necessary to have an intelligent and informed democracy. Not to mention the basis for being informed generally. When the survey came out saying 41% of Trump voters wanted to bomb a fake country, can we still call the U.S. "exceptional"? and I'm not picking on Republicans, I'm concerned about people reading headlines and thinking that's all they need to know.
What I fear is that society is losing its ability to read deeply which I think is necessary to have an intelligent and informed democracy. Not to mention the basis for being informed generally. When the survey came out saying 41% of Trump voters wanted to bomb a fake country, can we still call the U.S. "exceptional"?
I think we could call the U.S. "exceptional" but I suspect most people would not like the adjectives I would apply to the adverbial form of the word. :(
Beyond the ability to read longer pieces with comprehension, people should have the ability to think critically and use common sense. I would guess that few people could describe "straw man" or ad hominem arguments -- so how do they know when they see one?
When someone like Trump can be asked how he will get Mexico to pay for that wall and his response is that he's a great negotiator, the questioner should press for details. "Because I think so" is not an answer once more than one person is involved. When Sanders offers a free college education for all, people should think about -- and discuss -- possible ramifications of spending/investing six figures on each individual. Where will the money come from? Is there a more useful place to spend it? Will it offer some leverage to lower the costs of college educations? How much skin should students have in the game? (n.b., I'm not saying Sanders hasn't covered this ground, but most people don't go beyond the soundbite).
It dismays me that many people under the age of 30 cannot add or multiply even a rough guess in their heads and that many are functionally illiterate even after being graduated from high school. We have allowed this country to "dumb it down" and we are now reaping the fruit of that effort.
It dismays me that many people under the age of 30 cannot add or multiply even a rough guess in their heads and that many are functionally illiterate even after being graduated from high school. We have allowed this country to "dumb it down" and we are now reaping the fruit of that effort.
Why do you think that should be? Much like health care, we seem to spend more but get poorer results than so many other countries.
Are our teachers inferior? Are there deficiencies in the way we train them? Are we simply not recruiting and retaining the quality of people we need?
Are other countries simply more ruthless in selecting who goes on to the next level? Or are they more focused on the basics at the expense of the "bells and whistles"? Are our standards too low, or simply the wrong standards?
Is it a cultural thing? Are we lazy? Uninvolved in our kids' education? Afraid of competition? Too reluctant to admit our failures and try again? Are there too many distractions? Is our diverse, polyglot society that much tougher to educate? Are we honoring the wrong forms of achievement?
I keep hearing how other countries achieve better health care outcomes for less expenditure, but I don't hear nearly as much about the same situation with education. You would think that long term the latter was at least as important as the former.
Williamsmith
2-3-16, 12:31pm
TV is a wonderful medium and technology.....where else can we view content like this just to name a few:
Price Is Right
Divorce Court
The View
Jerry Springer
Peoples Court
Supernatural
Naked/Afraid
Cupcake Wars
Jersey Shore
Worlds Dumbest
Pass the chips.
Ultralight
2-3-16, 12:32pm
TV is a wonderful medium and technology.....where else can we view content like this just to name a few:
Price Is Right
Divorce Court
The View
Jerry Springer
Peoples Court
Supernatural
Naked/Afraid
Cupcake Wars
Jersey Shore
Worlds Dumbest
Pass the chips.
LOL
TV is a wonderful medium and technology.....where else can we view content like this just to name a few:
Price Is Right
Divorce Court
The View
Jerry Springer
Peoples Court
Supernatural
Naked/Afraid
Cupcake Wars
Jersey Shore
Worlds Dumbest
Pass the chips.
But even then, TV's best years are behind it after reaching the pinnacle with The Gong Show.
Ultralight
2-3-16, 12:45pm
!Splat!
But even then, TV's best years are behind it after reaching the pinnacle with The Gong Show.
Early TV was execrable, which is probably why I'm such a fan now. It was truly ghastly. You didn't mind that the resolution was grainy, the sound tinny, and the channels were few, because the content was so bad. George Jessel? The Three Stooges? TV could be a lot better, but it's come a long way.
Williamsmith
2-3-16, 1:11pm
If you think TV is bad.......go watch Dirty Grandpa at the movies. Yeah it could be worse.
TV is a wonderful medium and technology.....where else can we view content like this just to name a few:
Price Is Right
Divorce Court
The View
Jerry Springer
Peoples Court
Supernatural
Naked/Afraid
Cupcake Wars
Jersey Shore
Worlds Dumbest
Pass the chips.
TV is just the vessel.
If I choose a bottle of plonk over a bottle of Chateau Petrus, I really can't blame the bottle.
Yeah--even I, who have no pretensions to either good taste or intellectual rigor, will only admit to watching a bit of Cupcake wars from that list...I much prefer Finding Bigfoot--on which, unsurprisingly, nothing ever happens. :D
Yeah--even I, who have no pretensions to either good taste or intellectual rigor, will only admit to watching a bit of Cupcake wars from that list...I much prefer Finding Bigfoot--on which, unsurprisingly, nothing ever happens. :D
My guilty pleasure was a show on Spike that used computer gaming technology, expert demonstrations and re-enactments to answer important questions like "Who would win in a fair fight, Teddy Roosevelt or Lawrence of Arabia?"
My guilty pleasure was a show on Spike that used computer gaming technology, expert demonstrations and re-enactments to answer important questions like "Who would win in a fair fight, Teddy Roosevelt or Lawrence of Arabia?"
So don't keep us in suspense...:~)
(I'm guessing it would depend on whether the fight took place in the desert or in a forest...)
My guilty pleasure is an old TV show called Magnum P.I.
So don't keep us in suspense...:~)
(I'm guessing it would depend on whether the fight took place in the desert or in a forest...)
Roosevelt and his Rough Riders defeat Lawrence and his Arabs. I'm pretty sure it's available on YouTube.
Why do you think that should be? Much like health care, we seem to spend more but get poorer results than so many other countries.
Are our teachers inferior? Are there deficiencies in the way we train them? Are we simply not recruiting and retaining the quality of people we need?
Are other countries simply more ruthless in selecting who goes on to the next level? Or are they more focused on the basics at the expense of the "bells and whistles"? Are our standards too low, or simply the wrong standards?
Is it a cultural thing? Are we lazy? Uninvolved in our kids' education? Afraid of competition? Too reluctant to admit our failures and try again? Are there too many distractions? Is our diverse, polyglot society that much tougher to educate? Are we honoring the wrong forms of achievement?
I keep hearing how other countries achieve better health care outcomes for less expenditure, but I don't hear nearly as much about the same situation with education. You would think that long term the latter was at least as important as the former.
Yes. The answer is yes.
As in so many other situations, there are too many contributors to be able to isolate and address a root cause. Among the many reasons (in no particular order) are valuing test-taking over learning; the continued mainstreaming of students with special educational needs or emotional issues without the support they require in the classroom; the de-emphasis of rote learning (just rote learning is not good but even fundamentals like basic math and spelling seem to have taken a dive); the long-term scrimping at school budgets (even while some expenses get obscenely high); the loss of the nuclear family and/or economic conditions and/or class expectations which have both parents out of the house for long periods of time and not helping kids with homework or even making sure it gets done; cultural norms and their accommodation (or lack of accommodation); and the lionization of sports in most secondary schools (Drama Club parents were selling fundraising items long before the Football parents had to) at the expense of academic subjects.
There are some positives to the American education system. Though some may not consider it a positive, we do not tend to track children into academic and vocational directions as early as some school systems. American students tend to learn to be more inquisitive and challenge more readily existing knowledge or "conventional wisdom". But most of those same benefits, I think, accumulated even back when students had to memorize multiplication tables and recite dates in history and take classes in civics. School was different for "The Greatest Generation" and I'm not sure we suffered so much because of that.
Williamsmith
2-3-16, 11:06pm
I think we could easily graduate our high school students by the end of tenth grade if we cut out all the wasted time. I also feel like the federalization of education seems redundant to me.
ToomuchStuff
2-4-16, 2:10am
But even then, TV's best years are behind it after reaching the pinnacle with The Gong Show.
If you think TV is bad.......go watch Dirty Grandpa at the movies. Yeah it could be worse.
Seems like more of the same thing to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDxDYIQL6Nc
Yes. The answer is yes.
As in so many other situations, there are too many contributors to be able to isolate and address a root cause. Among the many reasons (in no particular order) are valuing test-taking over learning; the continued mainstreaming of students with special educational needs or emotional issues without the support they require in the classroom; the de-emphasis of rote learning (just rote learning is not good but even fundamentals like basic math and spelling seem to have taken a dive); the long-term scrimping at school budgets (even while some expenses get obscenely high); the loss of the nuclear family and/or economic conditions and/or class expectations which have both parents out of the house for long periods of time and not helping kids with homework or even making sure it gets done; cultural norms and their accommodation (or lack of accommodation); and the lionization of sports in most secondary schools (Drama Club parents were selling fundraising items long before the Football parents had to) at the expense of academic subjects.
There are some positives to the American education system. Though some may not consider it a positive, we do not tend to track children into academic and vocational directions as early as some school systems. American students tend to learn to be more inquisitive and challenge more readily existing knowledge or "conventional wisdom". But most of those same benefits, I think, accumulated even back when students had to memorize multiplication tables and recite dates in history and take classes in civics. School was different for "The Greatest Generation" and I'm not sure we suffered so much because of that.
Why is it, I wonder, that people look at our half-public health care system and insist that "the market has failed" but do not look at our overwhelmingly public education system and say "the government-run system has failed"?
Why is it, I wonder, that people look at our half-public health care system and insist that "the market has failed" but do not look at our overwhelmingly public education system and say "the government-run system has failed"?
By what criteria do you consider our health care system "half-public"? How is that measured? Even Obamacare, which the right delights in calling "government health care", is not truly government health care because the government is not the primary payer; private insurance agencies are collecting the premiums and making the disbursements.
If you have enough money in this country, you can get some of the best medical care and education anywhere. But what do you get if your last name is not Walton or if Mommy or Daddy isn't a Wall Street financier? What of the people in these systems who are expensive because they were born with birth defects or contracted chronic diseases (many times not of their own doing) or because they're kids with attachment disorder or FAS or they fled with their parents from civil war someplace? Private insurers and schools won't touch 'em (unless they're forced to). But ignoring them does not make them go away; at least not in a manner I think is palatable to most Americans. So who gets to handle it? Right now -- maybe forever -- it's the government.
I see two questions: are we getting what we're paying for (and, if not, why not)? And how can privitization do a better job than the government when a profit margin has to be part of the equation and the unprofitable customers cannot be summarily dumped?
By what criteria do you consider our health care system "half-public"? How is that measured? Even Obamacare, which the right delights in calling "government health care", is not truly government health care because the government is not the primary payer; private insurance agencies are collecting the premiums and making the disbursements.
By the criteria of control. Leaving aside the significant segment of the population on Medicare/Medicaid, we now have a ramshackle legal structure in place to dictate what must and must not be covered, imposes penalties on non-participants, creates taxes and doles out subsidies. If you can control all the significant decisions, than it's a government program in all but name. Calling that a free market seems disingenuous to me.
If you can control all the significant decisions, than it's a government program in all but name. Calling that a free market seems disingenuous to me.
That's a generous use of the term. By your definition, pretty much any public utility is a "government program". The local gas & electric company has to meet government pollution standards, by law must offer service in certain areas, cannot stop service to customers who are behind in their bills during certain months, must get permission to raise rates. And, yet, the profits accrue to ... not the government, but a publicly-traded corporation. Airlines are even more tightly regulated. Yet they also are not "government programs". Any insurance company/power company/airline that does not want to subject itself and its profits to such oversight is "free" to leave the market. Funny, not that many do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.