l0rd

As I said in the post of mine you quoted, there are a few large companies that are willing to do all of the printing as long as you cut them a small share of your profits, Lulu being an example of one of these companies. Lulu is free, the only thing you pay for is the cost of paper and ink. It is very very cheap, and there is literally no room for loss. And that is the point: literature has fallen far, and placing it above television because "books have more merit" is a silly thing to do. Right here you are fusing two different contextual arguments into a concoction which does not represent my views. Neither books nor television should be objectively above one another, my opinions in this thread so far address two things: the illegitimacy of the art in television shows, and the possible detrimental effects of television viewing and culture. The original counterpoint of mine you are referring to was to make clear that there is an obvious greater selection of books. You are saying just because television hasn't had the oportunity to make as many shows as authors have books, that the advantage of selection in books is nullified. No, just because television has the handicapped of only existing for a century doesn't take away the advantage books have of selection. I never said the lack of selection was one of the reasons television is not a legitimate art form. Yes, in other arts there are many examples of "sell-outs", production and entertainment over creativity, etc. But I only consider these examples less legitimate than their counterparts. This is obvious in mainstream music, more and more musicians are "selling-out" for the masses, creating catchy, entertaining songs which they themselves don't even feel creatively attached to. In television, there is much more selectivity. Given the relatively small amount of shows on television, it would be in the best interest of television networks to only host these creatively lacking shows. I will admit, there are shows that do break this pattern, and are able to maintain good ratings while not sacrificing artistic legitimacy, but they are scarce.

Given the very definition of art, here is a few reasons why I would not consider television shows an art: -A show exists solely because of its income; a television network needs high ratings to make the most money from advertising. -Television shows are mass-produced: shows are usually pumping out 1 or more episodes weekly. I believe art can not be legitimately labeled as such if it is produced in such a way, and written on-the-spot like most show-writers do. -Entertainment over creativity. In what other form of art is expression de-prioritized for entertainment of the masses. This brings about the mainstream music argument as well. -Invocation of response from viewers is usually one of a few things: "tearjerky", suspense, laugh, sad, informative, thrilled. I will acknowledge that there are of course arts involved in the making of a television show, such as animation, interior-designing, and cinematography, but the above list applies to a show as a whole. Note: this list is made solely against the "Television is an Art" argument.

The dilemma in Ahmadinejad's head: "Do I let the citizens of my country make a fool of me by letting them uncover the rigged elections, putting me out of office, and not letting Iran's economy go down the drain, or do I allow my country to be turned upside down, economy turned to rubbish, and hundreds more to die from the social unrest, but keep the little amount of dignity I have. I'll choose the latter."

I found an IRC channel dedicated to the protest: server: irc.anonnet.org channel: #iran Don't be fooled by the title of the server, they are not affiliated with 4chan. Many of the people in the room are actually Iranians themselves, so it makes it interesting to get some first-hand opinions and experience. But due to anonymity in the channel, asking anyone if they are from Iran is prohibited.

That is what the private messaging system is for. ;) But anyways, I really enjoyed working with this weeks articles. I like how there are the two articles based on totally different things, but intersect in a common theme. Its almost like the authors planned this before starting their articles. =P~ Heh, the things I never knew existed...! :wall: I agree, I think this was a strong week and a good read. Shame everyone seems to be caught up in a Wikipedia flame war instead of commenting on the quality of articles. We all complained at the less popular ones, now there are good ones people complain about Wikipedia and it's (un)reliablity and ignore the articles?! Sheer brilliance...! Haha, next time the articles should be horrid so there is more room for critique!/sarcasm Just kidding, a horrid Times article is an oxymoron. /sucking up

Shexy ride bro. You pay for it?

Well, integrity or not, trying to shut it down will be a futile pursuit. There is a loophole which these free movie sites exist on: they do not host the movies, they merely provide the links to 3rd-party web pages that host them. You can, however, report the sites that they link to. But knowing the internet, even if you shut down all the links to one movie, new links will be back in no time.

[hide=Yep...][/hide]

The thread is titled "Detrimental Effects of Television," so one would assume that the thesis is "TV is bad" and here we are citing evidence to support it. But OK. Like Indy, book elitists annoy me, so I had to say something. My point is that I believe you are perceiving what I believe to be an opinion of hindsight, as a characteristic of elitism. Also, on your argument against Klankaos: Do you really believe the book reader has even a comparable amount of books to choose from as the tv-watcher does for television shows? The library of congress has over 32 million books. Has there even been ten-thousand television programs since the birth of the television? As for easiness of publishing, thousands of authors every year use the technology of the internet to publish their own books. I know two people personally who used a self-publishing website called Lulu.com for their books. As for mainstream publishing, there are far more publishers in the United States than there are television networks. And on average, each of these publishers publish an exponentially greater amount of authors than television networks do for television programs.

I got my first car 11 days ago. 1998 Honda Civic EX Coupe, 130k miles, got it for $2750, which is around 1k dollars less than the Kelly Blue Book value, simply because my step-dad knew the owner and cut me a deal. Supposedly Honda Civics last 300k+ miles. [hide=This is my car, but mine has a spoiler][/hide]

Vampire Weekend "White Sky" album is supposed to come out this year, it is kind of under the radar still though.

Its probably unhealthy to make a game so real that you start having crushes on NPCs. Runescape is fun, but everything is better in moderation. The music appreciator is there because Jagex made it and put it there.

I wouldn't think so. My grandfather taught himself those two languages (and others), and he speaks them both fluently.

I never said it wasn't said it wasn't a valid source of entertainment, because it sure as hell can be. But are you arguing that books are just as detrimental/beneficial as TV? I would argue that TV--good TV--is as beneficial as books. I think people tend to overlook the genuinely good creative efforts out there, because they sure can be drowned out in the stuff that isn't so great. Television can be as much of an art form as literature; the stories are simply conveyed through a different medium. And anyone who condemns television for an abundance of crap and holds up books like they are sacred is deluding himself. There is just as much blatant crap out there in the literary world. The difference is that we know where to look to find the good stuff. Having school courses dedicated to studying them and their place in a very long history helps. People don't have to filter through the crap, which makes it seem like it doesn't exist. It's a shame that no such opportunity exists for television. I'm not defending a lifestyle of sitting in front of the TV, because that's pretty obviously detrimental and there's no way to avoid the "bad stuff" that scheduled programming places in front of you. I'm just saying that there's more merit to TV than people give it credit for. I think most people opposed to television in general are trying to be elitist or sound like a smart-[wagon]. In this thread, we are weighing the good and the bad of television and labeling it as good, bad, detrimental, or beneficial based on which side of the scale is drooping down. Many horrible things do have their upsides, and just because someone is against the horrible thing doesn't mean they lack some hindsight that the supporters for this thing have. It can just mean they believe that the abundance of "horrible" far outweighs the "good".

Another reason I think television is bad is because of the false reality it impresses on a lot of people. I think because of the oversimplified resolutions, emotions, and characters found in television, people might, consciously or not, start to lead lives, or expect scenarios similar to those in television, making their life bland, shallow, and unfulfilled.

I never said it wasn't said it wasn't a valid source of entertainment, because it sure as hell can be. But are you arguing that books are just as detrimental/beneficial as TV?

The television's primary conception was as a tool for communication, similar to a fax machine. After its first prototype was eventually on the shelves and mass-produced, corporations began to think of more uses for the device. It soon ripened into the fruit which people all over the world indulge themselves in today. A black box, requiring nothing, but giving so much; the television soon became a commonplace in citizens of the world homes and lives. Is there anything to be gained from watching television? There is a myriad of shows, the corporations of which can only hope we will spend an hour of our day watching. You would hope people think of such a mindless indulgence as a complete waste, given their relatively short existence here on earth; however, the statistics show otherwise. My opinions on television and a computer are vastly different. The computer is dynamic in its nature in that it can really give you anything you want out of it, and unlike the computer, the television requires zero interactivity. Surprisingly, I was inspired to write this thread because of a company's commercial parodying this very thesis. [hide=The Commercial][yt]1m71m-LBqFQ[/yt][/hide] What is your opinion on television? Is it completely detrimental to the intellect of the human race, or am I taking it a bit too seriously?

Um...given its size, there is a lot of fluctuation in temperature. Currently in Barrow, Alaska it is 38F, and in Everglade National Park, Florida it is 91F.

Not true. Most of the deaths have been young, healthy adults. Contrary to regular flu, it doesn't seem to affect the elderly as much. [1] Although the H1N1 is most common in young adults, more life-threatening cases appear in adults ages 30-50.

I like it, minus the border of the image. It looks like a cross between a hydrogen cloud, a sliced geode, and bacteria.

That is what the private messaging system is for. ;) But anyways, I really enjoyed working with this weeks articles. I like how there are the two articles based on totally different things, but intersect in a common theme. Its almost like the authors planned this before starting their articles. =P~

w00t w00t, grats dark! :thumbup:

viewforum.php?f=12

That is basically what he is saying. Kind of the Nazi way of looking at things, minus the racism: kill all inferiors and we shall be a society of pure human beings. This kind of thinking makes me sick. We shouldn't quantify worth of life and use it as a judgment of right to live.

How near-sighted are these corrupt politicians?! Couldn't they foresee some kind of trouble with these unrealistic results? They should have made it 51%-49%.