Messages

I was listening to a podcast today that reminded me of the old 1984 Apple commercial. Anybody else remember this? I guess despite costing $1.6 million ($800,000 to make it, $800,00 for the Super Bowl ad spot), it was only shown on TV once.

And if you want to know more than you ever wanted to know about a commercial, check out the Wikipedia entry.

EDIT: I just realized that the version I linked to has a digitally-added iPod. Gotta love technology!

I've always felt that celebrities have just as much right to share their opinion as anybody else.

I don't have an issue with celebrities holding an opinion or sharing it if they're answering interview questions or participating in some sort of panel discussion. I do start to have a problem when they abuse their positions as celebrities to foist their opinions on us, they act as authorities on topics they know nothing about, and/or they do/say controversial things simply to generate media attention to revive flagging careers.

Obviously there are intelligent, informed celebrities out there, but in general, I don't know where this idea comes from that they have anything intelligent to say about social and political policy or why we should pay any more attention to them than any other shlub on the street. So some drunk guy gets pulled over and launches into an anti-semitic and racist tirade. Who cares! Wait, the drunk guy was Mel Gibson? Well then, this is a serious issue!

The worst part about it is that the attention these incidents get keep us focused on the superficial aspects of the problem. Racism is a much more deeply-rooted and insidious problem than whites and blacks calling each other "niggers" and "crackers." Yet when this stuff gets plastered all over the news, the rest of us can take false comfort in the fact that since most people don't go around spewing racial slangs with impunity, racism really isn't that big of a problem.

It's for reasons like this that, personally, I think we should keep celebrities bound and gagged in a closet until it's time for them to do their scenes in front of the camera. When I saw the video, my first reaction was, "wow, yet another celebrity has a public meltdown." This puts Michael Richards in a select category with Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Winona Ryder, Mariah Carey, and many, many, many more ....

Really, there are enough problems in the world without some raving, washed-up TV star trying to make commentary on society. Who cares what he says? Instead of debating whether it's worse for a white person to use racial slang on a black person or vice versa, or whether we should call black people "black" (like the ABFF does), or "negro" (like the UNCF does), or "colored" (like the NAACP does), let's agree that Richards is an idiot, racism is bad, and get on with productive lives.

you are a product of a culture where TV can make you a more intelligent person.

I've never claimed that television can't make you more intelligent, just that you've got to get away from the mainstream, market-driven stuff and seek out the quality content.

DVD commentaries. Perfect example of how multiple threads are being tracked. Firstly, The Simpsons itself is show that requires a lot of intertextuality to understand it. But secondly, you're following that plus the DVD commentary tracks .... there's a lot of infomation being presented when you're watching both show and commentary track. If I were to draw a chart showing how all this information is pieced together, if would be very fucking complex. But somehow I'm able to follow it all.

I don't really see how this disproves my previous arguments. I see the commentary tracks as replacing a layer of information, not adding a new one (i.e, visual stays the same, audio is replaced). You're still processing just as much information listening to the commentary track as you are listening the dialogue track. You're not really watching the show and the commentary, it's either one or the other. If there are three different audio tracks, you just can't turn on all the streams and watch the show once, you'll have to watch it three times to get all the information. Sure, you end up with more information in the end, but you'll have to invest more time and effort in the process.

It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent .... The additional content seems inconsequential to the plot but that's besides the point. It's not additional content or the plot that's aiding our intelligence. It's what the additional content and plot does: they help us relate things together and they train us to form these links faster.

I see what you're saying, but do you really think this is what mainstream media is doing? Sure, the geek who buys all the Star Wars spin-offs is piecing together a picture of the whole Star Wars "universe" from variety of different media, but it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, any knucklehead can buy anything with a Star Wars logo on it, each with it's clearly-defined place within the continuity, and get the picture. That's a far step from collecting pieces of disparate information, somehow linking them together, and forming some sort of conclusion. It's not even putting a round peg in a round hole, it's picking up a round peg with a label that says "put me in the round the hole."

Thanks Darth. A Happy Thanksgiving to you and the rest of the forum! Try not to each too much turkey today ... aw heck, go ahead!

50 years ago there wasn't a show like The Daily Show. It's an advanced form of news show ....

... But you've just brought a conflict in your statements. You said news satire requires an understanding of the subject being satirised but it doesn't encourage study of the subject.  How else does one "get" the Daily Show? THere has to be some encouragement to follow regular news if you're going to follow The Daily Show.

I don't disagree that the Daily Show is entertaining television, and not without value. But ....

- I'd suggest that the Daily Show is not mainstream television. First, it's carried on the Comedy Channel, a niche channel high up in the dial of cable channels. I suspect that if it had been left up to major networks, we would have never seen a show like the Daily Show. Second, I'd be interested in seeing it's viewer numbers and demographics compared to a normal news program. I don't doubt that it's popular, especially by the standards of a niche cable channel, but I bet that many, many more people watch only your typical network news, or that the audience tuning into the Daily Show is markedly different from that watching your average news show. Third, the format of the Daily Show remains unique among the countless number of network news shows and the half-dozen or so cable channels dedicated solely to news. Hardly evidence that this style of show has been adopted by the mainstream. In short: of those people tuning in to their evening news, the vast majority are still watching the same drivel that the networks have always pumped out. Those tuning into the Daily Show are probably more advanced viewers to begin with. I'd probably place this show into the category of what's available out there if you get past prime-time, network television.

- As for my conflicting statements, I see the Daily Show as satirizing other news programs, not the news itself. Sure it pokes fun at newsworthy items, but Wikipedia mentions some studies that suggest that the Daily Show actually contains as much factual information as normal news programs. The fact that one can stay just as informed from watching a comedy show as they can from watching mainstream news programs is hardly an endorsement of the intelligence of mainstream television. And I'll attest to it: the vast majority of the content in the evening news shows and on the cable news networks is simply drivel. That why I stay informed through alternate mediums (print and the internet).

These are  progressive evolutions of shows. You can't tell me that a soap opera or Dallas are as complex as something like 24.

Honestly, I don't know. How does one quantitatively compare television from 10, 20, 50 years ago to today? The world has changed dramatically in the past 50 years - heck, in the past 10 years - and the growth of technology has brought it all into our living rooms and exposed us to it like never before. The Vietnam War was the first "televised" war, and we've since progressed to  "embedded" news crews with nightvision cameras broadcasting live feeds from tanks as they roll through the battlefield. The internet has largely eliminated national boundaries, giving people exposure and access to information, viewpoints, and culture from all over the world. Cultural views and acceptance of women, minorities, and people of alternative sexual preference have changed dramatically. We can send email from our mobile phones while standing in line for coffee, or watch DVD movies in our car, or check our stocks and trade them during our lunch hour. None of this was fathomable, what, even 15 or 20 years ago?

If you can somehow factor out this baseline progression of society, would we actually find today's television more intelligent? The original Star Trek series was quite innovative for it's time, and (ironically) not very successful. But now that ideas like warp drives, teleporation ("beaming"), mobile flip-top communications devices, and mixed-gender multi-racial casts are accepted as normal, it seems rather silly now. But really, if you stop and look, pretty much every popular sci-fi show on TV today is basically a derivative of this 40-year old program.

How about Charlie's Angels, which at the time was a big step for woman's lib in casting capable, competent woman as lead characters? Today it seems rather silly and sexist (though still better than those ridiculous movies ). Maybe the closest comparison today is a show like Will & Grace, which was innovative in having a main character that was gay,  and has subsequtnly led to an explosion of television shows with prominent gay characters. Personally, what little of the show I watched seemed rather silly to me (cue canned laugh track), and I find that the mainstream's portrayal of gay men in general only entrenches the sterotype of them as being feminine and "swishy." I guess it's better than nothing, but let's not kid ourselves and say that the audience is being challenged with the idea of homosexuality.

I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence ... I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.

But that's my point: they have to engage you with such a show using certain methods. Not only that, you can't just limt your viewing of this theory to just one show, but a complex web of media. Shows these day are more connected than they were many decades ago.

I really don't get this argument. To me, it's like saying the new Star Wars movies are more complex because of the glut of promotional marketing and spin-off material surrounding it. Sure, I could go out and read the books, watch the cartoons, play the video games, buy the action figures, and build the Lego sets that explain who all the new, random, previously-unintroduced characters in Episode III are. But why? Even if I do know who General Greivous is, where he came from, which Jedi he killed, and his past relationship with Anakin and Obi-Wan, it's all completely inconsequential and meaningless with respect to the plot. The film is 45 minutes of movie and 2 hours of promotional tie-ins. It's a completely substanceless attempt to make me go by all the spin-offs and put more of my money into Lucas's pocket.

Lost isn't quite as bad, but in a similar vein. Take the episode I saw: a resue mission. How is it more complex if I have to see the previous episode to know who they're trying to rescue (and the episode before that to know who kidnapped him and why, etc. etc.)? And really, does it matter, or is just a ridiculously complex MacGuffin? What are the issues in the episode itself? The guy leading the rescue feels compelled to atone for his past sins. OK, got it. Pretty typical stuff. But it sure is tempting to go buy all the previous episodes on DVD and find out what the back story is, especially given that it is entertaining television. I'll admit, it's damn good marketing.

An example of someone getting it right? The Blair Witch Project. The website and the TV special, which detailed the "recovery" of the video tapes and developed the mythology of the Blair Witch, contributed context and understanding to the movie, and in portraying these events as real, also heightened the atmosphere and scariness of it. But while they may have enhanced the movie-watching experience, at the same time they were completely periphery to it and weren't required to appreciate or understand it, nor did they require me to spend a bunch of money on a slew of promotional junk. But then again, Blair Witch wasn't a mainstream movie production, and it's sequel - which was - was a bust.

I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline ... look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order.

But this is another good example. Not many TV dramas of the past were able to explore political issues. I can't think of another show that did the same as The West Wing.

But you just said it yourself: no other show has done what West Wing did. These two shows clearly stand out as quality prime-time programming and as such are in a select minority. Law & Order is one of the longest-running shows on TV, and all the shows derived from it - Cold Case, CSI, Without A Trace, it's own spin-offs (Criminal Intent, Special Victims Unit), and I'm sure others that I can't think of - are quite clearly inferior, often without any real substance, and incredibly popular. And I'm sure if we looked at shows no longer on TV, we'd come up with a much bigger list of derivative, formulaic TV shows that haven't survived.

But that's the issue. Forget the technology. The visual stimulus has become harder to follow. Even with a live feed from a reporter in mid-battle still has a scroll bar and headlines while the reporter talks. You'll notice they don't suddenly cut to a full screen view.

You're right, the visual stimulus is harder - there's more crap on the screen blinking, scrolling, flashing at me - but it doesn't mean I'm processing any more of it. Actually, I'm suggesting that it might even be worse than this. Instead of being able to focus on and process the one or two things of interest to me, once some point of "overload" is reached, I may not be processing any of the information as well as if there was just one or two things on the screen.

It's like looking at a Christmas tree. Yes, you can see the glittery, sparkly, flashing prettiness of it in its entirety, but you're certainly not processing every little light and decoration. Try counting and identifying the individual decorations and lights, or even making out the physical shape of the tree itself! Not so easy (or even possible) until I reduce the flow of information and show you the tree and each light and decoration individually. More isn't necessarily better - and in fact, it can be worse!

The army relies on a lot of conditioning techniques and repetition to improve performance on a single task. So, they use computer technology to filter external info for pilots to help them be better pilots. Great. But how does that help with other problm-solving tasks. How does that allow them to become creative thinkers and enhance their options at solving a problem?

It just seems to be: focus on this, become a better pilot, repeat. That doesn't represent intelligence. I believe intelligence relates to free thinking and opening your mind to possibilities.

It's like a guy who uses a hammer, and is so focused on using a hammer, that he becomes the best hammer-guy in the world. But what happens when he comes accross a screw. He's fucked!

Actually, I can't believe you're comparing flying a jet plane to hammering in a nail! They're not at all comparable! Forget that I mentioned the military - I only mentioned them because, as far as I know, they're the first to take a serious look at this (I don't have the article available to reference). But I'm certainly not talking about some sort of brain-washing or conditioning exercise. Really, what I'm talking about is applicable to any task requiring one to process an large amount of information.

Operating a modern jet requires processing a huge amount of information, drawing conclusions based on it, and responding accordingly. Have you seen the cockpit of an airplane? Just a mass of instruments and controls. Yes, I'm sure the pilot can tell you what every one of them does and what their importance is, but are you honestly going to tell me that he's capable of monitoring all of those at the same time while flying the plane? Now let's throw in some sort of complexity, like landing the plane, or (going back to a military example) dodging a missile. All that information isn't necessarily useful, and in fact I'm sure a large portion of it is extraneous and nothing more than a distraction given the specific task at hand.

What I'm talking about is an "intelligent" system that temporarily filters out the extraneous, non-useful information until you've resolved the situation. Maybe nothing more than a dynamic display that puts only the instrumentation of concern on screen, or places the instrumentation of concern front and center while moving the rest to a secondary, periphery position. The studies that have been done suggest that if you can remove the extraneous stuff, even just temporarily, and allow the person to focus on and process only information relevant to a specific task, performance improves.

Let's go to a much simpler example: the growth in complexity of your average, ordinary VCR/TV/DVD remote. Yes, those mass of buttons allows you to program a countless number of cool, new features ... but how many people actually figure out how to use them? Moreover, how many people can't even figure out how set the clock on their machines anymore? Or how many times have you seen somebody hunt for the volume button or the channel changer button? Yes, with these new-fangled remotes that give us a wealth of information and unprecedented control over our machines, it actually takes us longer to figure out which button to press to change the channel!

Again I say, all that additional information and visual complexity on the screen isn't evidence of our ability to process information any better - in fact it may be hurting us!

But people are allowed to experiment.

I'd be a little careful here. We're influenced by survivorship bias. Of course the shows that survive are popular, and generally stand out as better-quality, more innovative programming (though not always). But let's not forget that something like 70%-80% of all shows never even last half the season. I think what we're seeing is something more along the lines of throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.

24 is experimentation ... Lost is pretty unique too.

I'll accept that 24 is novel, but I'd suggest that Lost is cashing in on the 24 formula, with it's a continuing storyline spanning the entire season (and longer).

The Sopranos. Six Feet Under.

I'd be careful about lumping HBO series and their ilk into the same category as network television. Channels like this already have a paying audience (something the networks don't have) happily tuning in to watch movies, and shows like Soprano and Six Feet Under are pretty much sauce for the goose. They have the ability to experiment more than the networks, since not everything is riding on having a successful primetime hit. Furthermore, they don't have to answer to advertisers and the FCC, allowing them to tackle subject matter (and include violence and language) that the networks can't touch.

What about The Daily Show? Colbert Report? They're experiments in comedy combined with news.

I already discussed the Daily Show as being outside the mainstream. The Colbert Report is a spin-off of the already-successful Daily Show, not an experiment in my book. Stick with the lady that brought you, as they say.

Matt Groening was allowed to experiment with The Simpsons.

Generally against the desires of the studio, or with their deep reservations, if the commentaries on the DVDs are to be believed. I find that shows like this tend to succeed despite the mascinations of the networks. Many critically-acclaimed shows end up dying because the networks, convinced they won't succeed, mess with their scheduling to ensure they won't (anyone remember Freaks and Geeks, or Firefly?).

Also, let's not forget that the Simpsons was spun off from the Emmy-award winning Tracy Ullman show, hardly a risk from that perspective. And while the Simpons itself may have been an experiment, it has since created the "primetime adult cartoon" formula and led to the subsequent growth of primetime cartoon shows, like for example ...

South Park anyone?

Which, like the Daily Show, has succeeded on a niche cable channel. This show wasn't a complete shot in the dark either, as it was inspired by the underground popularity of the Spirit of Christmas (which also apparently won an LA Film Critics award).

Even the highest-rated show in the US, Dancing with the Stars, is something of an experimentation.

You mean, yet another reality TV show?

Take a look at all the cable channels that focus on popular television (which excludes specialty/educational channels like Animal Planet, History Channel, National Geographic, etc). I'd say that 95% or more of their content is either reruns of popular network shows or frequently-run, ratings-friendly movies. The TNT network basically shows Law & Order reruns every night from 5-10pm. Bravo is one reality show after another. Where's the experimentation? Battlestar Galactica (itself a remake, though somewhat innovative in its production), the Daily Show, South Park ... just a handful of "challenging" non-network shows from dozens and dozens of channels!

With few exceptions, our programming continues to be fed to us by the networks (or the hollywood studios, or the big-name game companies, etc.) using their marketing numbers to push their formulaic shows or looking at their "surprise success" stories (reality TV, primetime cartoons, etc.) to develop new formulas and push an endless number of derivatives.

Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones

Unfortunately, I think this period of history has already come and gone.

I'm surprised you feel this way. I think that as the idea of using the internet to disseminate content at low cost catches on, we're actually entering an age where anybody can create and distribute stuff regardless of what kind of audience they expect to have. Look how podcasts and video blogs (vblogs?) have taken off. Some of them are as good as any radio show or public television show, content-wise they might be better, and some of them cover topics that networks wouldn't touch in a million years. Go and explore, I'm sure you'll be surprised at what you find.

MI2 ending with the big whoop theme park. Stupid stupid stupid.

Really? I loved that ending! That's like the only ending of an adventure game that stands out in my mind.

Now, the ending to MI3 ... what a nightmare. Although I thought the whole game was a pretty weak attempt at "explaining" MI2. Too bad we'll never no what Ron Gilbert was really thinking ....

I like the patch idea: it can go on your clothes, your baggage, your pillow, your.... blow up doll........   

Hehehehe!!! It works as a puncture repair kit!

Or you could slip it under a door to catch a ... ooops, wrong discussion.

I think a big blue cup would actually be pretty cool. Putting a label on it would seem to ruin the purity of it, but like Domino says, it does seem like it needs something to distinguish it.

I wouldn't use a mousepad ... I'm all about optical mice. But I might buy a fine leather jacket.

That's exactly my point. I don't consider the History Channel to be mainstream, but it's a perfect example of the type of useful content that's out there if you look for it.

I think the growth of niche programming has been a huge boon to the consumer. It's a trend that I think will grow as broadband internet continues to spread and podcasting and internet television become more popular and accessible. Highly-specialized, low-budget content will be able to succeed with an audience of just a few thousand people.

Heck, even these forums - giving a voice to a scattered, niche community and allowing them to share and discuss ideas - is an example of what's possible, and I think perhaps an example of where we'll see more popular media begin to go.

It's also in the Doctor Who game (well, the demo at least) that's currently in production. But don't let that stop you from trying it out. I still think it's a fun, little demo.

Good work! Can we see the final result?

people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels.

I don't find anything surprising about this result. People tend to remember stuff better if the person trying to remember it is engaged in the information. Think of the bottom-of-the-class student who can't remember any of the lessons but can ramble off years of sports stats with ease. I'd expect the Daily Show, which engages its audience with laughter - a very positive, memory-building stimulus - to be much more interesting and memory-enhancing than the regular news.

News satire had the same educational value as regular news, and ... people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better

Of course. Satire requires understanding of the subject being satirized.

people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news.

I'll admit, this is surprising. I have no desire to watch the regular news after watching the Daily Show.

if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it.

See, this is where I disagree. People point to the explosion of shows with long story arcs (Lost, 24, Alias, etc.) as proof of "growing complexity." But I disagree for several reasons:

1. Shows like this (endless, constantly-evolving story arcs) have existed for quite a long time, in the form of afternoon soap operas, prime-time soaps (anyone remember Dallas?), and arguably even professional wrestling (which is usually more about the story arcs than the wrestling, and frequently referred to as "soap opera for men"). And if you look at other media - comic books spring to mind, but also old radio serials and saturday matinee sci-fi serials at the movie theaters - this form of story-telling has existed for decades, and traditionally been directed at kids!

2. I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence. As DVD sales of television series has taken off, I think it's more likely a commitment to boost profits. I don't normally watch Lost, but I caught an episode recently. I thought it was interesting, and I was able to piece together some of characters' motivations, but ultimately I really didn't know what was going on. I don't think it means I'm dumb or that the show was unusually complex, I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.

3. I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline. Lost may have a complex storyline stretching back to the beginning of the show, but what happens in each episode? The one I saw was relatively simplistic - a rescue mission, with a couple flashbacks to explain motivation. But look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order. Minimal tie-ins between each episode, yet individually each one raises questions about and debates issues of public policy, law, and ethics. West Wing obviously puts a liberal/Democratic spin on it, Law & Order generally makes a convincing arguement for both sides and usually doesn't provide any answers (leaving the viewer to form their own conclusions, or learn more about the issue themselves).

News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.

Again, I disagree:

1. Let's not confuse advance in technology with increased complexity. In the 50's, you didn't have live satellite feeds. Now you do. And cutting to a poor reporter standing in the middle of a hurricane or riding on a tank in the middle of a battlefield is much more compelling television than someone in a studio talking about the devastation. It's all about visual stimulus.

2. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the perception that we're better able to process this "glut" of information is a huge fallacy. I hope you don't mind if I quote myself:

... just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.

Fundamentally, we are still only able to process one subject at a time. When I'm reading the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I'm not focusing on what the announcer is saying, and vice-versa. There may be more information on the television screen, but I'm still only following one thread. Furthermore, our minds require a certain amount of dwell time to absorb a particular subject, comprehend it, and remember it. Jumping erratically from subject to subject doesn't improve our intelligence, but instead degrades it. In the end, maybe all that information on the screen isn't helping us!

Finally, let me just say that I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've come to learn that tone can be easily misinterpreted through the written word, so I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I don't want to see this discussion end in an unintentional flame war because of some falsely-perceived insult!

I think I actually like just the black and white better.

I have to disagree with Scumbuddy, I think you should make the 'I' solid. Splitting it breaks style with the other letters. I didn't really notice the 'N' before, but it looks better normal.

I think you should try to split the letters apart more. The way the 'I' and 'N' are connected, they look like a 'W'. I think if you split all the letters apart a bit more it would greatly improve legability. You can still keep the pointy forms if you separate the letters, just have them "slice" completely through the white space. Am I making sense?

Where is the leader of the world's only true democracy?

Uh ... what?

If, like me, you pretended to be a policemen, you have to use a different method.

"Door, meet hand-cannon." *Boom! Boom! Boom!* Problem solved!

I once shoved the end of a scissors into the keyhole and twisted the whole locking mechanism until the lock disengaged. My parents weren't too happy with how the door ended up (I was pretty young at the time), but it got me in. Does that count?

I agree with Ali. It's a good start, but it looks a little unfinished.

The Stalin is extremely hard to read. I saw your picture before reading your post, and I couldn't figure it out until I started reading. I think you need to distinguish the letters from the background to make it more clear.

The hardness and industrialness of the colors is belied by the fact that it looks like scraps of paper arranged in a pattern.

I think if you wanted to make it more "aggressive," maybe try having the letters look like they're scorched into the surface - maybe as if they've been etched into a rusted steel wall with a blowtorch.

studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.

The other side of this is that, even if you can show a correlation between more intelligent television (and I don't know how, or if, Johnson makes a quantitative assessment of this) and higher intelligence, that hardly goes to cause-and-effect. Are we getting smarter because of better television, or is television getting better because we're smarter?

But as I pointed out in my earlier post, I remain skeptical that mainstream media has gotten any smarter, or even that we as humans have gotten more intelligent. I think the advance of technology-driven media provides unprecedented opportunities for people to educate themselves and develop themselves personally and professionally, but to take advantage of it I think you have to look outside the mainstream and actively pursue the useful content.

Like, not make the kids/n00bs appologise, or put it somewhere in the rules that an appology will not be accepted

How about a sticky "I'm sorry" thread?

Laziness??

It doesn't (at least for me) have anything to do with that.  For me, 'twenty OH six' just feels awkward and gangly.

Sure, but I think the original point/question was, why do we say "nineteen hundred" but not "twenty hundred"? "Nineteen hundred" is obviously easier/quicker than "one thousand nine hundred". But "twenty hundred" is actually longer to say than "two thousand".

For the single-digit years, "two thousand six" and "twenty oh six" take just as much work, so we stick with what feels more natural. But as you suggested, I would expect us to switch to "twenty ten" when we hit 2010.

As for awkwardness and gangliness, I can't think of anything that beats "twenty one oh one", but I don't think you'll find anybody saying it any other way! ("Two kay one oh one" maybe?)

Once it's 2010 it's "twenty ten" and so on ... but below ten it sounds odd to say "it's twenty OH six" so I usually just say "two thousand six" instead.  I can't wait for 2010 so I can start saying "twenty ten"

It's all about laziness. We say "nineteen oh six" because it would take forever to say "one thousand nine hundred six." But it takes just as much work to say "two thousand six" as "twenty oh six" (count the syllables). "Twenty ten" however is quicker than "two thousand ten." I think our ancestors can look forward to saying "twenty one hundred" and "twenty one oh one", etc, etc.

Anyway, you're all hopelessy unhip. You should be saying "two kay six"!

Nice video! I even liked the effects. But I agree that the compression is pretty bad, especially for the audio. This would really benefit from a better-quality version.