|
|  |
|
 |
20.4.04
And you thought Teletubbies was bad!
Being a hard working member of the work force, I usually get to be blissfully unaware of the amazing drivel that is daytime television. I'm sure that some network executive out there thought long and hard before okaying a show that explores the deep metephysics behind exactly who is the father of a 3-year old kid whose mother has slept with every other man who are guests on every other talk show airing that morning. I can't accept the possibility that American minds have so deteriorated that this type of show is actually entertaining.
I have to wonder, though, if this is in fact the case, where did the society start breaking down. In the olden days, books were popular, to the point that epic classic novels were written to inspire and spark the imaginiations of those that read them. The generation resulting from that constant stimulation of the mind created arguably some of the quickest techological advances the world has seen, almost as if a second renassance had occured. Now, from the mental stimulus of Melville, Dickens, and Shelly, society has Ricky Lake to keep us company in the weekday mornings.
Surely this can't just have happened overnight, and surely this type of thing has to have it's roots in something picked up in childhood. Watching daytime TV this morning, I think I may have found the reason that people's attention spans have shrunk to microscopic sizes. Move over Barney, say goodbye to the Teletubbies, the UK has unleashed a new horror to young children's minds: Say hello to Boobah!. Really, if you haven't seen this show, I suggest you do, simply for the shock value. I know I found myself asking what crack these people were on when making this show. Besides resembling a very bad acid trip, the show really doesn't have any redeeming qualities. The show's creator insists that the show promotes mathematical concepts, geometry, language skills, as well as problem solving skills. Quit a feat for a show that features no words, and a very trippy monotonous musical "score" if you can call it that.
Actually, I first found the flash on Ebaums's World without knowing that there was actually a show that TV execs spent money on. In fact they spent money on 104 episodes of this show. I really need to find out how to get money like that. If this show can get funding, then I should be able to get money to do anything I want. I know....a new show featuring a camera aimed at a yard. As the grass grows, your child will be exposed to predictive skills "What do you think will happen to the grass over time?". Language skills: if your child already knows "green", you can introduce the word "verdant". Mathematical skills: Without words, your child will see one blade of grass growing right next to another, that's addition! Problem Solving: What will the grass need to grow? Imagination: What if the grass was actually poision ivy? . I mean it worked for Boobah.
What they seem to be missing is that it's actually the parent's involvement with the child that sparks learning.
16.4.04
I've been thinking lately, a very dangerous endeavor indeed, about several of my old theories from days gone by: ie. college. I had this crazy idea back then that perhaps the civilizations of the ancient world weren't quite as isolated as modern archaeologists think. Several things lead me to this conclusion: most prominently, the idea of dragons. There are oriental dragons, Celtic dragons, winged serpents of the central Americas, and various other dragons spattered across the tales of ancient history. Probably not all that spectacular, looked at from the perspective of today's world of instant global communication. But back when the most glamorous mode of transport was one's own legs, the fact that idea could spread globally is a bit impressive.
More impressive still is the idea that in all of the various cultures, the dragon/winged serpent represented almost a deity like control over creational chaos. Celtic legends tell of their part in the formation of the world, as do Oriental mythos. Even Native Americans acknowledge the winged serpent's role in celestial events. So the natural question is: how did these separate cultures, who supposedly had no contact with each other, come up with the same fanciful creature that has the same basic role cross-cultures?
As a mathematician, I can't believe it's just chance. And I can't think that modern archaeologists, looking at things thousands of years old, can't get the story right. No slight against them, it's just that their frame of reference is several centuries out of date for the things they're studying. It would be like an alien race coming to earth in the distant future and trying to figure out why records show that humans killed each other for little green slips of starched fiber with other dead human's faces on them. Some of their scientists would contend that in the late 20th century, a mythical ethereal system designed to send only two pieces of information, a '1' and a '0', existed that connected everyone in the civilization to everyone else. The rest of their scientists would say that no evidence of this obviously absurd "interworking network" exists though many fictional period pieces making reference to it survived through time, and they would be puzzled as to why humans apparently spent so much time sitting in front of a plastic box with a glass shield on it. Let's face it, if electricity ever fails, all of the information in the world can be sitting on computers, but there would be no way to access it.
So exactly why couldn't the civilizations of the past have had contact with each other just like they do today? What if the infrastructure that connected them just hasn't survived? We know there were many advanced ideas in the greatLibrary at Alexandria, which unfortunately were lost some 1600 years ago. Some 'new' geometric and mathematical formulas and proofs that are just being rediscovered now were thought to be held in thelibrary. What other information in that library has been lost that could shed light on this puzzle?
When looking at things, the interpreter's point of view will skew any reliable analysis.
5.4.04
Yvan eht nioj.
Advertisements. They're everywhere. I can see purpose for them in specific places: magazines, certain TV channels. But I fail to see the reason for their placement in things that really don't need the added revenue generated by adverts. One such place is in movie theaters when they're placed on the big screen before the previews. Now previews are another rant all to themselves, but really, with the amount made for the film companies in ticket sales alone, especially for blockbuster movies (where the concentration of corporate ads are) I really don't see where they're hurting for money.
Now some will argue, rightfully so, that the movie companies aren't making much (if anything) off these advertisements, but that the money does go to the theater that's showing the movie. I guess it's to offset lighting / heating / air conditioning costs. It's been my experience that there are other ways to offset those costs without resorting to showing ads to a captive audience. Let's take a look at the common modern theatre:
Usually, these days, you have to have at least a dozen or so individual screens that begin showing even the crappiest of movies at noon pretty much everyday. Now that's just not good business sense; here you have the expense of lighting and heating 12 very large rooms everyday beginning at noon and usually lasting until 1 or 2 in the morning. For ease of argument, let's say 12 hours. Now, your average person on Monday through Friday works until 5pm, meaning, they probably won't be able to see a movie until 6 or 7. Unless it's summer, kids are in school usually until 3 or 4 in the afternoon meaning, the vast majority of them won't be seeing movies until 5 or 6. So, if the theater opens at noon, that's 5 hours of operation (heating / electricity / salaries) for the one or two tickets that they sell during that time. Those 5 or so hours can't possibly be profitable.
If the theater owners would just not open until 5 or 6 in the evenings, they would be able to cut costs, and deliver a movie to more people, including the few people that would have been in the theater from noon till 5.
Well, they make the money up in concessions. Do they ever. The thing is, I don't buy movie concessions because they're so expensive. If they would just lower the price a little bit, they'd sell more of the products, and make more of a profit. They'd actually get people like me buying the popcorn and the soda as well as the people that are buying the stuff now. It would result in an overall increase in profit, and would make for a better movie experience for the customer: everybody wins.
That said, I want to send a big shout out to Mamma Celeste's Pizza's. "Ooo so fresh!" (Go buy one now.)
(Really, and tell them NetWatcher sent you.)
(I need that commission this month.)
1.4.04
A quick update to make things feel a little more "like home."
In other news, I really have never seen the point of April Fool's day. I mean, I'm sure there's some religious absolution for the existence of a day where one can commit a rather common, yet bad sin (lying) and completely rid oneself of the guild simply by shouting a few magic words (April Fools!) within a given time frame. Confessionals should not be near as crowded today as they are during the rest of the year. While this is viewing religious ramifications of the holiday from a purely human standpoint, I do rest in the knowledge that God, whomever, whatever, or whenever that may be does indeed celebrate this peculiar holiday...after all, I can find several instances of a higher being's "April Fools". I just have to turn on my TV and watch any news channel.
(NetWatcher's fair and balanced opinion. I report, you decide.)
|
|
 |
|
