Ahem. Is this thing on?
They can’t be serious. Or maybe they can. EW is claiming that talks have been in the works about a possible subscription system coming in 2010, although there will probably still be some free content.
Ugh. I thought the whole purpose of websites like Hulu was to add in commercial breaks, like you were watching in on TV, and thus the programming would remain free. It’s a small price to pay to watch TV on my computer like I would on TV.
Ok. So I’m not as outraged as I was when I first read that blurb on EW’s website. Maybe it’s because it’s not as shocking as I thought it would be. It seems that everything is going in the direction of “you must pay to use this service” crap.
But whatever, I guess.
There is no solid date as to when this will happen, but I expect maybe one of two things to happen. 1) it could take off immediately after the first of the year, OR 2) the system would have so many bugs that needed to be worked out that we wouldn’t see it until May or June.
What are your thoughts on free TV vs subscription services? Do you think you have to pay for something you’ve been getting free all along, or for something that you are ALREADY paying for through a cable service provider?
I just wanted to do a quick update today just to go through all the things that have happened so far this week. And let me tell you, gentle readers, it’s been a crazy one.
For starters, we have a new President-elect. I can’t explain how pleased I am at the turnout of this year’s election, and how excited I am to have been a part of such a historical event. Perhaps we’ll see some change. But either way, this is a good thing for our country.
Michael Crichton passed away yesterday because of Cancer. He was 66. He will be missed. He was the famed creator of ER and Jurassic Park, among other things.
You may have noticed there’s a sticky post at the top of this blog. It is to celebrate November being “National Novel Writing Month.” This is my first time doing something like this, and it’s pretty exhiliharating. So, you’ll be noticing random posts that don’t belong within the theme of this blog. I do recommend taking a look through those posts in order by the date they were posted. I’m trying to keep things as chronologically in step as I can. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
It is no secret that I’ve been working on a novel for awhile now… this is something outside of that. A completely different story, mostly because I only have 30 days (well, 24 now) to do it in, so it’s not about the editing… it’s just about the writing, which is very freeing.
So I urge you all to check out the official website for NaNoWriMo and help support literary abandon!
I love watching news reports about random things. Learning how disturbing people are, or how sane serial killers may actually seem…pure entertainment. I wasn’t really watching this particular show tonite, so I stumbled upon it while putting things away and getting ready for bed. Both psychological and disturbing…
Primetime: Basic Instinct is the name of the show. And tonites episode was essentially about how far a person will go when someone is directing them to do so. The willingness to shock a complete stranger for the sake of an experiment. 65% of men and 73% of women continued to experiment until the end, and chose to shock the stranger with 150 volts…fake volts. The experiment includes a test subject which is the person administering the shocks, the experiment administrator to coax the test subject into continuing and the learner who is being “shocked.”
The results of the first experiment proved that the test subjects who were uneasy early on were less likely to continue to the end, and also feel more responsible for the well being of the learner. Only one-third of test subjects refused to continue the experiment after hearing the learner scream in pain.
Can you be strong enough to resist a stranger giving you orders in person or over the phone? Why did they obey? Is there anything stopping people from obeying an authority figure? Will an accomplice in the picture acting with the test subject alter the results? With a moral guide is the a decrease in the compliance with the instructor any greater? The answer, normalcy is key. As long as the majority is not protesting, the experiment is more likely to continue. However, if there is more protesting than not, the abnormal thing is to complete the experiment, and it ends almost immediately.
The second part of the experiment involves a voice giving orders to the test subject, telling them to strip the other employee and search them, beat them and even get them to perform a sexual act. The above mentioned experiment was actually performed at a McDonalds a few years ago which ended in the parties involved in the sex acts being sentenced to 3-5 years.
This is the stuff psych students dream of, and it’s all here for the taking on tv waiting to be watched. The Millgram Experiment is the basis for the new studies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment. Also mentioned was the Stanford Prison Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment.
Both Millgram and Zimbardo were condemned for experimenting on humans and exploding the stress factors in situations where the decision is up to the subject.
“All the is neccessary for evil to succeed is for regular people to do what they are told.” A frightening notion, but it couldn’t be more true.