Randomness

[mistraltoes]

Problems with the router kept me off the 'Net for a couple of days; now Netscape crashes every time I sign into LJ. I'm using IE instead, though I hate to

Comments

[entropy_house]

I can't remember how many years ago I used to time commercials on TV shows with a stopwatch because my VCR took several seconds to start and stop, and wouldn't stay on pause for more than a minute so I needed to anticipate the end of the commercials (I had charts showing how many minutes long they usually ran), but I do remember how they started creeping up once the government lifted the restrictions on how many minutes of ad per hour are allowed.

And very quickly it destroyed mystery shows and others that need plot. At one time there were 8 minutes per hour of ads. About the time I gave up watching TV (more than 10 years ago) some programs had 18 minutes of ad, 2 minutes of intro music, etc, and 1 minute of credits, leaving 39 minutes for the show. You can't even introduce more than one murder suspect in that time!

[mistraltoes]

Many of the shows I watch are available on the network Web sites for a few weeks after they air. I've taken to watching those shows online, because while there's no way to fast-forward past the commercials, there's only one (about 30-second) commercial in each break.

[vilakins]

Get Firefox! It's quick, has tabs, and does spell-checking, and is my favourite browser (I also run Opera and IE7). astrogirl2's Netscape was crashing too, and she's changed over. :-)

[mistraltoes]

Ok, I'll try that, thanks. I did try to get Opera awhile back, but the download site wasn't working for me. :(

[kerravonsen]

BTW, am I the only one that thinks "tl;dr" is about the rudest abbreviation on the 'Net?

I've never come across it -- what does it mean?

[mistraltoes]

"Too long; didn't read." Mind you, if a person doesn't want to read a reply to them, fine. But dropping into a post just to say tl;dr, or saying you didn't read the post and then launching into a long reply, both strike me as rude.

[izhilzha]

Yeah, but then, the one place I've seen it indiscriminately used is by the FandomWank people, and given the material they're working with--it's still horribly rude, but vaguely understandable. :-)

[mistraltoes]

I see it only rarely, but it just... gah! And sometimes the replies attached to the "tl;dr" are longer than the post they couldn't be bothered to read. It's not the fact that they didn't read it that bothers me; it's that saying it seems so unnecessarily dismissive of the other person.

[izhilzha]

What is this "harshing the squee"? Sounds like a bad idea, whatever it is.

[mistraltoes]

Er. How to explain. Okay. Group A thinks that when they post squee in their journals, nobody should comment if they disagree--and they think everybody should know this intuitively about them. Group B thinks that if you leave your comments turned on, that's an invitation to a discussion, and if you don't want people to disagree, you should say so. I fall into group B, not only because that's how LJ functions, but because it's easier for one person to type "Only positive replies, please" than it is for potentially hundreds of readers to figure out whether the OP is a discusser or an agreement-only type. But of course, I am a big meanie for saying so.

[izhilzha]

Well, I think I'm in group B as well, because I like discussion. Otoh, I have seen people literally stomp all over someone's squee, and that's just as unforgivable, imho. Disagreeing politely or rationally is one thing; being spiteful is another.

If someone is squeeing and I don't agree, I'll either argue from canon why this is no cause for squee, or I'll leave them alone. Why should I pop their happy bubble?

Yeesh. LJ drama. *eyeroll*

[mistraltoes]

Disagreeing politely or rationally is one thing; being spiteful is another.

Absolutely. I think the problem is that there's been enough problem with the latter that people aren't stopping to distinguish it from the former. And people who are going to be deliberately nasty aren't going to be stopped by making up some new fannish "rule".

[jomacmouse]

Oh, and I <3 Bob

You'll have me looking for piccies on a website for that, if you aren't careful. I like the books so it would be interesting to see if it wasn't for the fact that I ought to be doing something else :-(

(Yes, since when did being conscientious ever stop anyone...)

[mistraltoes]

There are a couple of pictures of Bob here. Very tiny, but they enlarge nicely if you click on them.

The reviews I've seen of the show have been middling to poor (and apparently changed much from the books), but I think it's improved and have hopes the trend will continue. I've resisted reading the books so far because I'm a bit burned out on the fantasy PI genre, but I suspect I may change my mind and look them up.

[jomacmouse]

There are a couple of pictures of Bob

Oh. That's mildly disappointing. Well, it is if you've only read the books the show was made from, and you are expecting a quasi-animated skull with glowy eyes. That'll teach me about expectations. Again...

[mistraltoes]

There's still a glowy skull that the ghost-Bob is attached to. I suspect that with the small regular cast, they felt Harry needed a more visible companion to interact with.