The Market Rules
Over the weekend I had a discussion with a friend concerning the change in how creative content is distributed. He torrents everything, I stream everything. And we chuckled over how little the studios can force crap upon us, now.
Except TV. Because no one will support a TV show that doesn't bring in ad revenue.Since Scyfy was bought, it stopped being the place for science fiction, etc. Quality programming isn't as important as marginally associated content that's cheap and gives lots of time for ads.
And if a show chooses something other than studio production it too has to at least reimburse the bankroller. I guess that explains why Sanctuary is ending. Space is filled with Star Trek and Stargate, science fiction movies and...Hollywood Treasure? That's not even an alternate history Hollywood, either; it's a reality show.
There are lots of geeky movies coming out, granted they're mostly based on novels (graphic and regular) or other franchises, but at least they're NEW.
If the nerds and geeks and technophiles are all happily torrenting and netflixing (netflicking? netflixating?) then there's noone watching TV shows that cater to them. And without someone bankrolling it there's no Netflix, is there? Until there's a season, there's no streaming, and until there's streaming there aren't enough watching for another season.
It's a Catch-22.
Hey, anyone want to greenlight that for a redo?
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Favor Sexualis Tuus Definire Est
Sexual Preference is Yours to Define
It's impossible to change what you're attracted to, but we're not simple animals and we do not have to act upon that attraction. Perhaps that is where the concept of reparative therapy gained its traction. Perhaps wanting to not be gay made it possible for men and women to not act on their desires and to simulate desire for the opposite sex. But whether you're attracted to men, women or both is not a choice.
What is a choice is the term used to define your sexuality. And that choice is from a vast, complex field of possibilities...and you don't even have to define it if that's what's best for you. For you, not for anyone else. Because whatever your attraction, it's no one's right but yours to define
.
It seems easy, doesn't it, to think of others in singly-defined sexualities: there are lesbians and gays and straights and bis and asexuals. (NOTE: because this is about sexual preference and not gender identity I do not include in this list intersexed or trans* people.) But is that because we each of us know our own identities are perfectly clear cut? Is the Kinsey scale wrong in announcing a spectrum or two of sexuality? Of course not. In our own heads we know we're this or that but with caveats and exceptions...or not.
The choice to define, and the possibility of a personal definition that doesn't jibe with what others observe, can cause a lot of grief. And explaining the dissonance between attraction and orientation can cause a lot of grief. And there's enough grief just from coming to terms with an alternative attraction to begin with.
What I'm saying is don't use a label that you've not heard someone use for themselves. And stop calling me bi.
It's impossible to change what you're attracted to, but we're not simple animals and we do not have to act upon that attraction. Perhaps that is where the concept of reparative therapy gained its traction. Perhaps wanting to not be gay made it possible for men and women to not act on their desires and to simulate desire for the opposite sex. But whether you're attracted to men, women or both is not a choice.
What is a choice is the term used to define your sexuality. And that choice is from a vast, complex field of possibilities...and you don't even have to define it if that's what's best for you. For you, not for anyone else. Because whatever your attraction, it's no one's right but yours to define
.
It seems easy, doesn't it, to think of others in singly-defined sexualities: there are lesbians and gays and straights and bis and asexuals. (NOTE: because this is about sexual preference and not gender identity I do not include in this list intersexed or trans* people.) But is that because we each of us know our own identities are perfectly clear cut? Is the Kinsey scale wrong in announcing a spectrum or two of sexuality? Of course not. In our own heads we know we're this or that but with caveats and exceptions...or not.
The choice to define, and the possibility of a personal definition that doesn't jibe with what others observe, can cause a lot of grief. And explaining the dissonance between attraction and orientation can cause a lot of grief. And there's enough grief just from coming to terms with an alternative attraction to begin with.
What I'm saying is don't use a label that you've not heard someone use for themselves. And stop calling me bi.
Monday, 7 May 2012
Latinus Mortuus Sed Anglicus Vivus Est
Latin is Dead But English is Alive
I am not a stickler for grammar. I really don't care if someone mistakes fewer and less or take and bring (except that I keep track in my head for conversations with Grammar Sticklers). I care about your/you're, their/they're/there, etc., though, because one should not need to reread basic sentences to figure out what the hell is going on. That's why attention to spelling and grammar is important. UR might seem nice and easy, but is it you are or yer (your)? I type "yer" sometimes 'cause sometimes I say yer. (I also occasionally type "yers" instead of yes, but only in text messages.) Numbers replacing words is sometimes okay, but is 4 supposed to be four or for? People who use textspeak really should proofread their missives for clarity, but if they're using this slang they probably don't feel they have time to make sure they're clear.
But isn't that the reason for sentence structure?
Case in point: I had to retype a Facebook comment because I typed "to" instead of "too". There is a great deal of confusion that can be caused by mixing up the two because (and promise not to tell any Grammar Sticklers out there) I split my infinitives.
Why do I split my infinitives, you ask? Because attempting to shoehorn Latin "rules" into the English language is absolutely ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that word order in Latin is not really consequential for the most part, the "split infinitive" rule would imply that the Latin preposition "ad" is used for infinitives, which it is not. Each infinitive verb in Latin is denoted by a single form of the verb. It's impossible to "split" a Latin infinitive since they didn't use spaces between words, or punctuation; if you add a word into an infinitive it would change the word completely (therefore, absofrigginglutely is impossible, unfortunately).
So, I split my infinitives, because emphasis is much more important to me than following made up grammatical rules--"to boldly go" sounds a lot better than "to go boldly".
But because I split my infinitives, I need to carefully guard my use of "to". "Too boldly go" sounds like a command to saunter forth very confidently, it's not the same as how one conducts one's mission "to boldly go" . And making that use clear is important.
Making your speech or writing clear is important--in fact, as far as I can see, it's the only important use of grammar, spelling and sentence structure. It is perhaps fun to catch out errors in published works, or to determine how much more "correct" a rephrasing could be; but it's no more important than identifying the ten differences between pictures in a children's magazine. So I should appreciate it if those who, like me, adore words, would be so kind as to shut the hell up about the rules of grammar that do not apply and are not necessary in modern communication. Encouraging interest in communication, reading and writing cannot be accomplished by tying down the eager with restrictive rules and regulations. If it could there would be more Math majors, instead of less.
Grammar is dead, long live grammar.
I am not a stickler for grammar. I really don't care if someone mistakes fewer and less or take and bring (except that I keep track in my head for conversations with Grammar Sticklers). I care about your/you're, their/they're/there, etc., though, because one should not need to reread basic sentences to figure out what the hell is going on. That's why attention to spelling and grammar is important. UR might seem nice and easy, but is it you are or yer (your)? I type "yer" sometimes 'cause sometimes I say yer. (I also occasionally type "yers" instead of yes, but only in text messages.) Numbers replacing words is sometimes okay, but is 4 supposed to be four or for? People who use textspeak really should proofread their missives for clarity, but if they're using this slang they probably don't feel they have time to make sure they're clear.
But isn't that the reason for sentence structure?
Case in point: I had to retype a Facebook comment because I typed "to" instead of "too". There is a great deal of confusion that can be caused by mixing up the two because (and promise not to tell any Grammar Sticklers out there) I split my infinitives.
Why do I split my infinitives, you ask? Because attempting to shoehorn Latin "rules" into the English language is absolutely ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that word order in Latin is not really consequential for the most part, the "split infinitive" rule would imply that the Latin preposition "ad" is used for infinitives, which it is not. Each infinitive verb in Latin is denoted by a single form of the verb. It's impossible to "split" a Latin infinitive since they didn't use spaces between words, or punctuation; if you add a word into an infinitive it would change the word completely (therefore, absofrigginglutely is impossible, unfortunately).
So, I split my infinitives, because emphasis is much more important to me than following made up grammatical rules--"to boldly go" sounds a lot better than "to go boldly".
But because I split my infinitives, I need to carefully guard my use of "to". "Too boldly go" sounds like a command to saunter forth very confidently, it's not the same as how one conducts one's mission "to boldly go" . And making that use clear is important.
Making your speech or writing clear is important--in fact, as far as I can see, it's the only important use of grammar, spelling and sentence structure. It is perhaps fun to catch out errors in published works, or to determine how much more "correct" a rephrasing could be; but it's no more important than identifying the ten differences between pictures in a children's magazine. So I should appreciate it if those who, like me, adore words, would be so kind as to shut the hell up about the rules of grammar that do not apply and are not necessary in modern communication. Encouraging interest in communication, reading and writing cannot be accomplished by tying down the eager with restrictive rules and regulations. If it could there would be more Math majors, instead of less.
Grammar is dead, long live grammar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)