Some time has past since I last posted anything and this has been due to many factors. School and work keep me busy, but not quite as busy as one might think. This is my last semester, so I get to deal with all that goes along with graduation. Also, I have a new job this semester which I enjoy quite a lot. I happily and with a small amount of pride can say that I make video games. Sure these things keep me fairly busy, but the real distraction has been the same thing it has always been, namely girls.
I try to keep my rants on here as far removed from my personal life as I can. I do this mostly because I hate reading other people’s rants about trite drivel that everyone else goes through, and can therefore not abide subjecting others to this as well. Occasionally though, I break this rule if something personal is the main source of my ranting and frustration.
I’ve learned quite a few things lately. Most important is that my first instinct with girls is 100% correct. I can tell within minutes whether they are worth the time, and usually it seems that they aren’t. Perhaps I should search for better stock. I’ve been told I should check libraries and churches, but I’m hesitant to disturb those ‘good folk.’ Another thing that I’ve noticed and I cannot seem to get past the accuracy of this generality, is judgement based on name. They can say you can tell a lot about a person by their name, and I agree. Is this societal? Or does it perhaps say something about the type of people their parents were? Nicknames seem to be even more telling.
This has been very general ranting about girls thus far, but really its one girl in particular that has gotten under my skin. I cannot abide flaky people, and I CERTAINLY cannot abide flaky girls. People that cannot communicate; people that cannot respond; people that cannot speak their minds; people that do not have the strength to say what they mean. Apparently she didn’t really care as much as she said, and apparently she didn’t find it important enough to say.
“Sometimes it takes a hard lesson to teach something already known.”
Apparently I totally missed this little pile of gold. Nobody’s Watching’s premise is not quite as amazing as the effect it has had. It’s a sit-com mocking a reality tv show where two guys from Ohio are making a sit-com. It’s freakishly funny and produced by Bill Lawrence of Scrubs, with two actors who worked on Family Guy. Sadly it hasn’t really gone anywhere and it looks like it may not. If they don’t get picked up I hope they can still manage some sort of internet distribution. If they scaled it back a bit, they may be able to have the first really good internet syndicated sit-com.
As I mentioned above, the effect this show has had is also quite interesting. It shows (yet again) that the internet can be harnessed in ways that has not occured to the industry. Distributing Pilots for show over the internet so that the audience can actually say what it likes, as opposed to showing whatever the studios think we want to see.
Goodluck Nobodys Watching, can’t wait to see more of your stuff.
The greatest holiday of the year has finally rolled round, and it is time for some preparation. Thats right, pull out your rum and cutlasses, we’ve got some scurvy dogs to drown in swill. YAR!
There is a sad sort of phenomenon that the world populace has been subjected to for most of this era, and it is becoming increasingly prominent and obvious. The root of this problem is businesses inability to evolve at the same pace as technology. A new product or technology arises and becomes popular and instead of embracing this new way idea to increase business the corporations’ first strategy is litigation. It is always litigation.
The record industry was terrible about this during the Napster era, and has only in the last few years started to really embrace this new technology. The movie studio’s are now attacking Google Video and YouTube. Warner aside, these people don’t see the benefit of these sites. For almost any sort of market, exposure only increases your sales. This has been proven quite adequately with mp3s, and I can’t imagine it not applying just the same with video.
Lately people have been ridiculing and litigating Google for everything they are doing, because they are making money. They are well within fair-use laws. Their news site only shows a short clip from the author’s site which the reader must go to in order to read the full article. The book search that they have created works similarly, a small excerpt is shown with a reference to the full work, this is the same rights that someone writing a paper would get, why is it not applicable to Google? Because they are displaying ads? They are not SELLING the book, nor the excerpt. Why should they have to share their ad revenue?
People complain that their copyrights to their content are being infringed, when in reality they should be thanking Google for the added exposure. They should try to harness this new exposure and maximize their profits from it. Litigating new technology only stifles innovation. Google is giving consumers exactly what they want, an easier way to find and absorb content. If the content providers/producers were making this as easy as Google is, then THEY would be making the money and even still they are only GAINING from Google’s distribution of their content because it always points back to the source.
This really comes down to people being angry about not getting money. Even if the money being made is not directly coming from their content, but only indirectly associated with it. As I understand it, Google has an opt out mechanism for excluding content from their search products. If these people don’t want their content — which is FREELY viewable — to be redistributed then they can simply exclude themselves, but that is not what they want. They WANT to be included, but the want a share of the revenue to which they have no right. Shameful, simply shameful.
girls 
