Will You Still Watch?

Writers Vote to End Their Walkout - WSJ.com

I have to admit to being a strong supporter of the writers' decision to strike on their issues, but it was also the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to the networks.

I have been enjoying other viewing options, like Netflicks, Hulu, YouTube, Joost, and several other independent services that provide content, not forgetting the many great sources for podcasts and vidcasts.

I wonder how many other of you have cast, or are in the process of casting the networks aside for independent content? Of course, it's not like I won't watch some network content, but with so little of it is very interesting any more, who has the time to waste on mediocrity?

writers, network, podcasting, YouTube, Hulu, Joost

Hulu : Who Knew? Has It's Quietly Open Doors Made Them Difficult To Walk Through?

Hulu Quietly Opens Its Doors

Since the "Quietly Open Doors" of Hulu began to become a reality, has your quality reduced? Mine has.

Perhaps it's just a fluke -- a series of momentary glitches that I perhaps have just been unfortunate enough to happen upon.

Perhaps it's a bandwidth issue -- where planning for how much throughput is going to be needed to sustain the influx of new customers watching content breaks down. But then this is still a beta site. The purpose of a beta roll out is to minimize these kind of things when you have a go-live date.

Perhaps it's an unexpected spike in content-seeking customers -- when, similar to but unlike the bandwidth issue above, you have appropriately analyzed your median bandwidth needs, but when you still fall short of the mark during those times when customers' needs are for a short time greater than what you are always providing. This is another one of those things that a beta is supposed to root-out, and very likely to occur during changes in service like expanding its beta roll out.

In any of these cases, it's still, unfortunately, results in the same -- I can't watch something when I have time to participate in the beta program. I guess I, and those of you who at the same time take lunch, need to change the time I take lunch.

The things I do for testing.

Liberal Approach to "Global Warming" Could Kill Us All

Once again we see evidence of how tree-hugging liberals are wrong -- wrong enough as proponents of the latest buzz-word not only linked to junk science, but a path to genocide. Strong words? Too strong? I don't know; perhaps; however, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a liberal, tree-hugging hater of carbon-based fuels that would claim anything less of those who happily fill their tanks with 92 Octane.

And even if you believe in the so-called "man's part in global warming," or in global warming at all, you have to laugh when you watch the liberal lemmings march down the path toward their own extinction.

One of their latest forays into junk science -- the fight against fossil fuels -- leads them, and now apparently us, right down such a path. For some time now, the cry has been, "... rid ourselves of this dependence on fossil fuels..." Their answer to this, of course, has been to support the world's switch to bio-fuels. To be perfectly honest, I don't have a problem with bio-fuels, especially if they can provide me with an inexpensive alternative to paying some radical, Muslims for their dinosaur squeezings. Frankly, if through the use of bio-fuels we could starve them out of existence, I'd be willing to pay more -- a small price to pay for such a large service to humanity.

Shocked; are we? Really? And what was it the tree-huggers have been saying all this time? Oh yes; I remember the slogan, "If you drive and SUV you're supporting terrorism..."

Then today I read a new study -- one that says that the production of these bio-fuel crops will in fact accelerate global warming by decreasing the land cover that, today, is responsible for balancing the production of these greenhouse gasses. But don't take my word for it, read for yourself.