Unutterably Silly Corrupt-A-Topic (anymore off-topic and it would be on-topic)

[Solitaire1]

Has children's television taken a step backward? I was just struck by the fact that decades ago we had the following on television: Power Rangers, Transformers, My Little Pony, Care Bears, Batman, and Pound Puppies. Today we have the following on television: Power Rangers, Transformers, My Little Pony, Care Bears, Batman, and Pound Puppies.

[red_phoenix]

Why create something new when the classics are available and a new generation has never seem them?

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

Hmm... You must have been reading this other thread to suggest that technological regression may be in order: http://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=189286
It was all about how electromagnetic fields from wireless devices are all "dangerous" and stuff (with responses containing significant factual refutation and off-topic humor).

And do not forget that those little earbuds that we stick inside ourr ears (right next to our brains) use magnetic coils that generate a modulated electromagnetic field so strong that it can actually MOVE stuff! It moves the diaghram that pushes air, which you hear as sound. And it is practically INSIDE YOUR HEAD! While it is pushing that air, the magnetic field must certainly be telling your brain that growing tumors is a good idea, right? At least that is the pseudo-scientifical method of creating convincing fact-free FUD. (I am just kidding here, but that is how all the EM scare tactics work -- same principle). Electromagnetic fields are wireless even if they are coming from earbuds or headphones. To prevent EM fields from exposing us from hidden unextected sources like speakers (especially tiny ones we actually stick into our ears), perhaps we should only be allowed to play our records on a player that does not use electricity, like an old Victrola.

Yeah, then we will be safe. Or not...

Now I can comment on this since it's not related to the previous topic. Just something I wrote off the cuff that was completely unrelated to the previous post per the rules. I didn't know about the thread you posted although I'll need to give it a look since it sounds potentially terrifying. The original post was inspired in part by the movie "So Wrong They're Right," a movie about people devoted to the preservation and use of 8-track tapes.

But it does bring forth a concern about how we've so abandoned the past for the new and shiny. Despite the advances in technology, so much of the music of the past is not available digitally. I have a number of albums, including one by Sissy Spacek that has a great song called "If I Can Just Get Through The Night," that has not been released in a digital format. Without those albums I would have lost some great music.

This brings forth the thought that music has become so private and insular. I see so many people listening to music and, with the exception of those in cars with massive stereo systems that you can hear from 500 feet away and cause you to feel the massive bass, you don't know what they're listening to. I think one factor that has fragmented the music market so much is that so few of us know what others are actually listening to.

What if the type of music that most people are actually listening to are comedy parodies by Stan Freberg mixed with those of Allan Sherman. Another possibility is that Enya and chamber music dominates with listeners who say they listen to heavy metal, while ambient instrumental music is the actually favorite of those who say they listen to old-fashioned country music.

It's possible...

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

... But it does bring forth a concern about how we've so abandoned the past for the new and shiny. Despite the advances in technology, so much of the music of the past is not available digitally. ...

What worries me more is that our vast wealth of educational material on the field of law is in jeopardy. The major American law schools of Harvard and Yale stopped teaching Constitutional Law many years ago, and most lawyers and attorneys these days only have access to laws that have been entered unto the proprietary (and expensive) Westlaw Database:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlaw

Constitutional Law books contain older and nobler laws that pre-date (and therefore take precedence over) modern administrative laws. It is a shame that they are becoming so hard to find. Modern law-makers do not even know that any laws they pass that conflict with older laws are constitutionally void, unless the older law has been ammended or repealed so that it is no longer in conflict.

Forsaking some old things by replacing them with new things is not always a good thing, which can sometimes affect our freedom or privacy, but certainly restricts our choices.

However, in the case of music, I can learn much more about what is available over the internet than I ever could by visiting local record stores (especially the music sections of big box chain stores that put a lot of smaller record shops out of business with their cheaper price on popular selections). Many of the less-popular but often better-quality selections that were previosly found in obscure local record shops are now only a "google" away.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

Has children's television taken a step backward? I was just struck by the fact that decades ago we had the following on television: Power Rangers, Transformers, My Little Pony, Care Bears, Batman, and Pound Puppies. Today we have the following on television: Power Rangers, Transformers, My Little Pony, Care Bears, Batman, and Pound Puppies.

Well at least when it comes to My Little Pony, the new series is far superior to older ones.

[waterlubber]

pshrynk has a problem. Well let's say that he has a problem that we can address in a public forum and take positive steps to solve. He has this wish to corrupt things.

Therefore, there are no rules for this thread. The following is merely a suggestion, not a rule (therefore it can be ignored; but, not broken):

Each new post in this thread should be on a new topic and not respond to the post directly before it.

Something from a fart earlier post or from another thread is fine to respond to.

Note: I reserve the right to close this thread if it goes sane.

WARNING!!!PARADOX ALERT!!!!
This post is on topic.
Meaning it's off topic, but then it's on topic for being off topic!
But wait...now it's on topic again! Making it off topic...

[waterlubber]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I would have, eventually.

It's the perfect place to throw all my crap that fits nowhere else.

Sorry. This is

Wait a sec...you mad a paradox!
Now, your post will be AND for ever!

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by waterlubber

pshrynk has a problem. Well let's say that he has a problem that we can address in a public forum and take positive steps to solve. He has this wish to corrupt things.

Therefore, there are no rules for this thread. The following is merely a suggestion, not a rule (therefore it can be ignored; but, not broken):

Each new post in this thread should be on a new topic and not respond to the post directly before it.

Something from a fart earlier post or from another thread is fine to respond to.

Note: I reserve the right to close this thread if it goes sane.


WARNING!!!PARADOX ALERT!!!!
This post is on topic.
Meaning it's off topic, but then it's on topic for being off topic!
But wait...now it's on topic again! Making it off topic...

But if you ignore the above rule and submit a post which is on topic from the previous post, that means you've broken the rule. which you can ignore (which breaks the rule) and not ignore (which doesn't break the rule).

[orlok]

Originally Posted by waterlubber

pshrynk has a problem. Well let's say that he has a problem that we can address in a public forum and take positive steps to solve. He has this wish to corrupt things.

Therefore, there are no rules for this thread. The following is merely a suggestion, not a rule (therefore it can be ignored; but, not broken):

Each new post in this thread should be on a new topic and not respond to the post directly before it.

Something from a fart earlier post or from another thread is fine to respond to.

Note: I reserve the right to close this thread if it goes sane.


WARNING!!!PARADOX ALERT!!!!
This post is on topic.
Meaning it's off topic, but then it's on topic for being off topic!
But wait...now it's on topic again! Making it off topic...

And I want to know what a fart earlier post is. A new way of getting the words on screen...?

[Dylrob]

And they lived miserably ever after.

[Solitaire1]

Why do some feel the need for cartoon characters who have worked well when silent, such as The Pink Panther and Tom & Jerry, to begin speaking? In the early days they did try to give a voice to The Pink Panther in two shorts but it was unsuccessful, so they left him silent. In fact, leaving The Pink Panther silent was a factor in making him an international success since it avoided the language barrier.

It's the same with Tom & Jerry. Although both have spoken (with Tom sometimes making vocal sounds in some shorts), for the most part the two work best when silent. Modern attempts to give them voice haven't been too successful (as it has unsuccessful with The Pink Panther).

There have been some characters that are able to straddle the line between being silent and having a voice. One example of this is Wile E. Coyote. Although he's usually silent when teamed with The Road Runner (except for a few vocal sounds such as when he's been hurt), when teamed with other characters (such as Bugs Bunny) he does have a voice (usually a very high-class accent).

There have been some recent attempts to introduce "silent" animated characters. One example of this is "Pucca," where the two lead characters (Pucca and Garu) don't speak words (just vocal sounds). The other characters do speak, and it appears that Pucca and Garu do speak words but we never hear them speak them (other characters mention what they said).

But to me its best that silent characters should remain silent. That they don't have a voice hasn't hindered them from being enjoyed by so many.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

Why do some feel the need for cartoon characters who have worked well when silent, such as The Pink Panther and Tom & Jerry, to begin speaking? In the early days they did try to give a voice to The Pink Panther in two shorts but it was unsuccessful, so they left him silent. In fact, leaving The Pink Panther silent was a factor in making him an international success since it avoided the language barrier.

It's the same with Tom & Jerry. Although both have spoken (with Tom sometimes making vocal sounds in some shorts), for the most part the two work best when silent. Modern attempts to give them voice haven't been too successful (as it has unsuccessful with The Pink Panther).

There have been some characters that are able to straddle the line between being silent and having a voice. One example of this is Wile E. Coyote. Although he's usually silent when teamed with The Road Runner (except for a few vocal sounds such as when he's been hurt), when teamed with other characters (such as Bugs Bunny) he does have a voice (usually a very high-class accent).

There have been some recent attempts to introduce "silent" animated characters. One example of this is "Pucca," where the two lead characters (Pucca and Garu) don't speak words (just vocal sounds). The other characters do speak, and it appears that Pucca and Garu do speak words but we never hear them speak them (other characters mention what they said).

But to me its best that silent characters should remain silent. That they don't have a voice hasn't hindered them from being enjoyed by so many.

Now there's a gripe worthy of the Vent and Rant thread. I freaked when I first heard the Pink Panther talking, and Tom and Jerry's vocalizations are certainly no improvement over the classics. Now I understand Disney's Tinkerbell has started running off at the mouth. This just ain't right; no way, no how. It's a sure sign if ever there was one of the decline of Western civilization.

[HomeInMyShoes]

bacon!

[WT Sharpe]

If you are female, lonely, ready for action, have four legs and a tail, and are not over 20" tall, send a PM. Norton is driving me crazy.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

bacon!

Yes! BACON!!!!

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

If you are female, lonely, ready for action, have four legs and a tail, and are not over 20" tall, send a PM. Norton is driving me crazy.

No! I'm guessing there is no bacon involved in this. Well, erm....I mean......