![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI think I'm just as out of touch with Hollywood as they allegedly are with Middle America. I caught the tail end of the Oscars, and I hadn't seen any of the movies nominated for Best Picture. This is pretty typical for me, really. I might catch a few of them on DVD, but according to at least two speakers, I'd be committing a cardinal sin in doing so. I mean, the big screen IS better in some ways, but to come up on stage and say, essentially, "The Academy is a bunch of old fogies who don't want to adapt to new technology!" strikes me as kind of dorky. Never mind that theater ticket prices keep going up while DVD prices seem to be going down, so it costs less than twice as much to OWN a movie as to see it once at the cinema. Mind you, I also get annoyed when people insist that everyone always go along with new technology. Try telling that to the people who wasted resources in bringing stuff out on laserdisc! I've downloaded albums from eMusic and iTunes, but it bugs me when people say, "Someday that'll be THE way to get music, and CD's will be totally obsolete!" I don't WANT CD's to become obsolete, at least while I'm still an active consumer of new music. For that matter, even though I don't own a record player myself, I think it's kind of cool when bands release new albums on vinyl as well as CD. And I don't go to the movies much, but I still like having the option. I guess my take is that people should embrace new technologies, but not abandon the old. After all, the goal of a movie-maker or recording artist is to reach as many people as possible, right?
Hmm, that paragraph was a regular fake-out, wasn't it? You thought I was going to talk about the Oscars, and then I talked about technology! I fooled you! {g}
Another thing that bugs me is when people cite statistics like, "More people can name the five Simpsons than the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment!", as if this somehow proves that people care more about TV than their basic rights. It's like when Jay Leno mocks people because they can identify Ronald McDonald, but not Chief Justice Roberts. There are a lot of other factors that aren't being taken into consideration. It's basically another example of people thinking that you can take any two statistics and automatically assume that there's a direct correlation between them. You know, like, "Divorce rates have gone up because they no longer use the Bible in public schools!" or "School shootings are caused by video games!" or "The fact that every one of these irrelevant correlations ends with an exclamation point is what's making kids starve to death in Somalia!"
Finally, how come some LiveJournal members have public entries, but only allow people on their friends list to comment on them? I don't get it.
Hmm, that paragraph was a regular fake-out, wasn't it? You thought I was going to talk about the Oscars, and then I talked about technology! I fooled you! {g}
Another thing that bugs me is when people cite statistics like, "More people can name the five Simpsons than the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment!", as if this somehow proves that people care more about TV than their basic rights. It's like when Jay Leno mocks people because they can identify Ronald McDonald, but not Chief Justice Roberts. There are a lot of other factors that aren't being taken into consideration. It's basically another example of people thinking that you can take any two statistics and automatically assume that there's a direct correlation between them. You know, like, "Divorce rates have gone up because they no longer use the Bible in public schools!" or "School shootings are caused by video games!" or "The fact that every one of these irrelevant correlations ends with an exclamation point is what's making kids starve to death in Somalia!"
Finally, how come some LiveJournal members have public entries, but only allow people on their friends list to comment on them? I don't get it.
