Here, some notes on thriller TV serials, roughly 50 of them. They are crime, action, war, and medical (etc.,) TV serials – basically non-Glee stuff. I’ve spent a lot of time researching on them trying sample episodes/seasons on YouTube/forums. See if you can make use of these recommendations. Also, let me know if I have missed any.
Good ones (Try not to miss them)
Dexter (5/5) – Could you bring some more please?
Fringe (5/5 so far) – Hope JJ doesn’t take the path he took for Alias/Lost
24 (4/5) – Can’t tolerate one more season.
X-Files (3/5) – Don’t want to watch them all.
Yet to try out (short-listed)
Lie to me
Tried and “no thank you”.
House (3/5) – Good one, but not for me.
Lost (2/5) – First season is good, director “lost” it second onwards.
Alias (2/5) – Good start, totally lost it in first season itself.
CSIs (2/5) – too boring.
The Mentalist (2/5)
Burn Notice (2/5)
Totally rejected (thanks to YouTube, Wikipedia):
Ashes to Ashes, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Carnivale, Damages, Day Break, Dead Like Me, Heroes, Human Target, Jericho, Kidnapped, Law and Order, Life on Mars, Mad Men, Murder One, Oz, Prison Break, Rescue Me, Smallville , Sons of anarchy, Supernatural, SVU, The Wire, White Collar.
.. too many actually. They all are insanely wealthy, highly overpriced/overrated and all these because they have millions of followers! Also, all this fame achieved by them is never justified; obviously something else should have deserved it. I kept on pinging on Religion, I don’t give a damn about Gaga; it’s time for a take on Facebook. 🙂
Earlier I wrote about “why do I hate twitter” (I still do). I claimed tweets being nothing more than shouting randomly at all directions, in other words “spamming“. Facebook is just improvised version of that,. one can shout within his friends group. Anyone who logs in, (apparently to check if there are any new comments on “chooo chweeeet” video, can learn you are standing in a queue for pop-corn. God forbid, what would have happened to the world if he did not have a chance to know that!
My first and foremost issue with Facebook is, it is a “blog-killer”. All my friends who used to blog, which was really picking up in late 90s and early 10s, now don’t have time to blog. Instead time is spent on fertilizing neighbours crops in Farmville or watching “too good… every Indian must watch this” videos. Blogging could have become a real alternative to mainstream media, who apparently require multiple reminders for unbiased and honest duty. Blogging could have dominated internet with citizen journalism. But now it’s official, they have sung RIP for blogging. Tweets and Facebook status has taken its place along with LOLs.
Who are we fooling? Let’s be honest. Do million tweets and likes on “Save Aasia Bibi” do any difference? Even if they are tried in Capital letters? Blogs, wikis and forums run in parallel to media with more strong opinions creating awareness among (at least) netizens. Tweets and Pages really fail to fill in this shoe. Let me remind you again, these new age opinion are weighed more by number of retweets and like, less by content itself. I feel Facebook is fancy but ineffective way to run a campaign and twitter is its disabled buddy.
Agreed that Facebook had a considerable role in couple of social revolution (related to Blasphemy, Iranian stoning etc), but it’s just that Facebook had been there at right time at the right place. What Facebook has done extra which any other social media couldn’t do?
Also agreed that Facebook is a very good way to maintain contact book and way to reconnect old (and new) friends, Facebook cannot claim that for itself. It’s not the first time that someone integrated a messaging engine, contact book and an instant messenger. Facebook did that as any other social network, rest of them just did not get the hype and love, that’s all. There are good things in Facebook; I am not here to list them for being politically correct. My concern is with Facebook-mania, lot of good ventures gets shut down for not being able to gather their due attention.
I hated twitter and now Facebook; don’t call me old fashioned Web1.0 guy. I am not. By the way Web2.0 is sooo Web1.0. By this time we should’ve been in 4.0. But thanks to all those attention and time spent in “share” s and “like”s we are still stuck here. One very such example, Google Wave never got attention it deserved. Now they closed it down, a step backwards and said “sorry, internet is not ready for next version of Web”
One example on “how Facebook groups” are so useless (thanks to Evening Standard, London for pointing it out). There
is a page called “save children of Africa” which was around for few years now. Last time I checked it had more than 1.8 million members. As its name states it is established to raise funds (only interpretation of word “save”) for poor malnourished children in Africa. In all those years of “like”ing and “join”ing it managed to raise little over 13000$!. That’s ridiculous. Simple arithmetic, it is less than 0.001$ per person, not even annual!. Now, compare it with Wikipedia banner campaign that raises its running cost every year without a like button in it.
In last couple of years I got at least 50 requests to join a page called “stripey”. It is created by some concerned Facebook members to save tigers in India. A large group with so many cute tiger photo uploaded. It says, if I join – tigers get saved! And how? No clues so far. No facebook-er does anything more than clicking “join”, or May be, its moral support for tigers on Facebook :-).
Final note, heard apple registered phrase “there is an app for that”. I think Facebook also should register phrases “there is a useless and silly page for that”.
And if you think Facebook is doing great as a product, read this:
The disparity between the number of Facebook users claiming to be concerned about this issue and how little money they were willing to put up says quite a lot about the business. Loads of customers were happy to commit themselves to a click to show how caring they are. Parting with cash is less popular.
Mark Zuckerberg ‘s creation — a nifty piece of kit, for sure — has 500 million users. And revenues of about $2 billion. So all those people who spend all those hours poking and messaging each other are worth only $4 each — in sales, not profits. A year.
It’s hard to think of another business model where so many customers and so much use can equate to so little revenue. If Facebook started charging for its services, how many of those 500 million would stick around? If the answer is zero, isn’t that the true value of the company?
Now, analysts reckon that Facebook may report a profit for 2010 of $473 million. That’s works out as a price/earnings ratio — the traditional way of measuring how highly a company is rated — of 106. By comparison, Apple , a business that has taken the old-fashioned approach of making and selling things, has a PE of 22.
I did not know the definition of “liberal” was so simple till our superstar journalist Rajdeep Sardesai explained it to me. Apparently it simply means “one who drinks scotch and loves his women(plural)”.
Or is it just honouring assassinated politician by calling him a liberal ? Why these lies ?
Now lets define “moderate“.
Five hundred Pakistani religious scholars said that anyone who expressed grief over the assassination of Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab province, could suffer the same fate.
The Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat Pakistan group of scholars making the veiled threat is from what is seen as a relatively moderate school of Islam in Pakistan. – reuters.
I was looking for levels and kinds of arguments you could possibly have on internet, just to equip myself with information on how to answer “you are just stupid!” etc. I am still looking but, I found this categorisation on Paul Graham’s site about levels of disagreements. Worth bookmarking them:
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We’ve all seen comments like this:
“u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!”
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond:
“Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.”
It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author’s tone. E.g.
“I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.”
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says:
But this is wrong for the following reasons…
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author’s main point. It’s enough to refute something it depends upon.
Sometime back I blogged on “why do I hate twitter” and most of you did not agree with me. Even most of my friends hated me for hating twitter! they weren’t convinced. Well, here is my second attempt. Not exactly ‘my’ attempts, I picked these up, to strengthen my point that Twitter as confirmed spamming service.
First is one from one of my colleagues- giri, how to spam twitter, which is a “comprehensive report of a research” where he studied tweets from all the tweet birds he followed. Its more than “lmao” level hilarious! Let me paste some of his points, could really help for newbies.
If you had masala dosa with coconut chutney, tweet it. If you are having your lunch, tweet about it using your left hand. Tweet your evening snacks. Tweet that you are going for a tea break. Tweet even if a fly has entered your mouth. Oh yes, don’t forget to tweet it when you are hungry,
All natural occurrences must be tweeted without fail. Farts, sneezes, cough, sleep, yawn, etc must be tweeted before, after and during the event occurrences
No matter what time zone you live in, just tweet good morning, good afternoon, good day, good night, nice weekend, etc… just like you would wish any real person.