Disqus - Latest Comments for David Boxcutter

Re: Boxcutters Episode 94

David Boxcutter — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:53:14 -0000

Are you, like so many of us, angry that Josh Kinal rarely mentions monkeys on Boxcutters anymore? Does the thought of another monkey-less podcast fill you with dread?

Join my campaign to put the monkey back into Boxcutters. Send your monkey-related items now! Monkeys in barrels, plush monkey toys. Draw a picture of a monkey and send it in! If you don't want to you snail-mail, you could send download monkey porn from your favourite adult sites and send the jpegs to hooray_for_monkeys[{a.t}]boxcutters.net

Let's bury Josh under an avalanche of monkey merchandise until he learns to respect the monkey. After all, the Boxcutters would not be where they are now without monkeys. Market research indicates that 95% of the audience started listening because they wanted to hear monkeys mentioned. These statistics are known to be accurate, because a chicken certified them.

Monkeys to Boxcutters
c/- 3RRR FM
PO Box 2145
Brunswick East, 3057

In this future gone mad, Josh will no longer spank the monkey, the monkey will spank Josh!

Re: Monkeys!

David Boxcutter — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:31:55 -0000

Well done, Josh.

Interesting that you interpreted my note with the barreled monkeys as being a reference to Scooter Monkey. It was actually about on-air references to monkeys. It was also a line from The Knife's song Neverland that I can't get out of my head.

But the Scooter Monkey interpretation also works. I'm glad you still have him, Josh. Have you been feeding him scooters?

Markymarc - I'm glad you like him. Scooter Monkey is easily cloned. Josh just needs to scan him at 300 or 600dpi and post the result as a png or tiff here. Unfortunately, I forgot to scan him before sending to Josh.

Perhaps the boxcutters can create a line of alternate "monkey heads" of themselves to paste on Scooter Monkey. Then we can have boxcutters hanging around our own radio studios.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 95

David Boxcutter — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:58:43 -0000

Arrrggh, Bigpond!

They have done the same thing to me... it seems like I've been throttled to below dial-up speeds for the whole of the last month. Frequently web pages don't even load at all.

I don't know what's going on. It used to be that I just got throttled near the end of the month, after I had done heaps of downloading, and the throttling wasn't too bad. This month, I've downloaded a lot less than usual, and I seem to have been throttled for the past 4 weeks solid.

I am reaching the end of my patience... but I don't really have any faith that other ISPs won't pull the same shit. Take the example of Dodo that you gave in the podcast. I'm worried that I'd be jumping out of a bucket of shit into a bucket of shit with little bits of corn in it.

I've been on Telstra broadband since the days when Telstra was the only broadband provider. Those crazy days when we got free, unlimited peer-to-peer transfer between Bigpond Cable users. God, that was awesome. Hell, before that we even had Public Access Internet if anyone even remembers what that was. Things have been going downhill on the interwebs ever since it started becoming a mainstream thing.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone can shed light on what's going on with Telstra Broadband, whether this is a once-off issue, or whether they plan to keep screwing us around.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 95

David Boxcutter — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:46:38 -0000

I apologise for my previous post. I referred to "Dodo" when I should have said "Dildo".

I finally got around to looking at Whirlpool.net, and discovered why I am having this capped usage issue. Hopefully the problem should go away tomorrow.

Mike - American Dad improved in later episodes. I like Roger the alien.

By the way, Brett, how does the granola taste?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 95

David Boxcutter — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:54:07 -0000

I agree that American Dad is not great, and some episodes are awful. But I keep watching just for Roger's dress-ups, wigs, and alcoholism. I'm a total sucker for animated comedy, though.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 95

David Boxcutter — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:17:51 -0000

Speaking of animated comedy, has anybody seen Lil' Bush?

It's a strange show. I wasn't expecting much, but the voice acting of whoever plays Lil' George is awesome. There are a bunch of words that I can't hear without thinking of Bush now. Awesome is one of them.

If you don't watch any other bits of Lil' Bush, you simply must see the bit where he's looking up words in the dictionary and reads out:

Aardvaark
Abacus
Academy

My girlfriend laughs herself silly at the show, which is surprising, as she generally can't stand animated comedy. I find it mildly amusing, with the exception of Lil' George's voice, which is truly hilarious.

As for Golden Age of Television, how about you feature Futurama sometime?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 95

David Boxcutter — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:17:38 -0000

Which style guide recommends "orientated"? That word is so wrong that I don't think it's even a real word.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 97

David Boxcutter — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:07:15 -0000

Motherfucking spaztards at Ten.

The Big Brother Finale went for so long because the voting was so close? Huh? How the fuck does the closeness of the voting change the running time?

The phone lines close at a certain time - and there is a winner or a loser. A computer counts the votes, a winner is announced. How does the number of votes affect the running time?

As if they just spontaneously decided to show that pathetic parade of the "float" driving down the road with cheesy disco music because the votes were close! Riiight. That was obviously planned ahead, how did they not account for it in the schedule?

Speaking of schedules, why not just cut the flashback sequences if you are running over time? There was nothing happening in the 45 minutes you ran over time! It was all just filler!

But for the love of cunting fuck, didn't you plan this as a big event? Couldn't you have worked out how long all that shit was going to take ahead of time and allowed for it? It's not rocket science, for Richard Wilkins' sake!!!! Yet you moved Torchwood back to an earlier starting time than the previous weeks.

Morons.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 98

David Boxcutter — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:14:45 -0000

Right on, Jimbo. Testify!

Re: The golden age of television

David Boxcutter — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:32:12 -0000

I'm with mrembach on Curb Your Enthusiasm. Ross, how do you figure that there would have been no The Office or Arrested Development without Curb?

How do those other shows depend on Curb at all? Heck, The Office was created in Britain, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Larry David world. Plus, the BBC has been doing comedy like that for decades. I really don't see the connection.

Is there any evidence that the makers of Arrested Development or The Office were sitting around watching Curb Your Enthusiasm and suddenly came up with an idea for a new show?

Re: The golden age of television

David Boxcutter — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:55:24 -0000

Listening to the podcast - have to disagree that The Daily Show is not worthy of GAT. It has had a huge cultural impact at a time when it was sorely needed. It's also one of the first shows to really 'grok' the new media intertubes. Stewart and the gang talk about things like Youtube and Ted Stevens in a way that gives the impression that they actually know what they are talking about. Every other show is like 'have you seen this new-fangled internet superhighway thing? Golly Geee-whiz, it's high-tech!'

It's not just a comedy/satire show. It actually is a useful source of US news. I'm also a fan of The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, but these days I seem to be getting a lot more relevant news in 22 minutes of Daily Show than in 55 minutes of Newshour.

Plus there are the spinoff characters - most obviously Stephen Colbert, but also John Hodgeman and the 'shows within the show' like Trendspotting with Dimitri Martin or even The Schmaily Schmoe with Schmon Schewart. Stewart and the show also has a great modesty and sense of self-deprecation.

Anyway...

I believe there's a fundamental problem with the premise of GAT. I don't think it can be anything other than a list of "our favourite shows".

You can try to rationalise it all you like, saying that you are only including 'worthy' or 'groundbreaking' shows. The problem with this is that depending on your perspective, either everything is groundbreaking or nothing is.

For example, you all seem very fond of long-form HBO shows, and are inclined to call them all groundbreaking. But really, what have the Sopranos or other HBO shows done that Twin Peaks hasn't already done? Sure there's language and violence, but the structure and form has all been done before, and I don't think that using naughty words is a significant enough difference.

I think that Twin Peaks was truly groundbreaking for TV - but everything since then (with the exception of Reality TV and the animation revolution) has simply built on the foundation that Twin Peaks established of bringing a long story form, and cinematic sensibilities to film.

If we go further back, is there anything that Twin Peaks did that hadn't already been done in the works of Shakespeare or classic literature?

So...

What exactly was groundbreaking about Lost anyway? It seems pretty much like a standard TV drama to me. Oz? Just another prison show. Buffy is just Scooby Doo with actors instead of drawings. Futurama is just The Simpsons in outer space. The Office is just an extended Monty Python sketch about accountants and merchant bankers.

So on and so forth...

Face it guys, it's just a list of shows you like. There's nothing wrong with that. There's just no real criteria or consistency to the selections.

Re: The golden age of television

David Boxcutter — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:09:54 -0000

Surely other sitcoms have been done without a laugh track and a studio setting - Beverly Hills 90210 immediately comes to mind, as does The Simpsons - which is basically a sitcom, albeit animated.

Re: Curb, what's the Larry David or The Office connection with Arrested Development? Why couldn't that have been made without Larry's efforts?

Sure, I'm having a a bit of a go, but I think your music example is quite apt. Yes, it is all just music, it's all just TV. If you're going to use "breakthrough" as a criteria, then you have to make sure that all the list items are truly revolutionary. Yet you exclude things like The West Wing or The Daily Show for not being novel enough - but then go and include other shows which are barely novel at all.

I mean, Weeds? I enjoy the show, but can't see what is radically different about it than any other comedy/drama. That's innovative and groundbreaking, but the Daily Show isn't? Weeds is almost a throwback to the 70s, while the Daily Show enganges the new generation of media consumers.

Re: The golden age of television

David Boxcutter — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:08:49 -0000

I find the way the way you are including or excluding shows to be quite contradictory.

On the one hand, you say that shows should be 'different' or groundbreaking, and on the other you seem to be saying they have to fit a formula. They are allowed to be 'different,' but not too different. But isn't it radical departure which makes shows noteworthy?

The exclusion of The Family Guy in favour of Futurama is probably the best example of this. Even though Futurama is the better show, Family Guy is the more radical, risk-taking show. Unlike even South Park, it has no fear of discarding narrative and indulging in surrealism.

This type of thing is praised by you guys in Curb your Enthusiasm - the elimination of conventions like the laugh. But diverge from a plot-driven narrative, and that doesn't seem to be cool with you. After all, that's the main criticism Ross offers of The Family Guy. It's just like dissing Curb simply because it lacks a laugh track.

So, regardless of how much you enjoy the show, it's more of a departure from the tradition established by The Simpsons than any of the other animations. but I think you just like Futurama more than Family Guy.

Speaking of Curb, Ross wrote:

Curb demonstrated that a sitcom could be single camera, no laugh track and most importantly not confined to a studio.

I don't see why this needs to be demonstrated. Everybody knows it's possible to do this. As for allowing other shows to do this, I don't really see it. Wasn't the show a commercial flop? That doesn't exactly encourage studios to follow in its footsteps. The other problem it had was that it wasn't funny. Again, not something that's going to encourage others.

If anything, it was Arrested Development and The Office that showed that the approach could actually be successful and work, rather than being an egotistical indulgence.

If to you it is just another sitcom, like I don’t know, Will & Grace or Becker or whatever then like I said, fundamentally different points of view.

I don't think it's just like shows like that. But the main difference is that it's good, not that it has any fundamentally groundbreaking or different properties. Every sitcom has its gimmick, and Weeds just happened to use marijuana. Was Alf groundbreaking because the main character was an alien puppet, rather than a human?

As for the 70s - it's not TV, but Cheech and Chong also used marijuana as their gimmick. Before you say it's a ridiculous comparison, think about how each show reflects its era. Weeds simply reflects the miserable "emo" outlook and humourlessness of the late 90s-00s, while Cheech and Chong reflect the exuberance and hedonistic attitudes of the 70s.

That is why Weeds is in the Golden Age of Television for mine – because it something completely fresh and original and darker than any comedy we’ve seen on TV and very, very, very funny.

Again, I remind you of Beverly Hills 90210 - very, very funny - and a dark, satirical take on Hollywood image-making and the morals of a consumer society. Years ahead of its time.

As for savaging society and sub/urban dreams - the British have been doing edgy TV comedy for a long time. The Young Ones might have had a laugh track, but touched on many of the issues you claim are new. As did Monty Python. I think they probably did more savaging of norms than any of the modern shows.

As for Josh:

Boxcutters exists because of the Golden Age of Television. If our TV screens were still filled entirely by the likes of Knight Rider, The A-Team and Scarecrow & Mrs King

Are you serious about this? I don't remember any time when those kind of shows were all we had. I remember things like Monkey and Doctor Who, and of course Monty Python as mentioned above, stuff by Ben Elton, The Big Gig and The D-Generation, Astroboy, Quantum and Rubbery Figures.

I think that it is a myth that there was ever a time when we only had the choice of trashy American stuff. There's always been good stuff around.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 99

David Boxcutter — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:45:19 -0000

You guys are taking the GAT discussion way too personally. I think it's great that people are arguing instead of just sitting around on their monkey-logo Crumpler beanbags eating Granola.

Just because I/we disagree with your exclusions, doesn't mean we think you hate those shows. Criticism of the list is just healthy discussion, not a personal attack.

Aside from the fact that you are all demonstrably and objectively wrong about all of your choices, that is. Including the way you live your lives.

Re: Another news-worthy Chaser Stunt

David Boxcutter — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 01:11:22 -0000

Adam, WTF?

It's an "empty laugh"? More like a highly revealing insight into the charade that is "security theatre." They say this is all to prevent attacks, but if anybody can get through with a Canadian flag stuck to their car, then what's to stop a terrorist.

It just shows that the "security" is more about trying to prevent protest and dissenting opinions than security.

They managed to get enormous publicity around the world and ambarras the government - that doesn't show a lack of talent. What do you think they should have done instead?

Re: Boxcutters Epsiode 102

David Boxcutter — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:16:18 -0000

I don't get the big deal with set-top boxes and DVRs. You talk of the expense - but there are simple and cost-effective solutions.

Just get something like the Elgato EyeTV for around $200 to $300 and be done with it. Use your computer's hard drive for storage (upgradeable, cheap, versatile). Then do anything you like with the recordings. Burn them to DVD, watch on a TV or your laptop, transfer to iPod, etc.

The Foxtel IQ doesn't let you transfer to your computer? That makes it pretty much useless. Why would anyone pay a monthly fee for a crippled product?

I say control your own data, don't get locked out because of a short-sighted industry.

Oh, and the IQ is not the only way to record Foxtel broadcasts. You could just run the video output into your computer or a digitising box, and record that.

Re: Boxcutters Epsiode 102

David Boxcutter — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:43:29 -0000

I mean, just connect the video output from a normal Foxtel box without paying for the IQ.

Re: Boxcutters Epsiode 102

David Boxcutter — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:09:18 -0000

but you can’t record one channel and view another, or record 2 channels and view a 3rd recorded program - for that you need the 2 tuners, which only come with iQ.

I don't think there's enough good TV to justify that ability - and as Adam said, there's always bittorrent.

More power to those that enjoy their IQ - I think the reason I don't subscribe to Foxtel in the first place is probably the same reason I don't need the IQ and 2 digital tuner.

I guess I do have 2 tuners, though. One is my EyeTV digital, and the other is the tuner built in to the TV set.

Re: Corby vs Seven: The Battle Begins

David Boxcutter — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:12:02 -0000

Hmmm... my copy of the Fairfax papers work fine whichever hand I use.

Re: Nine’s last quarter crap-tacular

David Boxcutter — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 06:45:38 -0000

Ross, do I have to give you a spelling and grammar lesson?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 103

David Boxcutter — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:55:16 -0000

Adam D, I'm not sure if it's "against all logic" - technically 480p and 576p are HD specs.

It doesn't seem that illogical to me, as even 576p is double the number of lines of standard analogue TV.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 103

David Boxcutter — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:36:18 -0000

The networks bragging about it is what's crap, not that it's classified as HD.

Anyway - there seem to be a few misconceptions about broadband in the USA being spoken by Brett(?) as I listen.

They haven't had broadband "forever" in the States. They used to have ISDN and crap just like we did. The fact is that broadband is unavailable in much of the US... thanks to monopolies. They didn't adopt it much faster than we did. What has happened is that Australia has been slower to improve speeds.

I'm not sure why you get the impression that the US is some sort of utopia of competition and quality in the communications sector. Trust me, you wouldn't want to deal with most of the American companies. They even do dodgy stuff like one carrier just changing your mobile phone to their account, without permission. Customer service is even worse than it is here.

When it comes to speed and cost, the US lags far behind countries like South Korea. And penetration is miserable in the US. Certain companies have local monopolies, even in big cities - and in some areas the only option is satellite, which can barely be considered broadband.

The situiation for internet access is screwed up in both Australia and America. Don't fool yourself that it's somehow wonderful there. And the telcos are pushing against "net neutrality" and want to throttle access to servers that don't belong to their media partners.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 104

David Boxcutter — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:05:53 -0000

Sigh. Nobody can tell you what "High Definition" is, because the term is meaningless.

It's a completely pointless pursuit to try and use the term in a serious context. The finding of those survey results are totally worthless, because any of the video formats they show could be considered "High Definition."

DVD is High Definition according to some usages. The term has been used for decades, to refer to video of even lower resolution than DVD or today's analogue PAL broadcasts.

For example:

John Logie Baird had given the first public demonstration of low-definition television back in 1925.
There had been experimental transmissions from a studio in Broadcasting House since 1932. On 2
November 1936 the BBC opened the world’s first regular service of high-definition television from
Alexandra Palace in North London, known affectionately as Ally Pally.

Understand? High Definition TV has been around for over 70 years.

If you are using this term expecting it to mean something specific, then don't be surprised if it backfires, because it has never beden used to refer to something specific - just something of higher resolution than something else.

Seeing as that "something else" has been of extremely low resolution at previous times in history - then pretty much anything qualifies as High Definition if it has more than 2 pixels.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 104

David Boxcutter — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:17:04 -0000

Just to add a little mopre background to the above - "more than 2 pixels" might be pushing it, but not by far.

Then he gave the world's first public demonstration of a working television system to members of the Royal Institution and a newspaper reporter on January 26, 1926 at his laboratory in London. Unlike later electronic systems with several hundred lines of resolution, Baird's vertically scanned image, using a scanning disk embedded with a double spiral of lenses, had only 30 lines, just enough to reproduce a recognizable human face.

30 lines. Maybe that should be considered "low definition", being a prototype.

So, what's "standard definition" - that's probably answered by the TV systems that were actually employed in mass service:

In 1932 he demonstrated ultra-short wave television. Baird's electromechanical system reached a peak of 240 lines of resolution on BBC television broadcasts in 1936, before being discontinued in favor of a 405-line all-electronic system developed by Marconi-EMI.

So, I guess we can consider 240 lines of resolution as "standard definition". The BBC's 405 line system was called "High Definition TV".

There you go. 405 lines could be considered the point at which high-definition is achieved - if you wanted to create an arbitrary cut-off point.

But still, it's better to avoid using the term because it's meaningless. 405 lines might be logical, but different people will disagree with that, too.

What I don't really understand is why the industry started using "high definition" to describe their new TVs, when the term is over 7- years old and is applicable to much lower resolution systems. Why didn't they just come up with a new name to avoid confusion?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

David Boxcutter — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:03:57 -0000

iTunes is a good application. Brett, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that peoiple like using it.

It might not be the best podcast client in the world - but there is a lot more to iTunes than downloading podcasts. I haven't seen any other media player with such a nice implementation of "smart playlists" for managing music, and nobody else has an online store that's as nice as the iTunes store.

Why can’t I move the media files around my own hard drive and inform iTunes of the move so I can still play it in the player?

I believe you can. Just move them, and double-click on the file (if iTunes is your default player) or drag it onto the application icon. But why do you want to move the files, anyway? I just listen to them. I'm not sure what moving them around achieves.

Why isn’t there a simple navigation method using the keyboard, rather than having to drag the little diamond up and down the timeline with the mouse?

There is. Just set up your own shortcuts. Personally, I use a jog/shuttle controller designed for video editing to skip through iTunes tracks.

Why did Apple decide that the podcast standard should be screwed around with and added to with proprietorial tags, meaning that a separate feed must be created for iTunes users to all the other podcast downloaders?

Mess with the standard? Proprietary? Isn't XML desinged to be eXtensible? Adding your own tags is supposed to be what it is all about.

Also, why wouls you need a separeate feed? That sounds like the fault of the other podcast clients. They should either ignore or utilise the iTunes tags. If extra tags break these clients, then that sounds like a bug of the client.

As for why they did it - well, to offer more features, and make the podcasts more usable. What's wrong with that?

Isn’t that just as bad as Microsoft implementing JScript in Internet Explorer, rather than the proper Sun JavaScript? Wasn’t that part of the anti-trust suit the DoJ ran against M$? Surely Apple are behaving anti-competitively.

I really don't see how using XML as it was intended to be used is in any way anti-competitive. How can you compare this to Microsoft's implementation of Javascript, which was clearly intended as an attack on Sun?

Just how is it an anti-competitive issue to add features to a product, that don't (or shouldn't) infringe on anyone else's product? Is there anything stopping other players and clients from reading the iTunes tags?

And iTunes has always been bloatware - hogging a ridiculous amount of system resource

Maybe on Windows it is, but Windows itself has always been bloatware - so the situation is kind of circular. If you hate bloatware, what are you doing running Windows in the first place?

iPodService? I’ve never had an iPod, the more this shit goes on, the less likely I’m ever to have one. I don’t ever need that loading up.

So, kill the process.

Even if we did, while Apple release firmware updates that turn the thing into a brick if there are any changes made to it, they can go fuck themselves.

Now you're really getting into batshit crazy territory. The firmware update did not deliberately "brick" the phones. But why should Apple go out of their way to make sure unsupported hacks work?

Sounds like you've been listening too much to haters and propagandists.

The latest I’ve heard is that the Safari browser will be forcibly included in the install files for iTunes and installed on all Windows machines with no option to decline.

So now you're listening to unfounded rumours from said propagandists. That's pretty sad. People have rumoured just about everything about Apple in the past.

Why don't you wait to see if they actually do it before you start bitching about it? My bet is that this will not happen. People made the same complaints about the Quicktime installer coming with iTunes. But again, unfounded, as the Quicktime installer is available standalone.

and there are a number of podcasts that are only released in iTunes that are not compatible with other apps because of the proprietary tags.

Again, why are you blaming the tags for what sounds like a client software problem? And why are you calling it proprietary when it's just XML?

Seriously, Apple have been heading down the M$ path of business ethics for more than three years and it’s only going to get worse.

I don't think Apple have ever bought out companies just put them out of business. Apple have never forced OEMs to pay for their OS, even when they sell machines without it installed.

There's a long way to go before Microsoft levels of business ethics are reached. You haven't even demonstrated a single case of Apple screwing with any other companies.

I just wonder how long the sheep-like bleating of the Mac-evangelists will go on before they wake up to themselves and to what Apple are over-charging them for.

Man, you really are over the edge. It's funny how some people are much more zealous in their criticisms of "Mac Zealots" than even the most zealous Mac zealot can get. Seriously, what's up with this shit? most of those "zealots" are just people who enjoy uising their Macs, but there seems to be serious hate coming from others, just because people like to use Apple products.

What's it all about? It doesn't make a lot of sense, because Apple fans are usually Apple's biggest critics - not blind followers. But the blind rage of the anti-Apple crowd astounds me.

The products we've been "over-charged" for? Got any evidence to back that one up, mate? Apple's products are very price competitive. Sure, they might not make low-end cheap pieces of junk - but what you get is definitely worth the money. What is it with computers that people only seem to look at price? When it comes to cars or clothes, nobody has a problem with paying a bit more to get something nicer. But among so many computer users, it seems to be some kind of cardinal sin to pay anything more than the absolute cheapest prices. My computers are my tools of work, the one thing I use more than anything else. Why shouldn't I want a nice computer?

You've got one serious chip on your shoulder there, Brett. Why all the rage? I guess I'm just ignorant and blind. After all, I don't think for myself. I just let Apple rip me off. Whatever they want, I pay it, without question!

Oh, enlightened one... help me save myself from the evil clutches of Steve Jobs, whose image decorates my shrine at which I pray daily.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 104

David Boxcutter — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:37:49 -0000

Adam, I think that is just as problematic. That means that companies can market their products as "HD" without supporting 1080i or 1080p.

The solution is simply to refer to the specific resolution. Using HD as a catch-all phrase will always be problematic.

The thing that gets on my goat is the survey mentioned on Boxcutters, where they were telling people they were "wrong" about HD. Even though the facts are on my side, if I gave a technically correct answer, I would be considered wrong and ignorant - even though I know all about HD resolutions and the history of video.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

David Boxcutter — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:27:43 -0000

FYI Brett:

Fastforward/rewind in iTunes on a Mac is Command-Option-arrow keys.

On Windows it's Control-alt-arrow keys.

Hope that helps (assuming you actually wanted to solve the problem and not just rant about it).

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

David Boxcutter — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:05:25 -0000

First, I'll start with some TV-related comment just to stay a little on topic.

Mad TV have been doing some pretty good Apple/Steve Jobs parodies lately. I don't think I've ever heard Mad TV mentioned on Boxcutters before.

-------------

Brett: I might sound a little bit eager here, but as a Linux user I don’t have the need (or ability) for iTunes, or Safari, or any of this Apple lock-in rubbish.

Hmmm .... how does iTunes or Safari lock you in to anything? That makes about as much sense as saying that your Linux players lock you into something.

I have an iPod and love it to pieces, but I use gtkpod to do all the transfers. Apple knows nothing and can do nothing.

They can do nothing? Right... they just popularised the Graphical User Interface and totally changed thw way we interact with computers, influencing Windows, Linux, the entrie face of modern software and human interaction.

Apple’s philosophy in general is to make things easier. For those of us who know what we’re doing, it’s incredibly restrictive and dogmatic and, frankly, unusable.

Frankly, that's ridiculous. You don't really seem to know much about Apple users. There are plenty who know what they are doing, among their ranks some of the world's best software developers, scientists, graphics, video and effects people, etc.

Wheras, I find a lot of people who consider themselves computer geeks or "power users" actually don't do much except tinker with their computers - it's not a means to an end for them, messing with the computer is the goal. Hell, I used to love tinkering with computers - I wrote my own software in the 80s, I even made my own hardware peripherals. But I have better things to do these days. I'd rather use the tools to schieve other things.

If you have challenging jobs to do, why make it more pointlessly difficult? I've found that the "Mac way" actually makes it much easier to do sophisticated things. You can focus on doing the work, rather than fighting the OS. Seriously, Macs have been at the forefront of technically advanced fields like publishing for a long time. Photoshop started out on the Mac, for example. And the tools gave the ability to meet deadlines with ambitious projects. That's the reason why you see a lot of Macs in production houses - they are a reliable tool where the other computer/software systems couldn't handle the job.

Can you show me some evidence of how it is unusable and restrictive? Seems I have more choices, I can do things using the GUI, and I can do things with a UNIX command-line. I can use powerful industry-standard proprietary software, or I can run Open Source software.

Where am I being restricted?

I don't understand all the hate. Apple users generally don't go around categorically insulting other people like this. But for some reason there is a certain type of person who goes around saying all Mac users are faggots - or that Mac users are incapable of being technically competent.

The interesting thing is that so much of it stems from ignorance. Oft-repeated stereotypes, and plain misinformation. So many of the haters seem to have so little experience of actually using Macs for more than 5 minutes. Wheras you'll find that Mac users generally have broad experience with other systems, particularly Windows.

This is what makes Brett's "Apple users are sheep" comment so ironic. Apple users have generally made a conscious and informed decision to do so. Especially those of us who were users in the "dark days" before Jobs' return to the company. Many of us were ridiculed at every turn, because we didn't go along with the "herd."

I've never actually met one of these sheep-like, unquestioning Apple users that I hear so much about on teh intarwebs. But I personally know many people who spent heaps of money on a Windows machine just because a salesperson told them to. I know countless people who avoided using a Mac (when it would have suited them perfectly) just because they were scared of using something "different" or because some "techie" (usually not someone very smart) made them think they would suffer in misery if they dare chose to buy a Mac. The FUD runs really deep.

Which is why it bothers me when I see otherwise intelligent and rational people subscribe to the batshit-crazy misinformation that gets spread. Fortunately this stuff has declined a lot in the last 10 years, as Apples have become much more accepted. But it's amazing to see it rear its ugly head like some kind of flashback from 1996, in the most unexpected places, like Boxcutters.

It seems like we've been making some headway in geek culture into becoming more civil and mature, but the childishness just doesn't seem to want to go away.

Different people prefer different hardware and software. Big freakin' deal.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

David Boxcutter — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:22:08 -0000

I took Brett on his word about Safari, so I was probably wrong there. By ‘lock-in’ I meant forcing QuickTime onto you when you install iTunes, etc.

That's not lock-in. Lock-in is when an application stops you from migrating to another application. For example, if iTunes did not let you move your music collection to another application.

What you are describing is "bundling". But I don't see how Quicktime bundling is aproblem. iTunes wouldn't work without Quicktime, it provides the underlying engine. What would be the point of iTunes without Quicktime? It would not work.

Now, even if Apple were bundling Safari with iTunes (which they aren't) - why would this be unethical? It's their product, and one they give away for free. What obligation do they have to give it to you in a particular way?

All this talk of "force installing" seems rather whiney and off the mark. Brett makes it sound as though Apple thugs come to your house and force you to install the applications.

If you don't like a company's products, or the way they behave - there's a simple solution - don't install it. Isn't there a TV analogy about an off button somewhere here?

You misread what I said: Apple does not, and cannot, know what you put on your iPod if you use gtkpod.

I'm not sure what the issue is here. They don't know anyway. Apart from what you buy from the iTunes store, Apple doesn't keep any record of your music library through iTunes.

Objectively? No, because it’s my opinion. I wasn’t aware the UN was taking minutes.

Well, I'd like to hear some specifics, because I don't see what you can't do an an Apple system that you can on Linux or systems.

I like Linux myself, and I like the Free software philosophy and the concept of Linux even more. I'm someone who knows what I'm doing, but I couldn't use Linux professionally. There just isn't the professional graphics software available. It's impossible to do quality pre-press work on Linux, because the GIMP doesn't support CMYK images, for example. I can't do professional video editing on Linux, because there is no pro-calibre software for it.

So, perhaps you can see how there might be power users who know a lot, and use Mac, because it is actually less restrictive than the other options? I can always recompile Linux software for the Mac, but I can't recompile commercial software for Linux.

But I don't go around making sweeping statements about Linux users, or Windows users. Different people have different needs to me. But why do so many go around putting different users down?

Anyway, my main beef is with Brett. Your arguments are a lot more balanced than his, Adam. I think it's rather rude of him to make a bunch of unfounded arguments - then insult an entire category of people - and then disappear. Why won't he address the rebuttals? All I'm seeing is a lot of stereotypes that aren't grounded in facts.

He might have had some valid concerns about iTunes, but how did he get from there to insulting Apple users?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 106

David Boxcutter — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:45:51 -0000

Hang on, aren't LCDs more energy efficient than CRT screens of the same size?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 106

David Boxcutter — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:38:40 -0000

Not only are LCDs more energy efficient, but there are huge savings in toxic waste. CRTs are full of lead, other metals and heaps of glass.

It's so hard to get good technical reporting these days. Just about any reportage about technology is full of inaccuracies and misleading statements.

It sounds like the problem here is actually large TVs, rather than the technology used. People just demand bigger TVs than they did before. LCD screens themselves come in all manner of sizes, from portable ones for the car, to big screens.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 106

David Boxcutter — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:14:24 -0000

The "Great Debate":

"We want this to be Fair and Balanced".

Yeah, right.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 107

David Boxcutter — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:28:15 -0000

Brett is a lefty? That's curious, jimbo. What makes you say that, has he ever said anything on-air to indicate this, or do you know him personally?

I thought it seemed pretty unbalanced. For starters, Speers opened with the Fox News slogan - "Fair and Balanced" - what the hell is up with that? Is that some kind of nudge-nudge-wink to the conservatives, or merely a slip-up? It's hard to imagine such a gaffe finding its way into the openeng remarks by mistake.

Then there was his repeat of the Liberals' talking point about "70% of Labour are Union Officials" - which had already been shown to be factually incorrect on The Insiders that morning. Yet somehow the 70% figure kept getting thrown around all night, without anybody even challenging the veracity of the statement.

Personally, I found the whole thing incredibly boring. I wish I had've known that Channel 9 were actually using the worm - I would have watched that for the added entertainment.

The whole debate was dominated by pointless crap that the parties hardly differ on - interest rates, unemployent, the economy, the economy, interest rates, interest rates, the economy and interest rates.

Would be nice if they talked about some issues that there was some difference on, and social issues that actually affect us and the future of our country.

The economy is such a cop-out, because it is mostly beyond the control of the government - we rise and fall on the tides of a larger global economy, small local changes aren't going to affect that much.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 107

David Boxcutter — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:21:03 -0000

It is the "Leader's Debate" - it's Howard's toy, or at least he wants it to be.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 108

David Boxcutter — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:22:33 -0000

I'm still trying to work out what Josh is trying to say about writers and residuals/royalties.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 108

David Boxcutter — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:55:13 -0000

As for fourthof5's listener "I don't Buy It" - here's what I don't buy:

Dem Bigpond Network Homes

Who exactly is this supposed to appeal to? Its tone seems to be targeted mostly at parents and middle-aged people. Yet, why would a parent want this?

Yeah they really want the teenage son playing games all the time. And I'm sure they love the idea of the pre-teen daughter being exposed to 300 strangers on Facebook a whole lot.

The mother is using email on a desktop machine with the keyboard on a piece of furniture at armpit level, and the screen even higher than her head! Is she really supposed to be comfortable typing her emails with the computer that high up? Not very ergonomic. The father looks like he just commited a murder or something. Perhaps he's stalking pre-teens on Facebook?

Finally, if you want a network home, then why the hell would you choose Telstra anyway? I just switched away from Telstra to get enough bandwidth to make a networked entertainment machine practical. And it's not like anyone younger than the parents would be convinced that Telstra is a good idea, nor is the cheesy ad going to appeal to any younger people anyway.

At least they got one thing right - they gave up on any pretence of depicting the family being brought closer together, and depicted modern life for what it is - a bunch of individuals staring at separate screens. Being on the same network, but not close in any way.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 108

David Boxcutter — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:51:25 -0000

If your argument against Josh’s position hinges on the creative role of the writers then you need to show how/why that creative input is inherently different to the contribution of others

Well, the caterers are selling a product service, that is consumed once, and is not a part of the final product.

The choreographers, the set designers, all those creative roles should be able to negotiate royalties if they like. And, depending on who it is, I believe they do. Why wouldn't they?

As for the hair/makeup people - I think it's appropriate for costume designers and hair/makeup designers to get royalties - but not the people who simply style the hair the way they are told by the designer. Just like a set designer makes a creative contribution, but a set builder is just banging in nails where they are told to.

But hell, you can structure your payments however you like. In some low-budget independent films, almost everybody involved (including non-creative or "work for hire" roles) gets royalties, in lieu of a higher/any payment up-front. It depends on what they negotiate.

Anybody can get royalties if they like. I just don't understand why Josh is trying to say that people shouldn't be entitled to them.

Yes “No writers, no show” but has anyone ever made a ‘three camera sit-com’ without any fuckin cameras?

Well, if some company wants to hire/sell cameras on a royalty basis, rather than outright selling them, they are welcome to do that. Isn't that how some Special FX houses get paid? Invest in computers up-front, reap royalties when film is a blockbuster.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 109

David Boxcutter — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:08:04 -0000

The convention of not reporting suicide because it "encourages copycats" is such bullshit. I've heard this before, but who came up with this twisted logic? People commit suicide just because they want to copy a news report? I don't think so.

They show car crashes on the news that are the result of reckless, or drunk driving. Why doesn't the same logic apply there? If showing suicides encourages copycat suicides, why doesn't showing car smashes ancourage drunk driving?

If anything, this policy is contributing to suicide, because it avoids the issue. Out of sight, out of mind. It's easy for people to dismiss suicide as an issue when it is so frequently ignored.

James said this himself - most people don't realise how many people kill themselves in our most beloved cities. Doesn't this mean that the public is misinformed about current affairs? Isn't it the job of the journalist to inform the public about the world they live in? But in this case, there is a deliberate policy of misinformation.

Why is it that journalists are able to cross so many lines of ethical responsibility, but when it comes to covering suicide, this is somehow a sacred line that must not be crossed? Even though it doesn't make any sense? It would be more ethical to report as many suicides as possible.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 109

David Boxcutter — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:19:47 -0000

Would discussing suicide more wake enough people up to the problem? Enough people to offset the numbers of those who take it as that last little mental push?

I think I'd bet a lot of money on that. Especially as I doubt that there are any people who would commit suicide to imitate a news story, who wouldn't already commit suicide. On the other hand, there are thousands of people out there who would benefit from an open discussion of the issue. Both "victims" and the families of people at risk who might be ignoring it.

In any case, I suspect it’s actually just something the networks decided long ago in days of yore as a ‘decency’ provision, and then have never really revisited the question.

So, what's keeping them? Australia has one of the world's highest suicide rates - surely that is a powerful message that the strategy of silence isn't working?

Even if the commercial networks won't remove their heads from the sand, what's stopping the ABC and SBS from holding their feet to the fire?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 109

David Boxcutter — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:14:05 -0000

Unless the person was already famous, viz. Rene Rifkin, Kurt Cobain, etc, it’s probably not all that interesting.

Well, there lies the rub. The media are claiming that they are not reporting suicide out of some sort of ethical or moral concern. but the fact that they report (or even obsess over) suicides of famous people shows that to be lie.

If the justification is that they are famous - doesn't that lend itself to even more possibility of imitation than regular nobodies commiting suicide? A celebrity suicide is glamourous in a way that most aren't.

How abolut they address suicide as a collective? They have no problem reporting on collective issues such as drug abuse (the Ice epidemic, for example) - so why isn't suicide treated as a similar threat?

There are plenty of issues where they don't focus much on specific cases, but just on the overall statistics - why is suicide so ignored in comparison to the other issues, which are arguably of less importance?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 109

David Boxcutter — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:05:47 -0000

Pretty much agree with everything you said there, jimbo. Especially that depression isn't the full story.

My comments weren't meant to be directed only at TV journalism, or any particular outlet. It just seems that this "convention" has become a zombie, that just keeps going without anybody thinking about it. We've just gotten so used to seeing zombies that we barely notice it's there.

Re: boxcutters episode 111

David Boxcutter — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:49:40 -0000

If you have an SD TV and STB you cannot watch HD channels, if you have a HD TV and STB you will be able to watch both HD and SD channels.

Technically, not true. You don't need an HD TV to watch HD channels, you just need an HD set-top box. Decent set-top boxes will downconvert the signal to fit your SD TV. (But what's up with calling it a "set top box" anyway? With the current LCD and plasma screens, they are too thin to balance a box on the top, so they go beneath the TV)

In fact, you don't need a TV at all, you can just get an HD tuner for your computer, and turn it into a HD recorder.

-------

Boxcutters - no mention of the new season of The Mighty Boosh that just started? You guys must really fear the jazz.

-------

Re: Top Gear.

An Australian version would be just disastrous. Whoever came up with this idea doesn't understand how long it took for Top Gear to mature into the amazing show that it is, and the unique chemistry it requires for the whole production - both in terms of the presenters' talent, and the visual sophistication of cinematographers who have experience and passion for shooting cars and landscape.

I recently downloaded a season of Top Gear from 1992. Apparently the show goes back at least as far as 1988. The only really recognisable part of the show is the theme song, and Jeremy Clarkson. He has his usual inimitable style, but the other presenters in those days were like government employees making public safety announcements.

Can you believe they even did things like cover rally car racing? That totally killed the old episodes for me. One minute they would be doing their car reviews, the next moment they are giving you the results of that weekend's rally race in excruciating detail. God it was boring. Motorsports has to be the world's most boring thing. Funny how Top Gear can make the ordinary consumer car fascinating, but professional racing still seem like John Howard on <strike>boxcutters</strike> morphine.

Re: boxcutters episode 111

David Boxcutter — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:16:50 -0000

Set-bottom-boxes although interesting doesn’t have the same ring to it!

Which is why we should simply call them receivers. "Set-top box" always seems like a horrid Americanism to me, like "SUV".

I mean, it has "box" in its name! How vague is that? The name doesn't even indicate what it is - just that it's box-shaped and goes on top of something. Bizarre.

Re: boxcutters episode 111

David Boxcutter — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:43:30 -0000

Sorry, I just can't use that initialism for set-top box. It pains me. It's like syphilis or something. Sexually Transmitted Bubos?

Re: boxcutters episode 111

David Boxcutter — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:20:55 -0000

Adam, I highly recommend the LG LST-6100P

It will output several different resolutions, from 1080i down to SD. It's not the cheapest HD receiver, but it's very good. Go into JB Hi-Fi, and if you hassle one of the salespeople, they should knock $30 or so off the price.

The thing I like most about LG is that their remote control units are actually designed well, for humans. All the buttons are in the right place, and not cluttered. It also has buttons for controlling the TV power, volume and channel - so you should only need the 1 remote. It can be programmed to control different brands of TV, not just LG.

Re: boxcutters episode 111

David Boxcutter — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:43:28 -0000

Watching ABC election coverage. I love how whenever they show the seat of Benelong, with former Kerry O'Brian cohort Maxine McKew possibly winning - there are massive cheers coming from the floor. Classic.

Although I wish whoever's phone that is would turn the ringer off and put it on vibrate. So annoying.

I'm going to call it now. Nooooooooo Howardo!

Re: boxcutters episode 111

David Boxcutter — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:49:25 -0000

Did anyone else hear Red Kezza’s gaff regarding the “ABC, I mean ALP victory”?!

That was particularly cool, because at the time he was referring to Maxine McKew, who of course is a former ABC colleague.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:18:38 -0000

Subsidies for digital receivers? Don't make me laugh. I could see it if we paid a TV license fee like the British do. But we've always paid for our own TV sets and VCRs. When VCRs came in, very few people could afford them, but you didn't hear people calling for them to be subsidised by the government.

There is a significant cost difference between SD and HD boxes. The SD boxes are cheap enough that there's no need to subsidise it - like $30 at the supermarket. And HD is not a necessity, it's a luxury, so there's no need to subsidise that.

I think Brett has been a little disingenuos over this whole digital transition. Particularly last week, when he complained that the channel 10 ads were misleading because "you need a surround sound system to get surround sound". That's about as stupid as complaining that "you need a TV to watch TV".

I don't think anybody would think that a new HD service would cause a HDTV to instantly materialise in the living room. So why say that about surround sound or HD tuners, or anything else? People understand that new technology and features means buying more stuff.

Pie in the sky!

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:56:20 -0000

I made the point about surround sound, not Brett

Bross strikes again!

I think you completely wrong - I think there will be many many people who say “I’ve got a set top box, why don’t I get the HD channels?”

Sure, but what does that have to do with the surround sound analogy? Re-read my post. Who thinks that an actual TV set will materialise because there is a new TV service?

That's the parallel with surround sound. Even with limited technical knowledge, nobody expects new speakers to appear in their lounge room.

The HD/SD difference is much more subtle and confusing to the layperson than things like surround sound. Plus people have been dealing with surround sound for a lot longer than HD - since DVDs basically.

Running both digital and analogue broadcasts is ridiculously expensive.

Is it? Why? Transmitters cost a lot to build, but adding a signal to an existing transmitter is pretty negligible. And again, once the service is up, it's not going to cost that much to run each month. The costs are mostly up-front.

Therefore it would be cheaper in the long run to give everybody set top boxes and turn the analogue off now.

But it's not that simple. If you live in a rural area, a digital receiver isn't going to do shit. You will likely need a new antenna as well.

With analogue broadcasts, even if you get a weak signal, you can still get picture and sound (even if it has a lot of static). With digital, once the signal drops below a certain level, you get nothing, not just a degraded signal.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:48:33 -0000

David, perhaps there’s a problem with the platform you’re listening to the podcast in that’s leading to the confusion between me and Ross. What are you running it on? Does it handle audio well generally?

Oooooh, bitchy.

Well, I use either studio monitor speakers, or Sennheiser headphones for my audio monitoring needs.

But I'd say the main point of failure in my platform of choice is... ears. Damn those concerts. But I'm not the only one who has problems decoding the analogue signal in wetware. Perhaps I need to hire an 8-year-old to decipher the podcast. That would probably violate child labour laws, though.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:06:58 -0000

I’m actually platform agnostic

How are you platform agnostic, if you totally slam a particular platform, and say that its users are deluded and being ripped off? Doesn't sound anything like agnosticism to me. Particularly the way you repeat urban myths and FUD verbatim.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:30:36 -0000

Whaddaya know - looks like I was wrong about the fishing being no good…

So, you admit you were trolling?

Has someone been posting under my name around here or something? I don’t recall ever slamming the entire Mac platform nor claiming the users are deluded or ripped off

You must have a short memory. This is what you said in the comments section to episode #105:

I just wonder how long the sheep-like bleating of the Mac-evangelists will go on before they wake up to themselves and to what Apple are over-charging them for.

Don't you think my summary of your position was accurate? What is "sheep-like" if not deluded? What is "over-charging" if not ripped off?

As to "Mac Evangelists" - it seems that anybody who says anything positive about the platform, or corrects falsehoods about it, is immediately labelled an "evangelist".

What I did do, once, was to write a veritable essay on my complaints about iTunes on the Windows platform.

Except you went far beyond that and said many things that aren't true. If you were just talking about iTunes on Windows, why did you bring the Mac platform into it?

You were the one who started this platform war, Brett. It was never a problem before, everybody was happily using their platform of choice. You chose to cast the first stone.

So, even though you start the fight, you then choose to blame some imaginary people - and claim you are "platform agnostic" in an extraordinary effort at backpedalling.

I find it dull when a MacEvangelist takes it upon themselves to lecture me on how fucking awesome the Mac is and how shit Windows is.

Except nobody did that. In the entire history of Boxcutters, I don't remember anybody lecturing anybody on how awesome the Mac is, nor anybody saying how shit Windows is.

I think these "MacEvangelists" may be a fabrication of your imagination.

Computers are simply tools - like hammers.

Exactly. So, why did you go on about how Mac users are sheep - when everybody else was saying "Calm down, iTunes is just a tool"?

The cult of Mac, the cult of the iPod, the cult of Steve Jobs… you’d think people that can effectively use a computer would have more questioning minds than to mindlessly defend and recruit for Apple. When Jobso comes out with the Kool-Aid, will you ask yourself exactly what it is that you’re sacrificing yourself for?

And this is the heart of the nonsense. The "Cult of Mac" doesn't even exist. It's just a fabrication by haters.

And to be completely clear, none of this is slagging off all the users of a brand of computer - it is specifically about the mindless drones.

So, who in particular are you talking about here?

I’m not interested in expending energy (and yet, look at what I’m doing) on debating it with someone that’s never going to accept any of the valid arguments put forward and come back with “It works fine on my Mac”. Boring!

Again, nobody said that, so who are you talking to?

What happened was that you received very specific rebuttals and answers to you complaints - such as the "Proprietary Podcast tags" gripe. Yet you ignored all of those. You didn't reply to any of the articulate replies you received. Instead you continue deeper into this fantasy of "Mac cults" and other such nonsense.

Nobody on Boxcutters responded with "It works fine on my Mac".

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:08:38 -0000

I’m talking about MacEvangelists in the outside world.

Again, you're talking about a fantasy. For all your talk of cults, it seems to be you who has been programmed into these fairytale beliefs about Mac users. You have totally swallowed the Kool-aid here. This is especially evident in your previous rant where you believe bogus rumours about how Apple is going to force a Safari bundle on you.

What kind of sites are you reading, and who are you listening to, that you are repeating this kind of nonsense?

Truly, I’m platform agnostic. My work necessitates that I work in a Windows environment.

Bullshit. If you're agnostic, why do you have such a warped view of a particular platform? And what the hell work do you do that necessitates a Windows environment? I can't think of any job that necessitates that apart from computer game critic, perhaps.

but I didn’t go around telling Windows users they’re losers who are a danger to themselves and a burden to others.

But who does this? No Mac user that I've ever met. There are many Mac users who listen to Boxcutters. These people are fully aware that you and other boxcutters use Windows. BUT NOBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING. You were the one who came out of left field making bizarre claims about people who use Macs.

You don't have to lookm very far aroiund the 'net to see that the Mac-hating is far more vicious and widespread than any Windows bashing. People may gently rib Windows users once in a while, but it's a far cry from the hysterical lies and trolling that is typical of the Mac haters.

Seriously, I can’t give a shit about who uses what, unlike MacEvangelists (ever meet Frank from the Mac Shop in Flinders Street?) who can’t just shut the fuck up if they find out you use Windows.

No, I have never met Frank. I also tend not to base my views of the world on the behaviour of that alcoholic urine-soaked guy who hangs around outside Young & Jacksons in Flinders street.

If only people like that (and given the point by point rebuffs you post, David, I suspect I’m speaking to one right now) would put the same energy into pressuring Apple to cease following the M$ path of bloatware,

Yeah right. Like we have any power to "pressure" Apple. And the fact is that many Apple fans DO EXACTLY THIS via their blogs. Go read a decent Apple blog sometime. It's not all praise - there is a lot of incisive criticism.

This is another thing you have wrong in your assessment of Mac users - they are extremely critical of Apple, and I have never met these unthinking drones that you speak of.

Please listen to what I’m saying. I can’t be fucked having a pissing competition about platforms and I’m not going to bother entering into this anymore.

Oh, the irony! You have been the one who has not listened to us this whole time. You got some very cogent replies to your last rant, and you ignored them all.

You are the one who has been having a pissing contest about platforms. If you actually read the replies, you might see that. Instead, you seem to be making stuff up and dismissing any replies as "boring".

Myself and other boxcutters addressed many of the problems you were having - but you ignored that. You so ignored the previous conversation that you seem to have forgotten what you said, and have this strange imaginary version of what others said in reply.

Nobody responded in the way you characterised. And your rant was NOT just about the Windows version of iTunes, as you claim. Tell me - what does "proprietary podcast tags" have to do with the Windows version of iTunes? And are you ever going to admit that you were wrong about needing a separate RSS feed for iTunes?

I guess anybody who points out your errors on this topic must be a "Mac Evangelist", huh?

I'd really like to understand where all this hatred comes from, Brett. I've never understood hate of any kind, and I've never understood trolling, or those who choose to believe propaganda. I really would like to understand this phenomenon, as it fascinates me. But any time I come across this irrationality, the person has never been able to hold a proper discussion about it.

The difference is that you generally seem like a pretty rational guy, Brett. perhaps you can hold the crazy in check long enough to analyse and discuss it? or is that too boring for you?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:12:08 -0000

Guys, really. Aren’t there enough places on the web where people fight about who’s operating system would win in a fight with Superman and Spiderman?

Yes, Josh. But that's not what anybody's trying to do here. As I alluded to in my last couple of paragraphs, this might be a unique opportunity to analyse this phenomenon in an intelligent person who we "know" through the podcast.

One typically doesn't get that opportunity in the vast wilds of the crazy internet platform wars.

Let’s talk TV. No Virginia for Media Watch but instead Jonathan Holmes who could bring crankiness, self-righteousness and pedantry back to the screen.

What are your thoughts?

Isn't that the guy with the huge penis?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 112

David Boxcutter — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:13:09 -0000

PS: Fuck off with the Mac v Windows and whatever else conversations. WHAT.EVER.

It's not a Mac vs. Windows conversation. It's a Brett versus reality debate. I think Brett's the only one treating it as a platform war.

Re: Boxcutter Episode 113

David Boxcutter — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:02:47 -0000

Guys, don't you realise that you can put hearts on your mobile phone? You can put them on your facebook profile. You can even get Hello Kitty products with hearts on them! So how can they be bad?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 114

David Boxcutter — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:04:10 -0000

I'll have to remember Pepsi the next time I get shot at. Could save my life.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 115

David Boxcutter — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:26:20 -0000

Has SBS gone insane? They buy Top Gear, presumably for big bucks - and they don't even have anybody to present it? They're advertising to the general public for presenters?

They obviously have no idea about Top Gear. The show is only a success because of the personalities of the presenters. You can't just find random people, get them to talk about cars, and have it be Top Gear.

As I said a while back, I downloaded some old episodes of Top Gear, and the only thing that it has in common with the Top Gear of 2007 is the personality of Jeremy Clarkson. Everything else was like a bunch of public servants giving a safety and economics assessment.

Top Gear isn't just a generic brand, it became what it is because of a specific personal chemistry among those who make it.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 115

David Boxcutter — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:31:07 -0000

Oh, it's not just about cars, either. I believe the presenters all have a background in journalism (at least Clarkson does) and finely-tuned bullshit detectors. There's also the "we're really snarky British curmudgeons, oh so British" thing combined with mock xenophobia, and hilariously twee ideas.

Can you imagine if SBS just picked someone for their expertise in cars? Just think of some Aussie "car enthusiast" or worse, "petrol head" in this role.

Re: Ernie & Bert meets The Sopranos… (finally)

David Boxcutter — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:52:30 -0000

I can't tell the difference between Bert & Ernie. Their voices are too similar.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 116

David Boxcutter — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:45:02 -0000

Re: Awards shows & writers

Did they actually negotiate with the writers, or did they just want an "exmeption" as Josh put it? Because if they didn't want to agree/negotiate, then I can see why they got snubbed and World Wide Pants didn't.

Re: Thrush

The classic treatment for thrush is natural yoghurt. It can be adminstered both orally and vaginally. I'm not sure if it also treats sand, however.

Re: I Don't Buy It

What I don't buy is the new ad for Ten HD. It shows a guy walking through some attractive street scenes, and into a beautiful meadow while "I Can See Cleary" plays. In the flowery meadow, he sees an ugly "high-tech" building in the distance. He enters this building, and is now surrounded by bleak white corridors. People wearing white coats surround him, and put him in a reclining chair, and spin him around. He ends up staring at a TV screen with the Ten HD logo on it. The whole thing is very clinical, like a bad trip to the dentist.

The message of this ad appears to be that the world outside is beatiful and colourful - but if you decide to watch Ten HD, this soul-enriching experience will be replaced with sensory deprivation and possible probing by people in lab coats. You'll end up strapped into a chair, Clockwork Orange style with your eyes clamped open.

Re: Boxcutters Special Edition BRAVO

David Boxcutter — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:36:58 -0000

I actually liked the episode of My Name is Earl where they wrote their own stories. Does that make me a bad person?

It also wasn't pointless. I thought the point was obvious - to get outside the prison setting. As for "out of place" it actually fits in the tradition of an earlier episode where they each had their own stories - "My Name is Randy", etc.

Re: Boxcutters Special Edition BRAVO

David Boxcutter — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:38:01 -0000

Oh yeah, what does Ms. Hardy have against Mr. Black? He's a stand-up guy!

Re: Boxcutters Summer Edition 1: Alex Papps

David Boxcutter — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:00:13 -0000

Was just listening to Brett dropping some funky-n-old-skool choons on RRR, reminded me to check for a new episode.

Though he should be called "DJ Granola" and wear a tablespoon around his neck.

Re: TiVo are calling for Beta Testers

David Boxcutter — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:26:37 -0000

If you get it, you will be under a non-disclosure agreement, so you won't be able to keep the Boxcutters informed,

Re: TiVo are calling for Beta Testers

David Boxcutter — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:18:10 -0000

Whatever works for you, I guess.

I tend to respect things like that, because it seems like there is a fair exchange going on here. I companies can't trust people to honour these agreements, they may do less of this kind of testing in future. And if Boxcutters becomes a source of leaks - that may prevent any future possibilities between Boxcutters and TiVo (say, giving interviews, or even getting swag for your giveaways).

Having said that, I have no problems using channel bittorrent or disregarding many copyright notices (I never signed anything)... but I'd respect an agreement like this, and take it pretty seriously. It's the difference between jaywalking and lying or going back on your word.

Re: TiVo are calling for Beta Testers

David Boxcutter — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:02:07 -0000

I think it would be ridiculously naive of any company undergoing beta testing to assume that there will be no leaks of how their product works.

Sure, they will expect some leaks. But if it got bad, then they could just restrict the beta programme more tightly, or put more onerous conditions on participation. Remember, there's nothing forcing these companies to make their beta tests "open to application" from the general public like this.

The TiVo site said that participants "may" have to give back the equipment. My hunch would be that NDA violations would increase that chance of having to give it back as opposed to getting a freebie.

I wonder, also, if an NDA would expect the beta testers - in their own homes - to hide the box and any screens away from their friends…

It’s starting to sound a little like Ruddock’s video for home use legislation.

What sounds like Ruddock, Brett? That little hypothetical bit you just invented? I haven't read the NDA they require, so I have no idea if it contains anything like that. I would doubt it.

Oh, and while I wouldn't violate an NDA, you're welcome to get me liquored up anytime you like.

Re: TiVo are calling for Beta Testers

David Boxcutter — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:51:52 -0000

Invented hypothetical? Where did that come from?

It clearly came from you. In the context of the discussion, the "it" that was getting bad was the idea that TiVo would make people hide the equipment in their own homes.

We covered this at least two times on the show when it was news. Check out Replacing stupid laws with moronic ones or New laws to limit use of TV recording to refresh your memory.

Right, but that doesn't have anything to do with TiVo's beta test, so why the non-sequitur?

The one thing they specify in the Beta signup process is that the user not be an employee or related to an employee of a competitor.

But that's just the sign-up process, an initial screening. That's not the NDA - you sign that if and when you are selected.

Re: Boxcutters Summer Edition 2: Rob Brearley

David Boxcutter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:26:31 -0000

Slightly off-topic:

One of the best feed readers for Mac, NetNewsWire is now free of cost. It did cost US$30 before. Good news for people looking for an iTunes alternative for the Boxcutters feed. I like how it synchronises feeds across the 'net, so you can use it at work and at home.

They have also made their equivalent reader for Windows, FeedDemon free, but I have no idea how it compares to their Mac product.

Even more off-topic:

For those Mac users not yet aware of it, the annual Macheist software sale is now on. The price is pretty damn good, cheaper than some of the individual apps.

* Note: the above link is not an affiliate link, and I'm not associated with the company.

I'm just mentioning this in case it is useful to someone, and I was really happy with last year's bundle. I'm not associated with the company, and I hate spamming with affiliate links. But if you do plan to buy the bundle and want to give me a bonus app, just ask me for a link.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled Boxcutters.

Re: Boxcutters Summer Edition 2: Rob Brearley

David Boxcutter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:40:52 -0000

That seems a lot like spam and/or Brett baiting. Why not, before you bring up something off topic, discuss something on topic to help encourage discussion on the blog?

How is it Brett baiting? Is it forbidden to mention anything Mac-related?

He was the one saying people should ditch iTunes - I was just pointing out that some good alternatives have become available. Lo and behold, fourthof5 comes asking about alternatives. The ones I posted would be perfect (they sync to iTunes).

I just don't get the Brett thing. Why is it OK for him to rant about Apple and iTunes (with frequent inaccuracies, and a great deal of hostility) - but it's wrong for me to post practical, helpful advice on software - in a calm and reasoned manner?

I even responded to the problems Brett was having with actual solutions - which he ignored, and then called me a troll for simply responding to his points. I just don't get it. Why is help and accurate info looked down on, but Brett's tantrums are overlooked?

As for the Macheist thing - yes, I can see how it looks like spam. That's why I made the disclaimer and didn't post an affiliate link. There are potentially many Boxcutters readers who don't know about it, but could get a lot of use out of the software. It would be unfortunate if they missed the sale and had to pay a lot more (this is just a one-off thing). It was just a helpful hint.

If that was spam, then surely the link to the TiVo site also classifies as spam - or the earlier link to IceTV?

Now, on-topic:

With is "Are You Smarter than a Grade Fiver" any less grammatically correct than "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader"? They are both grammatically incorrect. It should be "Are You Smarter than a Person in the Fifth Grade".

Sorry I didn't have anything to say before. I just don't have much to say about this episode. But I was excited about the free newsreaders thing, and thought it would be useful to Boxcutters. It is an RSS feed, after all.