Boxcutters - An Australian TV Podcast - Latest Comments in Boxcutters Episode 105

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:43:22 -0000

You should be able to see it here:

http://abc.net.au/7.30/

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:40:38 -0000

Howard's performance on The 7.30 Report tonight was easily the worst I've seen since the John Hewson days. Just awful.

Bundle of nerves, stuttering all over the place; going way, way off message about Japan for some reason; physically reaching out to the audience, just like he did when he announced his retirement; and he openly snubbed Kerry at the end of the interview!

O'Brien: 'Thanks for your time Mr Howard, I look forward to next time.'

Howard: 'I'm suuuuure. [rolls eyes]'

The whole thing was just weird. If you didn't see it, find it somehow.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

MordWa — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:52:03 -0000

BTW - as far as "Journeyman" goes;

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20071015brian...

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

MordWa — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:00:45 -0000

That's okay Jimbo - I have the advantage of not being directly involved in the industry, I can afford to be more black and white with my passion; the eternal scream of the outsider - "Things should be better!"

...

And now - as we take a deep breath and await the next thrilling episode of <strike>who'll storm out of the blog first</strike> boxcutters, let's all show there's no hard feeling-

*plasters goofy grin on face*

Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya

Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya

*hugs everybody*

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:07:37 -0000

Now that the ALP has responded with what's essentially a no, the whole bickering session is in massive danger of boring the punters to distraction.

I do, however, maintain that holding the debate in Parliament House (i.e. Howard's own turf in viewers' eyes) is designed to disadvantage Rudd. Aren't they usually held in television studios?

Also, only having one right at the start of the campaign is clearly a ploy to get the whole thing out of the way as quickly as possible. Ironic, when you consider Rudd could balls it up completely.

And yes, having recently been in Slovakia I can attest to the quality of ladies. There's nothing to do in Bratislava but it doesn't actually matter.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

jimbo — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:17:23 -0000

Jeez, I leave the room for one minute and look what happens.

MordWa, I haven't been dodging you. I actually managed to get a couple of days off and went away for once. Ross, you wouldn't believe the sight of some of our old mates when one of them marries a Slovakian girl... in Slovakia!

MordWa, I think you make a couple of good points, even though I'm not going to address them just now. Maybe there's a disconnection between whet I think I try to uphold day to day, and what many of my colleagues in the past and in the present do to give the very fair impression that we're all shonks. And I think that's why I get so fired up about it - because some of us genuinely do try.

Ross, you're right - Howard has never won an election debate. It's written in his new biography that he suffers badly from nerves and it always shows. I watched in person last time as Latham gave him a pasting. It was the only real high point in Labor's campaign.

The incumbent always sets the terms. Catbrain's right about that. The opposition always requests three debates knowing they'll only get one, yada yada.

However I'd forgotten til recently that Keating refused to debate Howard at all in 1996. Pity. It would've been great to see Keating in full flight take Howard apart!

But these days I'm not sure a PM from either party could get away with refusing to have any debate at all.

Either way, the campaign's going to be a ripper. Game on!

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Mike Beckham — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:09:53 -0000

David Spears does not take sides (neither does Sky News). It isn't Australia's FOX News if that's what you think...

I reckon Spears is possibly Australia's best Political reporter.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Ross — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:34:23 -0000

Has Howard ever won a political debate during an election? He usually gets thumped...

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:26:09 -0000

True, but normally it's held in a neutral location [not the PM's turf] and conducted by a comparatively objective arbitrator [not a Murdoch editor]. Farcical.

Rudd responded by [again] requesting three debates in which questions will be taken.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

catbrain — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:49:48 -0000

The government of the day always sets the terms of the debate. Rarely (if ever?) do they take questions from the audience, and I can happily live without The Worm.

I reckon Howard will use it to make some policy announcements, hoping to catch Rudd on the hop.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:34:39 -0000

Fair and balanced

Prime Minister John Howard wants to debate Labor leader Kevin Rudd just one week into the election campaign.

He is proposing the live audience debate take place in the Great Hall of Parliament House next Sunday, moderated by Sky New's political editor David Speers.

In a letter to ALP national secretary Tim Gartrell, Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane queried Mr Rudd's availability for the debate and set out the terms under which it would occur.

A panel of five senior journalists, chosen by both parties and the National Press Club, would take part but there was no indication audience participation would be involved.

So incredibly grubby.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

catbrain — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:10:27 -0000

Just seen an ad on Nine - L plate Rudd and Swan and Gillard (I think) labelled as bound to the unionists. Libs banging on about how good they are for the economy.

Game on, bitches.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 05:20:04 -0000

I thought both presented bad images of Howard and nice images of Rudd. Weird. :)

I'm hunting for election ads but I've not seen any yet. Maybe they won't start until the writs go through.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

fourthof5 — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:26:13 -0000

I did that today when I first saw the election being announced. I went to "The Age" and "The Herald-Sun" and looked that the choice of images both used. The Herald Sun surprised me with a beaming Johnny and a worried Kevo. The Age was more formal though. They seemed to have changed the images now.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:41:54 -0000

Oh, by political adverts I meant actual party-funded political adverts, not the 'information dissemination' bullshit that Howard's been peddling all year.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:35:27 -0000

PLEASE shush about the Apple now.

Hey, with an election on the horizon, how much fun will it be dissecting political adverts? Buckets is my guess. Most viewers will be so scaremongered from all sides that they'll just explode.

MordWa: Precisely. At the moment it's the conservatives who're giving Murdoch all the love. In five years it could be the Climate Change Coalition. Who knows where it'll go. Right now I'm just glad Murdoch has little/no free-to-air clout in this country.

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 105

catbrain — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:16:38 -0000

@MordWa - Suits you, sir!

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Ross — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:11:22 -0000

I'm with you Ceebs.

Fourth - thats interesting about Reaper and Chuck. Haven't seen Reaper yet, but we're doing Chuck on next week's show.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

MordWa — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:18:22 -0000

@cb

Well which is it you want? more love, or more poking?

[suddenly possessed by spirit of Benny Hill, Frankie Howerd and Sid James]

Can't do both, nudge nudge fnar fnar, "no missus no!", etc ohh whoopsie guv'nor, actress-bishop, etc etc...

*chuckle*

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

catbrain — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:22:09 -0000

Where's the love gone? WHERE'S THE TELLY TALK??

If conversations about grammar are frowned upon, can we please give the same treatment to the iTunes/iPod/Mac v PC comments as well? If the podcast has a problem, just fix it - don't go on about why it's a problem. If people have suggestions about what they think would be an improvement to the site (the in-site player stuff), send it in an email. PLEASE. I'm sick of the bitching.

Now, let's get back to poking Nine and jimbo.

*skips away*

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

Adam D — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:33:00 -0000

Er, nice jump off the deep end there, David.

Because this is a TV site I'm keeping my response as short as possible.

Hmmm …. how does iTunes or Safari lock you in to anything?

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.

They can do nothing? Right… they just popularised the Graphical User Interface and totally changed thw way [...]

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

Also, by the magic of reading, you'll discover that half my post was in praise of Apple.

Can you show me some evidence of how it is unusable and restrictive?

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

Re: Boxcutters Episode 105

MordWa — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:10:35 -0000

@Adam D.

Actually, I tend to believe Rupert himself *IS* open and bipartisan - to whichever side allows him the opportunity to expand his empire/influence further. It isn't even about the money these days- he an old man and clearly has one eye on 'the legacy'.
That said - it's just easier for him to do business with less impediments (like say, unions, bodies of oversight, etc) and governments that allow greater concentration of media.
Notice he doesn't have a problem doing business with China, for example.
Also, you have to factor in what he actually wants versus his employees perception of what he wants - and lord knows how you work out that.

Or am I thinking of that Bond villain from 'Tomorrow Never Dies', again?

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

fourthof5 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:58:22 -0000

@Adam D. Thats an old Klingon (star Trek) joke.
How many Klingon's does it take to change a light bulb? None. Klingon's are not afraid of the dark.

I am up to date on Journeyman, I rather like it. On a separate issue. I am struck by the similarity in terms of cast between Chuck and "Reaper". I like both, but they are almost the same show in terms of characterisation. Also on a separate issue. I now see the major commercial networks in the US are moving a way from the "if its not a smash hit in the first ep, its canceled" idea. Both CBS and NBC are allowing shows to grow and develop. They have ordered more shows of "The Bionic Woman" and "Life" despite the fact that they have had less than stellar performances in the ratings. Fox of course will continue to kill anything thats even remotely good.