| Didn't see that coming |
[Feb. 4th, 2010|06:20 pm] |
My son called me at work when he got home from school today to tell me that one of the guinea pigs, which we've had for just over a month, was bleeding. Or had been bleeding; there was blood all over the cage and he couldn't tell if it was still coming. So I left work a little early and took her to the vet.
Long story short: PetSmart sold us a pregnant guinea pig. In about an hour, I'll be paying for a guinea pig C-section.
***UPDATE***
The vet called a little while ago. He said the surgery went fine but that all three babies were stillborn. |
|
|
| Spotted on I-84 in Manchester |
[Feb. 1st, 2010|11:23 am] |
Sometimes, bumper stickers just aren't big enough to fit all the crazy.
I was disappointed to find that the Web site, allaboutgod.com, isn't nearly as crazy as I thought it would be. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 29th, 2010|02:27 pm] |
Another theory about the Internet's role in the decline of newspapers, more specifically about why people aren't willing to pay for online news:
"'...reading the news online is a worktime activity. Most people aren't paid to sit at a computer and read newspapers. They're snatching things throughout the day'... People who click on a news article or a video at work as a distraction from other tasks aren't going to want to pay for it. People are willing to pay for newspapers not because they're used to paying, according to Varian, but because 'It's a much nicer experience to sit there with a newspaper and a cup of coffee and have that be your leisure time activity.'"
This sounds right to me. I enjoy reading the newspaper every morning, but I don't really like reading news online. If I do read a news story online, it's generally because either:
(1) someone e-mailed the story to me;
(2) I came across an interesting headline while fucking around at work on a site like digg.com or My Yahoo; or
(3) I'm following some big, developing story.
I really like sitting down with the New York Times but I simply don't enjoy going to nytimes.com and, as such, I rarely do.
Another distinction between online and off-line news is that I'm far more likely to read a print story all the way through where I'll normally lose interest within a couple paragraphs of an online story. That's probably because the Internet has conditioned me to have a short attention span when I'm sitting in front of a computer.
I'm inclined to agree with the Google economist here: free online news isn't the whole problem. It's smart that more and more newspapers are putting their content behind pay walls, but that's only one step. The key is to charge for content but to make it feel free. My suggestion: a third-party service that charges one fee for access to the content of several different outlets. Have packages that include the content of the big boys - New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. - as well as local packages. Then let account holders access all of that content directly from their home page after they log in.
I see it the same way I see my Netflix account. Because I pay the $15 a month (or whatever it is), I get to watch movies and TV shows instantly and I'm perfectly happy with that price. If I broke it down based on the frequency with which I actually use that option, it probably works out to be $1 per viewing. But I'd be far less likely to pull out a credit card and pay that $1 each time I want to watch something whether it saves me money or not. Even if I spend that $15 for a whole month of service and never end up using it, it feels like a better deal. |
|
|
| Supergenius Central: SGC News: SGC Scoops the New York Times |
[Jan. 15th, 2010|11:42 am] |
Supergenius Central: SGC News: SGC Scoops the New York Times
Shared via AddThis
The New York Times published an interesting article last Sunday: an interactive map of the city that breaks down the Netflix rentals of its respective neighborhoods. What an fascinating, original idea! In fact, we like the idea so much that we decided to write a story about it more than a month ago.
That's right: the Old Gray Lady was beaten to the punch by our own Veronica Hebrides, who filed her story almost six weeks before the Times did. Well done, Veronica!
***
On another note, we apologize for our extended, unannounced hiatus from posting. Blame the holidays, blame Chris Merton-Pierce's philandering, blame my drinking problem. Whatever the reason, we're sorry. We'll return to posting full time next week. |
|
|
| You're a fat, lonely loser |
[Jan. 4th, 2010|03:37 pm] |
I didn't make any resolutions this year because, as my LJ name implies, I'm plenty fabulous as it is. Besides, I tend to eschew self-improvement in the winter in favor of less noble pursuits that involve melted cheese, copious alcohol and video games.
But of course millions of other people have made resolutions. My guess is that the two most common resolutions are to lose weight and to find a romantic partner. That guess is based partly on the people I know but mostly on the commercials that played as I watched TV last night. The commercials fell into three groups: ads for online personals (Match.com, eHarmony and some off-brand matchmaking sites), ads for weight loss services and promos for cop drama "Southland."*
I was watching "Return of the King," so I would have expected to see more ads for adolescent geek fare like video games and fast food. The only fast food commercial I remembered seeing was that despicable "Drive Thru Diet" from Taco Bell. "I wanted to lose weight but I didn't want to give up my fast food," says the formerly chunky spokesmodel. I wonder if I'll still see the commercial now that the FDA has returned from its holiday break.
Based on those commercials, it seems like TNT expected that its Sunday night audience consisted mainly of chubby, lonely, middle-aged women.**
That's it. I don't really have any commentary to add.
* I feel like I've been seeing commercials for that show for months, yet the promos I saw last night said that the show premieres this month. Perhaps I time traveled.
** That's a little unfair given that men are just as likely to be chubby and lonely at that age as women, but at the very least, the weight loss commercials were certainly geared more toward women. For example, the local ad that uses a graphic which reads "Want to loose some weight?" (Edit: When I re-read this, it sounded even to me as if I was suggesting that the ad was geared toward women because women are poor spellers. I have no reason to believe this. I just wanted to mention the ad with the misspelling and didn't know where to put it. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
captfabulous's journal