Over the past 10 years, my TV-watching has..
Displaying poll results.20906 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8480 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7483 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
0 hours to 0 hours (Score:3, Informative)
so basically static.
(I get all my news from reputable online sources and my entertainment by actually going outside once in a while).
Re: (Score:3)
How did we know that "Don't have a TV, you insensitive clod?!" would be the first post?
Yeah, me too. Though we're binge-watching BBT now on the interwebs just as much as we were binge-watching Farscape then.
Re: (Score:2)
know what's nuts? I got FP on two stories on the trot.
I think the planet's asleep...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the planet's asleep...
Nah, /. is just dying.
Are Polls broken? (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of slashdot committing suicide, is anyone else having the polls threads displayed only on the left-half of their monitor? (Also happens with direct links to any comment.) It's been happening for a couple of months.
It's not any of the beta bullshit (or at least "?nobeta=1" doesn't stop it) and it only affects polls (and direct links to cid's), not the home page or any other articles.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, to me. I have dismissed this behavior as "developers" (eyes rolling).
Re: (Score:2)
Same here.
Re: (Score:2)
My entire sidebar disappeared about a year or two ago... finally went into my user account options on the top right, and reset a bunch of my menu and layout settings.
This is probably more of a issue caused by the classic.slashdot.org codebase :P
Re: (Score:3)
Disable that in firefox's inspector for "<div class="col_2">" and the content suddenly fills the page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's hard to tell without a scale. I went from a couple hours per month to zero. So comparing to previous decade decrease (maybe 50h/month) it's only "somewhat"; taking absolutes , it's also "somewhat", by a couple hours. Then taking relative - time spent at the beginning on the period to time spent at the end, it's infinity percent...
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Why watch the predigested stuff on TV? News can be obtained from the Internet (even the celeb trash can be obtained from the clickbait stories that are often shared on FB.) NetFlix, YouTube, and other streaming sites have decent things to watch and subscribe to that are not just mass-marketed garbage. There are plenty of books to read (Amazon has a modern equivalent of the penny dreadful -- 99 cents for 101 stories.) If I do want to watch a movie, there is a RedBox a block away (I prefer a
Re: (Score:2)
Ob. http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
(I get all my news from reputable online sources and my entertainment by actually going on slashdot once in a while).
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
haha, thanks muchly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would watch TV if a 90-minute movie wouldn't be turned into an 150-minute mix of low-volume movie and high volume ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much of a bias it is, though? How many people who *read* slashdot actually watch TV?
The assumption might once have been that anyone who can afford a computer to read slashdot can afford a television, but from this thread? Hm, well clearly not - unless this is indeed an anomalous aggregation of results.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: How do you know if someone doesn't own a TV?
A: Don't worry, they'll soon tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why my BLOG of course.. It's the ONLY source to trust... Well that and MSNBC and Al Jezera but I repeat myself....
(Removing tongue from cheek.. )
Re: (Score:3)
What's a "reputable online source"? For that matter, is there any such thing as a reputable news source in any medium?
A reputable online or offline news source does not exist as a single entity, no. But if you take the information from a variety of sources, and weight them just so, you can arrive at a reasonable approximation of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to mention you have a TV without sounding like an elitist prick?
Maybe: I don't have a TV, but that doesn't mean I don't watch TV shows, it just means I don't watch ads. Depending on how you interpret the question, my TV watching has either gone down hugely or gone up a little in the last 10 years. I don't watch any broadcast TV, but I do stream things from iPlayer and watch rented DVDs.
I enjoy a lot of TV shows, but my tolerance for TV ads has dropped a lot. Fortunately, other distribution mechanisms are starting to take off. I'll happily pay for content that I a
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the same here though I don't rent DVDs as I have yet to find anyone renting the material I want to watch. I pretty much only watch educational material and usually in the form of documentaries. The Red Box machine thingy didn't appear to have a single educational DVD in it. It was the same at the (now long closed) rental stores in the area. I do watch, I tend to binge watch, some television that's entertaining but I normally just stick to something that's going to make me a little more in touch
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I chose "don't know" as well.
Not roughly, exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
My television watching has stayed the same for decades: 0.
Television is a device which sucks your mind out through your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to hear your thoughts on literature.
(no, not really)
oblig. Onion (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/ [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So TV and internet sites like Slashdot have pretty much the same functionality, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. I have not watched a television at home for several years. I do watch Dr Who & similar on the iplayer (which ought to count as TV), prob 20 hours/year. I'll watch a bit more if I am stuck in a hotel.
Now: ask me how much time I waste on the Internet, that is a different story :-(
Re: (Score:2)
They call it television programming because you're being programmed!
Even if you don't watch, your brain is still interpreting the audio and storing the data. The people controlling the broadcast are literally beaming their propaganda into your brain.
Re:Not roughly, exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. Computer games are interactive experiences, not something you can just veg out on. Games improve perception, reflexes and sometimes logic and reasoning ability. Online games can also help with social skills.
Television doesn't help anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Computer games are interactive experiences, not something you can just veg out on. Games improve perception, reflexes and sometimes logic and reasoning ability. Online games can also help with social skills.
Television doesn't help anything.
Except, I don't know, education and knowledge? I spent my youth watching PBS documentaries on television. Could I have gotten that knowledge from games? Silly question.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends a lot on what kind of games and shows you are watching. And it also probably varies a lot based on how you watch or play. My brother and I always got picked on by friends when watching movies with them because we analyzed them a lot, instead of just passively taking it in.
I play some games when I want some mindless fun and others I want a mental challenge. Sometimes they can even be the same game just played a differently.
Reading can fall into the same boat. My Father always derided my li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence suggests online definitely does not help social skills, you've never played online, that's clear.
Neither have you, that's abundantly clear. Or, to be more precise, you might have, but I pity your choice of game and/or clans/guilds/groups you've been in.
I play EVE Online, E:D, World of Tanks/Warplanes, War Thunder, used to play Path of Exile, Firefall and others. All of them offer you a choice of who to band with. While socializing with select EVE Online players, I was able to learn a plethora of information, starting with local culture through philosophy through astronomy and so forth. While socializin
Re: (Score:3)
Online playing = greater social skills, that I don't know about.
But there was a pretty convincing TED talk recently about FPS games and some visual perception/processing ability improvements. Significant ones, actually. Not anecdotal, and not simply survey-type statistics, but repeatable lab experiments with measurable effects that lasted beyond the game playing. It was done by a Swiss scientist, but I forget her name and don't recall the name of the TED talk.
She was not, by the way, saying that (1) you
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine that time used learning to actually play an instrument instead.
How is spending tons of time learning to play an instrument useful? Well - unless we all become a giant hippy commune.
Re: (Score:3)
I consider video games to be one of the major reasons I was able to ac
Re: (Score:2)
DVRs had a major impact (Score:5, Interesting)
When I first got a Replay, my watching dramatically increased because it was easy to record shows I couldn't watch live. I discovered that Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) was a *good* thing, as I haven't had time to watch all the good shows since.
The net is making the problem even worse, because now I can watch shows that only air in other places as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think my amount of watching changed much. In the old days, I'd plop down in my chair and watch whatever drek was on at the time. Now, I can watch the drek that airs when I'm not home or asleep, and it's usually better than the PrimeTime drek. But I still have a finite amount of time at home, and just because there's a lot more to watch doesn't mean I actually have the time to watch them.
Filter (Score:3)
I don't have an antenna or cable, so all I watch is what I can rent or download.
This means I won't bother if I feel something isn't worth waiting for to download. It turns out about 99% of television is not worth watching.
Re: (Score:2)
1% of TV is still a LOT... I think you need to add a few 9's to the %. Something like 99.999% isn't worth watching...
Not sure what the question is asking (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm watching a lot less over-the-air and cable TV compared to 10 years ago.
I'm watching a lot more DVDs and streaming videos.
All in all, it's probably a wash or slightly more watching stuff than a decade ago.
Is flat-lined an option? (Score:2)
Because I seriously can't remember the last tv show I sat down to watch (that wasn't on Netflix).
10 years ago (Score:2)
Literally watching a television? (Score:2)
I haven't had an actual television in nearly a decade. But I watch TV shows all the time on my computer.
Do you mean literally watching a TV, or watching TV shows?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean literally watching a TV, or watching TV shows?
I think they meant the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
I spend quite a bit of time on Netflix, usually on a TV, sometimes on a tablet. I consider that "TV".
No Time (Score:2)
I just don't have the time to tune into most scheduled broadcasts. Especially since I have a family, and there's one TV with a cable box in the house.
I can get by with Hulu, Netflix, and the occasional download.
Re: (Score:2)
Same boat here. I only watch a few shows, and frequently I don't even get to watch most of what is in my queue before it expires. Heck, I am only halfway through last year's Southpark season.
I have a 2 year old that keeps me quite busy, so I am lucky if I can manage to squeeze in a half hour to watch John Stewart.
Things changed recently (Score:2)
After 12+ years of torrents and downloads for my TV watching, I opted to get a multi-input monitor and subscribe to SaskTel's MaxTV over DSL service, due primarily to the changes in regulations here in Canada this year and due to the fact that tvtorrents.com went belly up. That site had been a wealth of old TV shows and archives.
With the PVR functionality, I get the main benefit of torrents: watching what I want, when I want, and skipping commercials.
Since I picked up that monitor at the beginning of
What defines Watching TV (Score:2)
I'm thinking that the question should be more geared towards time watching media content given that there are now multiple methods of consumption. For example. many people who do not watch "TV" still end up using streaming services to watch "TV programs". Sure, they are time shifted and also can be device shifted (computer, tablet, cell phone, etc), but they are still video media content.
How exactly is it any different if someone spends time watching, for example, the complete series of The Wire on a tabl
TV = video (Score:2)
I'm thinking that the question should be more geared towards time watching media content given that there are now multiple methods of consumption.
spot on
it's video...and if everyone was answering accurately, results would skew towards **more** and definitely not "significantly less"
people want to be smart...for decades old /.'ers like me can remember "watching too much TV" is what stupid people do.
smart people read books
but this is all pre-internet and mostly even before cable TV that these ideas were ingrained
this is why techie men and hipsters tend to under-report their "TV" viewing
"TV" means all video...and the **type** of media is no longer an in
Re: (Score:2)
I think people tend to "under-report" their TV (as defined by you), because no one defines TV the way you do. Maybe we all should use that definition, because you do bring up good points about why they are essentially the same thing. But I don't think any "hipster" or "techie" deception is required to honestly answer "I don't watch TV" if you literally don't own a TV.
There isn't a clear definition of "TV" anymore. You can't fault people for not using a good definition if it doesn't exist.
The simple fix i
snob motive (Score:2)
they key is the notion that smart people don't "watch TV"
if people weren't irrationally trying to seem smart (according to an archaic maxim) then i'd agree with you, but imho the problem is precisely *because* these types want to project an image
i grant you that in common parliance, one couldn't always expect all honest respondents to combine 'TV' and other video, but the usage in the common parliance is rooted in the same problem as stated above: people don't want to be know as 'watching alot of TV'
the fix
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask a bunch of pretentious people if they are criminals, they will probably say no. It might be because they are pretentious and want to project a certain image and being a criminal runs counter to that. Or they may just not consider themselves to be a criminal until that term is more clearly defined.
Even if you personally define "criminal" to mean anyone who has ever broken any law ever (pretty much guaranteeing that everyone is a criminal), the main reason people answer "no" to the vague question
Re: (Score:2)
see, the criminal analogy just isn't working
no one surveys people like that, and it's a completely different issue b/c being a criminal is way different than watching too much TV...it's also too non-specific...what kind of criminal...
just word the question differently
Re: (Score:2)
no one surveys people like that, and it's a completely different issue b/c being a criminal is way different than watching too much TV...
That's why it's an analogy of X and not an example of X
...it's also too non-specific...what kind of criminal...
Analogous to how "watching TV" is non specific. What kind of TV are you referring to? All video? Watching a literal television for any purpose? Watching broadcast shows meant for the broadcast television?
I agree the questions should be worded better. What I am saying is that when questions are ambiguous like "How much TV do you watch" and "Are you a criminal?", "Incorrect" answers may actually just be a result of the respondent assuming different
Re: (Score:2)
"Incorrect" answers may actually just be a result of the respondent assuming different definitions than the poller
right, i agree...my comment is about why
my main comment is that **in this instance** the factors i mentioned (wanting to sound 'smart') i feel is the main **source** of the confusion
some just confused, but for the reasons i stated, many more than normal that skews the results
i used to do this kind of research, on media usage and usefulness across 'platforms', in an academic setting
the misperceptions about media use filter up and downward...you will see billion dollar deals based on **perception of media val
Re: (Score:2)
my main comment is that **in this instance** the factors i mentioned (wanting to sound 'smart') i feel is the main **source** of the confusion
Do you have any research you can cite showing that? Or is this just your opinion?
I answered that I watch drastically less television, because I assumed "TV" to mean "televisions shows intended for the broadcast or cable television". And I watch drastically less "television shows" than I used to. I wasn't trying to seem smart. It's an anonymous poll. I don;t know if I watch drastically less video media. I suspect it's probably about the same as before. I also don't associate not watching videos with b
not either/or (Score:2)
Do you have any research you can cite showing that? Or is this just your opinion?
false dichotomy
if a peer-reviewed, published research study is your burden of proof for every contention, you're dead in the water
there's more ways to prove something than a peer-reviewed, published research study, especially when it comes to ****human behavior****
it's not "either research study or opinion"
rationality and logic are our friends...you should meet them
you can use rationality, logic and collected knowledge from education (including looking at research), and personal experience to understand thi
Re: (Score:2)
I was not trying to pigeonhole you into a false dichotomy. I was just trying to find out what evidence you had to support your claim (scientific, anecdotal, etc).
I do think you do need a peer reviewed scientific study to "prove" a scientific claim, although I would not use that terminology.
If you are not making a scientific claim like "X% of hipsters (as defined by Y criteria) are lying about their TV consumption to seem smart", but just trying to convey a general impression you get, that's fine, but I jus
Re: (Score:2)
I also believe that most TV is crap, and in many markets, TV is marketed towards the lowest common denominator.
here's the thing, is there any type of media where the above *isn't* true?
also, broadcast/cable TV is in a new golden age right now...executives are working to make shows that cater to an intelligent, wide audience...the garbage TV is worse than ever, but mainstream 'TV' is actively marketing shows they think are intelligent to people who want those shows
you watch "TV" even if all you do is watch Netflix original series and movies in the movie theater...
you watch video
thanks for the comments!
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge range of ambiguity these days.
How often do I watch a TV set that has a signal coming from an antenna, cable, or satellite receiver? Absolutely never.
How about if I stream an old TV show on Amazon instant video on my computer? How about if it's the latest (but not live) episode from the current season of a show? How about if I stream a live Canucks game on my computer? How about if I stream any of those onto a TV set via a Chromecast? I can't see a reasonable argument that sitting in front of
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even talking about industry definitions...
I would say that most people don't consider "doing facebook" to be "watching TV", but if the bulk of what you do on facebook, is watching videos people post, then by the "TV = video" standard, you are "watching a lot of TV"
The same goes for people who spend a lot of time doing video teleconferencing (even for work), are now considered to be "watching a lot of TV" by that definition.
My whole point was that people aren't being "liar douchebag techie hipsters"
Somewhat the same (Score:3)
10 years ago I didn't have a TV, today I don't have a TV. But my online video consumption has increased.
Completely disappeared (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awful quality of current productions made me and my family fly away from TV.
Definitive proof that Slashdot has gone to the birds!
Terrestrial or Free satellite (Score:2)
TV shows, a TV broadcast, or watching on a TV set? (Score:2)
Over the last ten years, time watching
Live TV broadcast: Decreased significantly, from a couple of hours a night to the News plus nothing else
TV shows I recorded from live: First up, then down. From occasional, through a couple of hours a night (PVR era) to zero (streaming catch-up TV era)
TV shows supplied as recorded: Increased significantly thanks to fibre broadband and more online sources
Movies on my TV: Decreased significantly, due to drop in quality of movies, increase in quality of scripted TV
Movies i
Lets get our terms straight here... (Score:2)
When Slashdot is polling about TV watching, they're not talking about using a consumer viewing device at a set time determined by a broadcaster's schedule, OTA or over a cable subscription. This is Slashdot, not Meatspace. If you're viewing (scripted) video entertainment produced by an entertainment production company (I was going to insert "mostly Hollywood", but the times keep changing) through DVD/blurays, DVR, torrents, Netflix or Amazon, you're still viewing TV.
So lets cut the crap about never having
Re: (Score:2)
When Slashdot is polling about TV watching, they're not talking about using a consumer viewing device at a set time determined by a broadcaster's schedule, OTA or over a cable subscription. This is Slashdot, not Meatspace. If you're viewing (scripted) video entertainment produced by an entertainment production company (I was going to insert "mostly Hollywood", but the times keep changing) through DVD/blurays, DVR, torrents, Netflix or Amazon, you're still viewing TV.
So lets cut the crap about never having watched The Wire, Battlestar Galactica (2004), Games of Thrones, Breaking Bad, PBS/Discovery/Sci series, Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise), Dr. Who, or Person of Interest. Yes, there's going to be a higher percentage of those people on Slashdot, but its not 60%.
Does that include porn too?
I may have to adjust my response.
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Definitely "Significantly decreased" (Score:2)
My habits mostly changed (Score:2)
Granted yes I have watched less TV in general overall, but I'd say it's mostly due to changes in life (aka taking care of growing kids). That said, because of having a DVR, I can watch what I want when I want, and I don't have to watch stuff from The Wealth Channel or other cruft.
All Cowboy Neal Channel, All the Time! (Score:2)
That's the only option.
Stayed the same... (Score:2)
I still don;t have a TV today.
The way I figure it, I watch the same amount of TV as I did ten years ago. I will pull out DVDs of Firefly now and then. But that came out 12ish years ago... so yeah, TV viewing is the same.
Worse than ever (Score:2)
Somewhat the same (Score:2)
Cut the cord. (Score:2)
With the advent of Netflix and it's ilk, I can now watch TV on my schedule. I don't have to watch crap because I need to veg out for a bit and that's all that's on...and I don't have to watch TV when I don't really feel like it because I don't want to miss an episode.
So watching TV has become a proactive decision - like deciding to go to a movie - and not something that just fills in time.
Now I probably watch no more than an hour a night - and what I watch is only really good shows. I don't waste 10 minut
Signal degradation? Try Channel degradation. (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to watch more TV 10 years ago, but that was back when...
Discovery and The Learning Channel were dedicated to educational shows
Animal Planet was dedicated to shows about animals
The History Channel was dedicated to shows about History
The Sci-Fi channel was dedicated to actual Science Fiction
etc,etc,etc...
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the USA network was showing foreign made shows 24/7.
For that matter, 30 years ago I watched even more TV, but that's back when Music Television Video was dedicated to showing Music Videos on Television. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
But Why? (Score:2)
Depends on what counts as "tv watching" (Score:2)
If "TV Watching" refers to watching mainstram tv programming: dececreased. more like, dwindled to almost zero.
If "TV Watching" refers to "watching video content by sending it to a large TV screen": more or less the same... but the sources have shifted to netflix, youtube, et al.
Where's my option? -1! (Score:2)
Notice how I proclaim how my world view is so vastly superior to yours with my commentary. "I actually go outside!" or "My brain is not rotted!" or even "My family hasn't watched television in 20 years and now we're all brain surgeons."
Sure it's hackneyed and trite but it's SO true!
Yes. I don't watch TV and I
Stayed the same: very low (Score:2)
Evening news, plus 2-3 "factual" shows per week. Maybe a movie every month or two. Hard to go down from that...
I despise the people that say NO TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that nine times out of ten, those same people watch Hulu, Netflix, etc. and think "I'm not watching TV." It's pure arrogant intelligentsia bullshit. They do watch TV, but like to insult those that use a different channel. But lets assume they truly do not watch TV. TV is an art form. You personally may not like it, but it is an art form. It is a very popular art form, which of course means it will be dominated by artists that are creating for the lowest common denominator, as that is where the money is.
But that in no way interferes with or prevents GOOD TV from being made. A prime example of it is How It's Made. A great TV show that educates and entertains, without any of the crap that people complain about and that can NOT be made as well in any other medium. We need the visuals, the 30 minute timeline, etc. etc.
But honestly, that's not usually what is going on. The "No TV" guy is not complaining about all TV, or shows like"How It's Made". Instead they are generally complaining about only the most popular shows - The Reality TV shows - like the newest lowest common denominator show: "Sex Box". They don't watch TV, so they have no idea what is really on it if they bother to look.
When you proclaim TV is bad art, you are doing nothing different than the Art establishment objecting to The Impressionists, Jazz, Rock and Roll, Picasso, Graffiti Art, etc. You are simply being a tyrant telling people what they should or should not watch.
Worst of all are the people that blindly assume that a TV watcher is always a couch potato, never a doer. I love to take interesting classes and quite a few were inspired by seeing someone do something on TV.
TV watchers decide to take tango lessons because they saw it on Dancing with the Stars. TV watchers decide to become Judges because of some Cop show they watched. TV watchers DO THINGS.
Yes, a few sad people with deplorable taste never watch anything good. Same thing with any art form. They do not define the medium, anymore than a house painter defines the worth of Salvador Dali.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't own a TV (Score:2)
I haven't owned one since I came to university in 1999. I've had flatmates who've owned one, and I've watched DVDs on my computer, so I haven't been completely free from television. Mostly free from ads though!
Actually I know quite a few people who don't own television sets, it's not that uncommon. The TV licensing people don't really believe that though, so you've still got to respond to those unpleasant "we think you're probably breaking the law" letters once a year.
A few TV shows are seriously great (Score:2)
Game of Thrones
Walking Dead
Agent Carter
I guess that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I reckon it means any content that is displayed on what would be typically called a television set. So watching Youtube on an AppleTV is stll "TV", but watching on demand services on a computer is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Lexx, Farscape, Andromeda, Dr. Who...
But I agree otherwise - not much worth watching these days.
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree otherwise - not much worth watching these days.
I've actually started to watch a lot more TV, thanks largely to NetFlix. We caught the first season of The Walking Dead and the first 3 of Breaking Bad - in each case binge watching so we could be caught up for the start of a new season. There are some other pretty good shows out there too. Game of Thrones is the best show that's ever been on TV IMHO. There are a few others like Gotham on Fox & Vikings on History. There's less to like on the Big 3, but we do watch The Black List and Marvel Agents of Shi
Re: (Score:2)
The advent of Netflix streaming among other services has really increased my TV watching. I went almost an entire decade without watching TV, I didn't even own a TV for seven of those years. Now I'll go months without watching anything then spend a month binging on Netflix or torrented stuff. There are even a few shows on the big networks that I like but won't watch during the season because I don't have the patience to deal with the release schedule and rationing of one episode every week at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I probably spend as much time watching Netflix as I do broadcast TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we have the same number of "good" writers to go around it seems. Mostly it is 99+% reality schlock, QVC, "The Learning Channel", "History" (of UFO's), etc.
Even if you like watching some TV there is a strong moral argument to starve the beast and get rid of cable.