Monday, May 31, 2010
May 31, 1990 ... The Day "Seinfeld Chronicles" started its run on NBC
Ok. An interesting trivia it might be, but what does it have to do with passion (or compassion!), or technology, or with the types of writeups this blog has been providing?
Not much, really. But what it does offer is some perspective on the society, and for this reason alone, it belongs here. That, and the fact that I happen to really enjoy the show!
When Seinfeld began its run, entertainment was predominantly provided by the top three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS - in no particular order). Okay, let's also count Fox, and make it three-and-a-half! Cable TV was just beginning to find its footing on our television dials.
The channels carried exclusively by cable may have continued operating in this relative darkness if not for the decision of President Bush Senior to invade Kuwait. Suddenly, the notion of 24-hours news coverage became a national need, which could not be fulfilled by the network-controlled channels because they needed the daytime talk shows and soap operas to pay their bills.
Thus was born CNN - effectively providing a compelling reason for consumers to throw away the rabbit ears and sign up for the cable connection.
Continued advancement in technology and broadband availability meant more and more offerings being made available to consumers. This trend has continued to date, when we have access to 500+ channels at any given point.
What does it mean for programming? For starters, it means that it is increasingly hard for a show to garner the following that shows of yesteryears could muster, which effectively had the power to empty up the streets. The final episodes of M.E.S.H. and the Thorn Birds anthology were prime examples of this effect.
Many believe that Seinfeld was the last show that attained such a following - that you could mention last night's episode at the water cooler the next day, and be relatively sure that the next guy had seen it. That the show was about nothing just adds to the mystic irony!
During its run, the show provided an ongoing commentary on the society, often at the expense of its own characters, presented as weak, frivolous and immoral beings. And during the process, some of the lines (or themes) became a part of our daily vernacular. Who doesn't remember the Soup Nazi and "Yadda Yadda Yadda."
So, this, dear friends, is the contribution this show has made to the society - not necessarily a positive or negative one (this piece is not to editorialize its contents) - but a contribution in the sense of getting us all to be tuned at the same time, to the same message.
Things haven't been the same again.
Not much, really. But what it does offer is some perspective on the society, and for this reason alone, it belongs here. That, and the fact that I happen to really enjoy the show!
When Seinfeld began its run, entertainment was predominantly provided by the top three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS - in no particular order). Okay, let's also count Fox, and make it three-and-a-half! Cable TV was just beginning to find its footing on our television dials.
The channels carried exclusively by cable may have continued operating in this relative darkness if not for the decision of President Bush Senior to invade Kuwait. Suddenly, the notion of 24-hours news coverage became a national need, which could not be fulfilled by the network-controlled channels because they needed the daytime talk shows and soap operas to pay their bills.
Thus was born CNN - effectively providing a compelling reason for consumers to throw away the rabbit ears and sign up for the cable connection.
Continued advancement in technology and broadband availability meant more and more offerings being made available to consumers. This trend has continued to date, when we have access to 500+ channels at any given point.
What does it mean for programming? For starters, it means that it is increasingly hard for a show to garner the following that shows of yesteryears could muster, which effectively had the power to empty up the streets. The final episodes of M.E.S.H. and the Thorn Birds anthology were prime examples of this effect.
Many believe that Seinfeld was the last show that attained such a following - that you could mention last night's episode at the water cooler the next day, and be relatively sure that the next guy had seen it. That the show was about nothing just adds to the mystic irony!
During its run, the show provided an ongoing commentary on the society, often at the expense of its own characters, presented as weak, frivolous and immoral beings. And during the process, some of the lines (or themes) became a part of our daily vernacular. Who doesn't remember the Soup Nazi and "Yadda Yadda Yadda."
So, this, dear friends, is the contribution this show has made to the society - not necessarily a positive or negative one (this piece is not to editorialize its contents) - but a contribution in the sense of getting us all to be tuned at the same time, to the same message.
Things haven't been the same again.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Veterans, Baby-boomers, Generation-X and Generation-Yers
We all have read countless articles and references to the fact that babyboomers are beginning to retire and what it means to our society. Many writeups look at this fact at a very factual level, including this one:
http://ethicalethos.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/working-with-gen-xers-and-yers/
Let's take a few moments to define the generations that encompass the last 90 years.
Greatest Generation (also called the Veterans): those who were born between 1916 and 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation
Babyboomers: those who were born between 1945 and 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Generation
Generation X: 1965 - 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
Generation Y: 1982 - early 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
This is certainly a loaded topic (and a very interesting one): please expect more pieces on this theme in future.
http://ethicalethos.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/working-with-gen-xers-and-yers/
Let's take a few moments to define the generations that encompass the last 90 years.
Greatest Generation (also called the Veterans): those who were born between 1916 and 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation
Babyboomers: those who were born between 1945 and 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Generation
Generation X: 1965 - 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
Generation Y: 1982 - early 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
This is certainly a loaded topic (and a very interesting one): please expect more pieces on this theme in future.
The face of a happy child
What does the face of a happy child tell us? And conversely, what is the opposite?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The 5 E's: Priorities of a nation
There's a United Nations checklist (original source unknown) that does a good job in summarizing the priorities of a nation - the 5 E's:
employment
education
energy
environment
equality
How you sort these items could well be a function of where you are in providing these elements to your people. In a highly charged political climate, an argument might even be made on where a country truly is on these elements.
Let's not get into that argument. Let's not get into any argument. Let's just ponder this question: if there's a country out there that is focused on providing all of these to its people, and is willing to pay the price and do whatever it takes to take sizeable steps in the right directions ... if such a country exists, is there any way it could be left behind?
A rhetorical question it might be, but even they elicit a debate, right?
employment
education
energy
environment
equality
How you sort these items could well be a function of where you are in providing these elements to your people. In a highly charged political climate, an argument might even be made on where a country truly is on these elements.
Let's not get into that argument. Let's not get into any argument. Let's just ponder this question: if there's a country out there that is focused on providing all of these to its people, and is willing to pay the price and do whatever it takes to take sizeable steps in the right directions ... if such a country exists, is there any way it could be left behind?
A rhetorical question it might be, but even they elicit a debate, right?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Invention of remote controls (and TiVo) and their impact on our lives
It's all about the attention span
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Social problems with Europe’s Plan to Simulate the Entire Planet
A very interesting article was published recently by MIT that outlines a rather ambitious (and apparently well meaning) plan: to create a model of the entire planet in real time.
Link: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25126/?a=f
The idea is to “create a kind of Manahattan project to study, understand and tackle these techno-socio-economic-environmental issues. His plan is to gather data about the planet in unheard of detail, use it to simulate the behaviour of entire economies and then to predict and prevent crises from emerging..”
While I certainly support this academic pursuit, which also addresses the need to know how various seemingly disparate events are intertwined by some obvious and some heuristic connections, I am concerned about the effects this “knowledge” could have on our behavior and on the society.
It is what we do with the knowledge that often spells the difference between whether it’s a boon for the civilization or a curse. You might guess where I am going with it: the discovery of atomic bomb. The men and women in lab coats were responsible to study the phenomenon that caused this reaction, which emanated an energy that could be harnessed. And this is where their scientific responsibility ended. Or did it? The fact that their research was used to exterminate millions of innocent humans in Heroshima and Nagasaki, does it in any way make them culpable?
I can’t answer this, except to suggest that there is no single answer. It is for the society to determine this, and unfortunately, the debate often gets raged after a abuse has already happened.
Some readers might remember another study that was published before the Second World War, that discussed the notion of a superior race. Those who had the misfortune to fall outside the circle were considered burden on the society and a strong argument was made that for the human race was to flourish, it may be better off if the “undesirables” did not have a role to play in it.
This, of course, is a distorted logic which goes against our moral and social conscience. But whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, whether we speak against it or not, we (the collective “we”) do stand as witness of how this mindset gets applied.
Coming back to the European study: there is no way for scientists to determine how their findings would be used. But I am afraid of that group, maybe some rogue members, or some with vested interests, or with a point to prove, or with a score to settle – maybe someone would convert that knowledge into an action that we’ll all regret.
I sincerely hope that day never arrives.
Link: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25126/?a=f
The idea is to “create a kind of Manahattan project to study, understand and tackle these techno-socio-economic-environmental issues. His plan is to gather data about the planet in unheard of detail, use it to simulate the behaviour of entire economies and then to predict and prevent crises from emerging..”
While I certainly support this academic pursuit, which also addresses the need to know how various seemingly disparate events are intertwined by some obvious and some heuristic connections, I am concerned about the effects this “knowledge” could have on our behavior and on the society.
It is what we do with the knowledge that often spells the difference between whether it’s a boon for the civilization or a curse. You might guess where I am going with it: the discovery of atomic bomb. The men and women in lab coats were responsible to study the phenomenon that caused this reaction, which emanated an energy that could be harnessed. And this is where their scientific responsibility ended. Or did it? The fact that their research was used to exterminate millions of innocent humans in Heroshima and Nagasaki, does it in any way make them culpable?
I can’t answer this, except to suggest that there is no single answer. It is for the society to determine this, and unfortunately, the debate often gets raged after a abuse has already happened.
Some readers might remember another study that was published before the Second World War, that discussed the notion of a superior race. Those who had the misfortune to fall outside the circle were considered burden on the society and a strong argument was made that for the human race was to flourish, it may be better off if the “undesirables” did not have a role to play in it.
This, of course, is a distorted logic which goes against our moral and social conscience. But whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, whether we speak against it or not, we (the collective “we”) do stand as witness of how this mindset gets applied.
Coming back to the European study: there is no way for scientists to determine how their findings would be used. But I am afraid of that group, maybe some rogue members, or some with vested interests, or with a point to prove, or with a score to settle – maybe someone would convert that knowledge into an action that we’ll all regret.
I sincerely hope that day never arrives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)