Roseanne sitcom restart

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby r.m.anderson » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:09 pm

crfriend wrote:
Jim wrote:I think it's only 20 times fifty million.

Fixed it. Thanks for the catch.
I mostly agree with the rest of your analysis, but am not quite so pessimistic.

I've been watching this unfold for decades, so if I sound a bit pessimistic (OK, a whole lot pessimistic) that's why.


My take on a billion = to a 1000 million

This thread gets more interesting by the post - - -
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
User avatar
r.m.anderson
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Bloomington MN

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby pelmut » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:53 am

In the UK:
A million = 10^6
A billion = a bi-million = 10^12
A trillion = a tri-million = 10^18

Why do the UK media insist on calling 10^9 a billion when it is actually a thousand million?
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby crfriend » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:29 am

pelmut wrote:Why do the UK media insist on calling 10^9 a billion when it is actually a thousand million?

I think it was also called a "milliard" for a while.

I suspect that 10e9 is likely the better way of putting it -- at least on paper -- but it just doesn't roll off the tongue easily. Here's yet another case of "brothers divided by a common language". Or we could simply use the SI prefixes, but those have not properly entered the US lexicon save for the scientific and computing communities (although the latter tends to work in powers of 2, so 1k to us is 1,024 instead of 1,000). There's got to be a better way...
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby kingfish » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:42 pm

Terabucks?
kingfish
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:49 pm
Location: Metrowest Suburbs of Boston

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby crfriend » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:18 am

kingfish wrote:Terabucks?

We're close to getting there on an individual scale or wealth, but it sounds more like a make of heavy earth-mover or a truly obscenely overpriced purveyor of caffeine-delivery products.

That said, there may be a way to make SI work in our favour... Decabucks -- what a typical worker may have in his pocket for lunch money; hectobucks on a payday; kilobucks when he's trying to buy a car in cash (assuming he can); one megabuck might represent 15 years of burn for a guy netting 100 kilobucks per year (after tax and with a decent savings rate, read 200+ kilobucks/yr gross); gigabucks and terabucks would be easily off the scale for any common citizen as would be megabucks for most of the working class.

Interestingly, these sorts of numbers used to be called "astronomical" because only astronomers ever spoke of millions and billions. Today, those have been eclipsed by three orders of magnitude when economists speak of trillions of dollars. Why, then do we not begin speaking of "economical numbers" to describe the modern usage by economists? Yes, I know that New Worlders don't do irony. That's sad. Satire may be dead, but irony remains strong (in both tension and compression).
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby moonshadow » Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:39 am

...and here I sit with my pocket of nanobucks...
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby weeladdie18 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:04 am

moonshadow wrote:...and here I sit with my pocket of nanobucks...


You are a very lucky young man........I do not have any pockets in my skirts.......weeladdie
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby weeladdie18 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:57 am

Pleats wrote:
mishawakaskirt wrote:Watched it, mostly impressed, I will be curious how far they will push the envelope in the coming episodes. I'll be curious to see if they keep him a boy in a skirt, or if they will push him into the trans sexual box.

I did not watch the show. You concern is mine also. Boy wants to wear a skirt so everyone thinks he wants to be a girl. How about a boy that wants to wear a skirt as a boy? I get annoyed at the only path a boy in a skirt can go is down the transgender route. When I was in school I wanted to wear a skirt as a boy. I had no interest in being a girl.


It would have been nice to wear a grey pleated school skirt and a pair of Blueys to school.......and be one of the girls.....but we grew up thinking girls were
stupid sissies.....now I enjoy the banter, as the fathers of their children " Hide in their cages ".... waiting for the next order from SWIMBO......

Mind you....How many males would go into a Café wearing a Skirt and be asked by a charming mature waitress

" What would you like today ? "....to which the standard reply is...... " You will do.."

The best question I was asked was "...Have you ever been married ? " ..... to which the reply was ......" You have not asked me yet ".......Dream on......

I am quite sure the lassies prefer their grandchildren to their Husbands...
One Lassie claimed that when she had had enough of these kiddies ,she could put them " Back on the Peg " and take them home to their parents
............Life is just a Television Sit Com............
Last edited by weeladdie18 on Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby weeladdie18 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:17 pm

When we start talking about sitcom life I am reminded of the Mid Life Singles Clubs........ and the Tale I heard regarding a wife swapping party....

At one Singles event it was well past Midnight in the Middle of January
and the lassies were drawing straws to see who was going skinney dipping in the outdoor pool
weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby dillon » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:30 am

The revival of Roseanne was a bore and the new version is still a bore. Other cable content providers have left ABC in the dust. There is a simple reason for this. The Mouse. Disney doesn’t want ABC to air anything that might upset anyone. Disney wants stupefied insipid consumers, and does anything necessary to not confront viewers who might be offended by a presentation of life as it actually is. So ABC caters to people who want all TV to resemble the Brady Bunch and not to represent the complexity of social change. You only have to watch a few minutes of Good Morning America to recognize this fact. It’s a show of glittery, shiny, smiley, giggly imbeciles, bimboes and “mimboes”, with no more than two minutes per half hour spent on actual important news, and the non-advertising balance dedicated to feel-good video and “human-interest” stories. Harry Reasoner is rolling over in his casket.
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...
dillon
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2507
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: southeast NC coast

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby Fred in Skirts » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:42 am

Which is the reason I do not watch it. I do have one or two shows that I watch once in a while but not very often. Dizzy Disney is not the same one Walt envisioned. All of the Disney properties are so dumbed down that I have no desire to visit anything Disney.
Fred :kiltdance:

:whistle: Hi I am Fred and I wear skirts and dresses all of the time. :hooray:
"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not"
Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby beachlion » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:08 pm

dillon wrote:The revival of Roseanne was a bore and the new version is still a bore. Other cable content providers have left ABC in the dust. There is a simple reason for this. The Mouse. Disney doesn’t want ABC to air anything that might upset anyone. Disney wants stupefied insipid consumers, and does anything necessary to not confront viewers who might be offended by a presentation of life as it actually is. So ABC caters to people who want all TV to resemble the Brady Bunch and not to represent the complexity of social change. You only have to watch a few minutes of Good Morning America to recognize this fact. It’s a show of glittery, shiny, smiley, giggly imbeciles, bimboes and “mimboes”, with no more than two minutes per half hour spent on actual important news, and the non-advertising balance dedicated to feel-good video and “human-interest” stories. Harry Reasoner is rolling over in his casket.


I'm glad it is not just my European bias. What king Midas touched changed into gold, what Disney touches turns into plastic. I never understood the hype about Disney World and related stuff. It is really an insult to mankind. They show you a world that was never there. No need for a micro chip under your skin, they bring it to you through your TV channel and other easy visual means.
All progress takes place outside the comfort zone - M J Bobak
User avatar
beachlion
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:15 am
Location: Allentown, PA, USA

Re: Roseanne sitcom restart

Postby dillon » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:51 am

beachlion wrote:
dillon wrote:The revival of Roseanne was a bore and the new version is still a bore. Other cable content providers have left ABC in the dust. There is a simple reason for this. The Mouse. Disney doesn’t want ABC to air anything that might upset anyone. Disney wants stupefied insipid consumers, and does anything necessary to not confront viewers who might be offended by a presentation of life as it actually is. So ABC caters to people who want all TV to resemble the Brady Bunch and not to represent the complexity of social change. You only have to watch a few minutes of Good Morning America to recognize this fact. It’s a show of glittery, shiny, smiley, giggly imbeciles, bimboes and “mimboes”, with no more than two minutes per half hour spent on actual important news, and the non-advertising balance dedicated to feel-good video and “human-interest” stories. Harry Reasoner is rolling over in his casket.


I'm glad it is not just my European bias. What king Midas touched changed into gold, what Disney touches turns into plastic. I never understood the hype about Disney World and related stuff. It is really an insult to mankind. They show you a world that was never there. No need for a micro chip under your skin, they bring it to you through your TV channel and other easy visual means.


I don’t fault Disney for making movies and TV for kids. That’s the nature of the company and nothing wrong with making a reasonable profit on products people like to consume. And they do it well. Nowhere else in the world is that level of technology employed for kids. I went to the original Disneyland in 1967 and it was the greatest experience of my life, to that point and for a few years afterward, though it mattered less as time ticked on. Decades later we took our own kids to Disney World, and though the prices were higher and the lines longer, which was annoying to me, watching the kids have the time of their lives made it all worthwhile. For a few days I could remember the marvels of childhood. Adults lose the ability to immerse themselves in abject joy.

My beef is with a morning news show that can’t report important and significant news because they fear offending someone’s sensitivity or stepping on the toes of someone who prefers to believe the lie of the day and has a hissy fit when a newscaster dares debunk it. It hurts the country when a network news division decides it has more responsibility to a parent corporation than to the principles of a free and aggressive press. Maybe consumers have a right not to be confronted with upsetting realities, but I cannot see that as a good thing. ABC has become a purveyor of “dumbth” in the guise of comfort zones. A diet of saccharin pablum is not healthy for a society.
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...
dillon
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2507
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: southeast NC coast

Previous

Return to In the News / Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest