Slashdot Log In
Bob Saget 2.0
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Aug 27, 2006 01:51 PM
from the robo-saget-desires-your-funny-movies dept.
from the robo-saget-desires-your-funny-movies dept.
theodp writes "Slate makes a pretty convincing argument that YouTube and its knock-offs can trace their roots back to America's Funniest Home Videos." From the article: "The show's stock in trade was to find the lowest common denominator and then hit it in the crotch. Consider this list of select highlights from the show's 'Best of Kids & Animals' DVD: a kid doing a cannonball onto his dad's groin, a baby running into a church pew, a dog peeing on a wedding dress, and a kid clocking his dad in the nuts with a helmet. While these clips are all certainly lowbrow, they've also got something else in common: They're oozing with family values."
Related Stories
[+]
Dvorak Adores YouTube 193 comments
prostoalex writes "MarketWatch columnist John C. Dvorak tells the public to stop fretting about YouTube's business model and just start enjoying the functionality: "Since I like to run videos on my blog this turns out to be a great way to both transcode and save bandwidth since YouTube picks up the tab on the video stream. Would I pay for this service, yes. I have seriously looked at the alternatives to YouTube. With no exceptions they are all flawed.""
[+]
YouTube's Growing Competition 139 comments
bart_scriv writes "BusinessWeek looks at YouTube's rapidly growing imitators and questions the site's long-term viability. In addition to the competition, YouTube continues to face problems caused by its reliance on copyrighted material; the site's popularity is service- (rather than emotion-) based, which makes it a ripe target for anyone that might replicate and improve the service. From the article: 'YouTube's own challengers are advancing at a rapid rate. AOL is re-engineering its video site to mirror YouTube's success, and CNN is launching CNN Exchange, which will house user-contributed video features. Then there are sites like Eefoof.com, Panjea.com, Revver and Blip.TV, which share up to 50 percent of ad page revenue with the creator of the videos. Others like Dabble.com (currently in beta) sort through all video hosting sites (like YouTube and its competition) for search content, while specialty video sites like Pornotube concentrate on one point of interest.'"
[+]
What Could YouTube Be Worth? 139 comments
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net has a story about the possible cost of YouTube. Sony just paid $65 Million for small-time videosharing outfit 'Grouper'. That site has around 1% of the videosharing market. The article asks, at that price, what might YouTube's 43% be worth?" From the article: "Entertainment analysts have predicted in recent weeks that sites with large followings would command a high price. The Sony deal proved them right. But while the Grouper deal helped establish a benchmark, there is still plenty of confusion about the fair value of online video companies. This is because the typical metrics for measuring a company appear to have gone out the window--just like they did during the bubble years of the late 1990s."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://annonsbevakaren.com/)
Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (Score:5, Funny)
The joke?
But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://users.mtrx.net/funnypics | Last Journal: Monday September 25 2006, @11:29AM)
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.comparecomponents.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 15 2006, @02:04PM)
The department which did that must have a higher suicide rate than the russian military!
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well duh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Youtube Wins (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 28 2004, @11:03PM)
Re:Youtube Wins (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Bob Saget had talent?
Re:Youtube Wins (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.lepertheory.net/)
You should see his stand-up. The guy's hilarious, and his stuff is dirty as hell. He just sold out completely for Full House.
Internet videos are killing off TV (Score:1)
speaking of... (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS is bob saget 2.0! [youtube.com] (NSFW)
There go the family jewels... (Score:5, Funny)
Who are you again? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Makes sense to me (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.phishyphotos.com/)
Maybe it's a bit juvenile laughing at old people falling over, people getting hit in the crotch, or just general stupidity of people with too much time on your hands, but... AFV is basically a bunch of youtube videos strung together, and is funny no matter what age you are. (Just ignore the lame jokes by the host...)
Sure, there's other content on Youtube that isn't of the "funny video" variety, but... I'd say that the majority of the "viral videos" that get spread around the internet are of the funny variety, and what drives the majority of the site.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://drblast.blogspot.com/)
A *really* popular sitcom might get a few million people to watch it every night. Out of a population of 400 million, the actual ratio of people who enjoy that humor regularly is tiny.
My guess is that's it's much easier and cheaper to produce crap and get 30% of an already small audience simply by being slightly less crappy than the competition, than it would be to produce something great and attract more people who would usually do something else.
To get a really huge audience, you would need not only to win over the people who think TV sucks, but also the kind of people who watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" religiously. What kind of show would appeal to both sets of people? I certainly don't know.
And as far as AFV goes, the first show ever was hysterical, and it was all downhill from there. Now you're really lucky if it's as funny as a "Cathy" cartoon.
Family Values (Score:1)
I'm missing something here... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, when I approach the site's front-end, the "most X" (where X is popular, viewed, voted on, or whatever) lineups are jammed full of webcam clips, in-jokes, and episodes of anime. It's a bizarre disconnect.
Do they know (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://in2mind.blogspot.com/)
I have wondered how many parents know that their teenage kids are dancing in front of the camera for youtube's global audience.
Old media tries to understand, fails. (Score:1, Insightful)
Slate wrong.....it IS AFV (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
And while I'm at it, why say "YouTube and its knock-offs", YouTube wasn't exactly the first site where one can post homevideos. YouTube is a knock-off which just happens to be the biggest.
BOB SAGET IS SATAN INCARNATE! (Score:2, Funny)
Bob Saget 2.0? (Score:2, Funny)
(http://evil.google.com/)
German TV shows clips from youtube and co (Score:2, Informative)
(http://gimmage.berlios.de/)
blasphemy! because: www.bobsagetisgod.com (Score:3, Funny)
There's something potentially better about youtube (Score:4, Interesting)
However, the interesting thing about youtube is that with few exceptions, it is a relatively unfiltered medium. There is no marketing department behind the scenes deciding what it thinks you'll like. You pick the stuff you do find interesting, and ignore the stuff you don't. I would agree that it's a somewhat tedious process sometimes, but what's nice about the way that youtube is structured is that what started out as a dead end (something uninteresting), can sometimes lead you to something very worthwhile via the associated links that show up, or responses that people other members have posted.
My only gripe really is that I wish people would observe a bare minimum of what makes a watchable video - shooting in near-complete darkness isn't one of them, nor is movement that makes it look like the one holding the camera is having a grand mal seizure.
New slogan for YouTube (Score:5, Funny)
(http://joe-baldwin.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 02 2006, @11:58AM)
everything I learned about america (Score:4, Funny)
Think about it.
Funny Summary (Score:1)
I'm a sick, sick, boy.
Somethings missing here... (Score:2)
(file:///proccpuinfo)
Links?
VideoSift, VideoBomb, etc. (Score:2)
(http://aqfl.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 09 2003, @01:16AM)
Video killed... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 07 2007, @05:30PM)
Then has Internet Killed the Video [TV] Star?
Of course, radio and television haven't been killed off. What does one listen to in the car? Streaming audio from the internet? Some do, perhaps, but a lot just listen to a local radio station, or XM. When one gets home after a long day and wants to unwind, do they fire up the computer and surf youtube or other sites? An increasing number do, myself included sometimes, but probably not more than the number of folks who flop down on the couch and turn on the 50"-er across the room.
bobsaget-2.0.sh (Score:1)
(http://www.bushidohacks.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 02, @02:44PM)
# Because rm is not sufficent enought to remove the items we want to remove,
# this script will use BobSagetron, the Bob Saget robot to do our dirty work.
destroy "Mary-Kate Olsen" --mame --no-mercy
destroy "Ashley Olsen" --mame --no-mercy
Beyond You Tube: Go Fish (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday July 12 2004, @09:38PM)
Most of the videos suck. Most of them are
"Hi! My name is Bennifer and I have a great sense of humor, and like to have fun."
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z
But some are really amazing.
One woman talks about how a guy stole her suitcase, but it had a dead dog in it...
One guy is an elvis impersonator and a total nut.
There's a woman who is either the greatest actress I've ever seen, or, she has the WORST sense of self worth ever witnessed outside of a suicide hotline.
The range of other videos is much like YouTube, but this reality TV angle is really pretty interesting and innovative.
check it out.
GO FISH [gofish.com]
RS
no - I don't work there or hav stock in it - I just think it's weird.
Bob when not on AFHV (Score:1)
Nothing says 'Family Values' (Score:1)
Re:GCD, LCM (Score:2)
(http://www.halley.cc/ed/)
Re:GCD, LCM (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, lowest common denominator is okay. For instance, when adding the fractions 1/6, 2/3, and 4/18, you could convert all the fractions to a denominator of 54, as in 9/54, 27/54, and 12/54. But the correct procedure is to convert them to a denominator of 18, as in 3/18, 9/18, and 4/18 (16/18, or 8/9). And the lowest common denominator is only 1 if the numbers are all integers. You can't express 1/6 as a fraction of integers with a denominator of 1.
For more, see Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re:GCD, LCM (Score:2, Funny)
Problem 1)
Find the lowest common denominator between 1/2 and 1/3.
Answer: 1
Bzzzt. Please try again.
Find the lowest common demoninator between 1/3 and 1/5.
Answer: 1
Bzzzt. Please try again.
Find the lowest common denominator between 1/5 and 1/7.
Answer: 1
Bzzzt. Please go back to 4th Grade.
Re:GCD, LCM (Score:3, Informative)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
Since E is a common denominator, any multiple of E is also a common denominator. Let N be a natural number. NE is also a common denominator. Assume that NE is the greatest common denominator. Thus one of the following must hold (since if they don't 2NE is a common divisor that is greater than NE):
- 2NE < NE.
- (2NE / NE) is not an integer.
One trivially doesn't hold (from our axioms of multiplication on the natural numbers). The second can be reduced to 2/1 and then to 1 using our axioms regarding multiplication and 1 is (again, axiomatically) an integer. Since we have arrived at a contradiction, our initial assumption (that NE is the greatest common denominator for two arbitrary numbers) is invalidated. Since this holds for any N, no number can be a greatest common denominator.By the way, I think you were confusing denominators (the bottom halves of fractions) with divisors (i.e. factors). The lowest common (natural number) factor of any pair of integers is always 1. Of course, 0.1 is also a common divisor of any pair of integers (as, in fact, is any rational number[2]), and so the concept of a lowest common divisor only has meaning in the domain of the integers. The greatest common divisor can be calculated recursively using Euclid's algorithm. There is a connection between the greatest common divisor and the lowest common denominator. In our earlier example, the lowest common denominator, E, is BD divided by the greatest common divisor of B and D. Since E is also the product of the prime factors of B and D, this leads to an efficient test for primality (which is far beyond the scope of this post but is not too hard to derive if you're interested).
[1] e.g. if B = 30 and D = 105, B = 3x5x7 and D = 3x5x7. E = 2x3x5x7. B/E = 7 and D/E=2. The final fractions would be 7A/2B = 7A/E and 2C/2D = 2C/E. You can then trivially add these two fractions together to get (7A+2C)/E.
[2] The proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's the middle of the night, so this post probably contains some typos. I think this proof works using Peano arithmetic, but I am too tired to check. It is only valid on the natural numbers; extending it to the integers it easy, but I am tired and lazy. And yes, I know I skipped a load of steps; this is meant as an illustration rather than a strict mathematical proof.
Re:GCD, LCM (Score:2)
Ben