It’s no secret that I am a huge supporter of the public school system in this country and I believe, with few exceptions, that parents do a terrible disservice by keeping their children out of the real world situations afforded by public school. My oldest daughter, Rachel, is in 2nd grade this year and next year Bekah will begin her own educational journey at our local elementary school in the DeSoto County school district.

Now, I say all of this because I want to brag a bit about an article I read in the Commerical Appeal today stating that our district received a rating of High-Performing from the Mississippi Department of Education. Being the largest district in the state (31,000 students), this is an especially good achievement by the schools and I am happy that my family is a part of it.

Graças a uma animação e a uma entrevista com Sarah Palin no ‘20/20′, a ABC empatou com CBS no primeiro lugar. A primeira exibiu ‘Shrek’ e ‘20/20′ (7.9 milhões e 1.8 ponto), enquanto a CBS exibiu ‘Ghost Whisperer’ (8.4 milhões e 2.0 pontos na demo qualificada 18-49).

‘Smallville’ na CW caiu um pouquinho ficando com 2.5 milhões de telespectadores e 1.1 ponto na demo.

O resto da noite foi recheado de reprises.

Com o feriado se aproximando nos EUA, diversos programas de esporte na TV a cabo e com as principais emissoras começando a reprisar sua programação devido ao fim do ano, a maioria dos shows exibidos na quinta tiveram queda. Somada toda a programação, a noite teve uma queda de 4% em relação a semana anterior. Ah, claro que a CBS ganhou a noite.

A emissora ficou em primeiro lugar com as exibições de ‘Survivor’ (12.3 milhões e 3.7 pontos) em queda de 5%, ‘CSI’ (15 milhões e 3.5 pontos) em queda de 15% e ‘The Mentalist’ (15.8 milhões e 3.7 pontos) que subiu 1% em um episódio mitológico relacionado ao Red John. Foi a segunda maior audiência da série nesta temporada.

A ABC exibiu ‘FlashForward’ (8 milhões e 2.4 pontos) em queda de 8% – menor audiência da série até aqui, ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ (14 milhões e bons 5.0 pontos na demo) caindo 11%, ‘Private Practice’ (9 milhões e 3.1 pontos) caindo péssimos 21% atingindo sua menor audiência na temporada.

A NBC e a Fox empataram no terceiro lugar. A primeira exibiu ‘Community’ (5.1 milhões e 2.0 pontos), ‘Parks & Recreation’ (4.6 milhões e 2.0 pontos), ‘The Office’ (7.4 milhões e 3.7 pontos – caindo 12%), ‘30 Rock’ (5.9 milhões e 2.9 pontos) estável e ‘The Jay Leno Show’ (4.8 milhões e 1.4 ponto) também estável.

A Fox exibiu ‘Bones’ (9.8 milhões e 2.7 pontos) em queda de 7% e ‘Fringe’ (5.9 milhões e 2.0 pontos) em queda perigosa de 15%.

A CW ficou em último com a exibição de ‘Vampire Diaries’ (3.7 milhões e 1.7 ponto) em queda de 11%. ‘Supernatural’ fez 1.3 ponto na demo qualificada e atingiu 2.6 milhões de pessoas.

A CBS dominou a noite com ‘Old Christine’ e ‘Gary Unmarried’ atingindo suas maiores audiências na temporada. A primeira fechou a noite com 7.3 milhões de telespectadores e 2.2 pontos na demo qualificada 18-49. Já ‘Gary’ fez 2.5 pontos na demo e atingiu 7 milhões de telespectadores. ‘Criminal Minds’ teve alta de 9%: 13.7 milhões e 3.7 pontos, enquanto ‘CSI: NY’ fechou a noite da emissora caindo 16% em relação ao crossover das franquias na semana passada: 13.6 milhões e 3.2 pontos.

A Fox ficou em segundo lugar com a exibição de ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ (5.7 milhões e 2.1 pontos), enquanto ‘Glee’ se manteve estável: 7.4 milhões e 3.3 pontos.

A ABC ficou um pouco atrás com seu bloco de comédias: abriu a noite reprisando ‘Modern Family’ (6.1 milhões e 1.9 ponto) no lugar da cancelada ‘Hank’, e exibindo inéditos de: ‘The Middle’ (7.1 milhões e 1.9 ponto – que cresceu 26% com o lead in de ‘Modern’), ‘Modern Family’ (9.2 milhões e 3.7 pontos) e ‘Cougar Town’ (7.9 milhões e 3.2 pontos). As duas séries tiveram crescimento: 6% e 14%, respectivamente. A emissora fechou a noite com o especial ‘In The Spotlight With Janet Jackson’ (6.6 milhões e 2.3 pontos).

A NBC ficou em quarto com ‘Mercy’ crescendo 18%: 7.8 milhões e 2.0 pontos na demo qualificada. Pela quarta vez nesta temporada, a série venceu em seu horário no número de telespectadores. A emissora também exibiu ‘Law & Order: SVU’ (8.4 milhões e 2.6 pontos) e ‘The Jay Leno Show’ (4.8 milhões e 1.4 ponto).

A CW fechou a noite em último lugar com a exibição de ‘America’s Next Top Model’, que teve sua melhor demo na temporada (1.8 ponto) e atingiu bons 3.7 milhões de telespectadores

THE LATE LATE SHOW with CRAIG FERGUSON won its time period in viewers and adults 25-54, according to Nielsen live plus same day ratings for the week ending Nov. 13.

THE LATE LATE SHOW posted a 1.4/05 in households with 1.87m viewers, 0.7/04 in adults 25-54 and adults 18-34, and 0.5/03 in adults 18-49. LATE LATE SHOW beat “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” in households (vs. 1.0/04, +40%), viewers (vs. 1.31m, +43%) and adults 25-54 (vs. 0.6/04, +17%). LATE LATE SHOW also beat “Jimmy Kimmel Live” in households (vs. 1.3/04, +8%), viewers (vs. 1.80m, +4%) and tied in adults 25-54 (0.7/04, each).

Season-to-date, LATE LATE SHOW improved its competitive position against “Late Night” compared to last year. CBS leads NBC by +50% in households this season (1.5/05 vs. 1.0/04) compared to being tied last season (1.4/05 each, with Conan O’Brien hosting). LATE LATE SHOW has a +41% advantage in viewers (1.95m vs. 1.38m) compared to trailing by -4% last year (1.85m vs. 1.92m). Among adults 25-54, LATE LATE SHOW has a +17% lead (0.7/04 from 0.6/04) after being tied last season (0.8/04 vs. 0.8/05). In adults 18-49, LATE LATE SHOW and “Late Night” are tied (0.6/03, each). Last season, CBS trailed NBC by -14% in adults 18-49 (0.6/03 vs. 0.7/04).

Source: The Futon Critic.

At 12:35 a.m. ET, “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” was #1 ahead of all broadcast competition in adults 18-49 and also delivered bigger viewer totals than CBS’s “Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson” and ABC’s “Kimmel” in adults, men and women 18-34 and men 18-49.

At 12:35 a.m. ET, Jimmy Fallon’s 770,000 adults 18-49 for the week topped Ferguson’s 703,000; in total viewers, Jimmy’s 1.310 million finished behind Ferguson’s 1.866 million; and in adults 18-34, Jimmy’s 395,000 topped Ferguson’s 241,000.

ADULTS 18-49

NBC “Late Night,” 0.6/3
CBS “Late Late Show,” 0.5/3

TOTAL VIEWERS

NBC “Late Night,” 1.3 million viewers
CBS “Late Late Show,” 1.9 million viewers

SEASON TO DATE

NBC “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon,” 0.6/3
CBS “Late Late Show,” 0.6/3

Source: Tv by the Numbers.

Keeps tabs on manfacturers and food makers - from your iPhone!

Just saw this on CNET, it’s an app that lets your iPhone scan a barcode and then gives you a rating its environmental, health, and social attributes – and its free.

The folks at GoodGuide are just out of the gate with their website and iPhone app, and I’m sure they’ll get hacked on details of their methodology, but what a killer app! I’m sure as they refine and define their ratings, this (or this type of) app will be huge – like carrying a green consumer reports database in your pocket.

Oh — and the latest update for VCRAG is up. Check it out…

Conan ‘O Brien is a great guy. I’ve watched him almost every night since I was 15 years old. Although his show is bleeding in the ratings, I think he’s the funniest guy on late night TV shows, and he can’t be beat.
What I’m trying to get at here, is that Conan donated $50,000 to Mayor Booker’s charity and NBC matched it, making it $100,000 dollars. Booker and Conan were going through a “fight” on air/YouTube (example below). It was funny, but over stayed its welcome.
I hope you all start watching Conan, don’t look at the ratings, he’s hilarious!

Jag skrev ju för ett tag sedan att jag ville ha typ röstningsknappar till inläggen, så folk som har lust kan risa eller rosa ett inlägg, nu tror jag att jag hittat det så jag testar med detta inlägg. I och för sig så skriver jag en massa skit också emellanåt, men man behöver ju inte rösta på allt

En glad överraskning är att näringsdrycken med jordgubbssmak var riktigt god, chokladen smakar som Baileys så den är väl inte heller fel, men lite sliskig i större mängder.

Ja jag ser nu att det går att ranka inläggen, men inte om man går direkt in på sidan utan då måste man klicka på rubriken och öppna just det inlägg man vill ranka, det är lite synd, men det ska bli kul att se i alla fall.

Shame on you Channel 7 for letting this air! Oh, who am I kidding. Your researchers have the intelligence of 12 year olds and the conviction of a pine nut. Heaven forbid showing unbiased, truthful (as possible) reported facts that may go against the grain of conservatism so as to effect the ratings of Sunday Night. I suppose you would get more over-hinged criticism from the thoroughly uneducated and overtly conservative audience if a more balanced story was shown (save the children! Who will tell us games are bad!).

I viewed Game On! thinking you would cover the aspects of Australia’s participation in the World Cyber Games, however, sadly, this was just a thinly veiled cover for the real story of Ross Coulthart’s video game bashing on the issue of addiction.

The fact is:

1. To master anything requires an incredible amount of time and dedication (take for example Gladwell’s rule of 10,000 hours, not particularly scientifically correct, but often used as a yard stick), often multiple hours of practice a day for many years. So does aspiring to become a player at the highest level and putting in the effort behind it (as is seen in WCG) a demonstration of addiction? If you said yes, then, by that logic, your favourite footballer would be considered an addict of football. Rubbish? Well consider the hours of practice required, consider the dedication, consider the ambition. They are fundamentally the same.

What, but the computer gamer doesn’t sweat or work out, gain muscle mass or cardiovascular endurance, I hear you exclaim. But the measure of a humans growth is not merely limited to physical aspects (far from it, I would argue, the accumulation of knowledge and development of intelligence is bound to last longer than physical prowess for the vast proportion of the population. I would rather be a Nobel laureate than win the Brownlow Medal in AFL any day). In fact, research as far back as five years ago shows cognitive benefits from gaming (Gee, 2005) with current research investigating the extent of this cognitive enhancement (Steinkuehler, 2006).

The quote, “What is lacking in sweat is made up for in sheer numbers” is, frankly, insulting. The best gamers in the world have highly developed cognitive processes developed through gaming such as pattern recognition, system thinking and  highly enhanced reaction processing.

2. I agree that there are a very small number of people who “over-use” games and there are even an astoundingly small number of people of have died from unnaturally long continuous bouts of gameplay. However, the vast majority of gamers simply interact with the medium as they would with any other media. In fact 63% of the US population would be considered a gamer (NPD, 2007), spending at least 10 hours a week on gaming and gaming related activities (while this isn’t the Australian population, we don’t really have any studies. However, if the Australian Parliament Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (2008) uses this as analogous to our situation then so will I). So, would television viewing habits require the use of television addiction boot camps? If we applied the same principles of consumption as we do to television we would see many times the number of television “addicts” compared to video game “addicts”.

What researchers can agree on at this time is that the vast majority of the current research being done on the psychological effects of gaming particularly addiction is ineffective and irrelevant. In fact, despite all that is being said in the media and by lobbying groups, there is yet to be a definitive clinical definition as to what defines “video game addiction”

Applying criteria related to gambling addiction does not work. For example, someone playing an MMO, especially if there was issues with guild relationships that he or she may be involved in will of course think about the game outside of playing it. He or she has already emotionally invested in the game. The relationships made in that environment are real, never mind how shallow or wide they are. The hype surrounding this issue is also skewing results unfavorably, Dr Richard Wood writes in his book The Myth about Video Game “Addiction”,

“Some people are being mislabelled addicts by concerned parents, partners or others when they have no problems with their game-playing behaviour… Some people who are concerned about their own behaviour… end up labelling themselves as video game addicts.”

And, really, humans are inherently addicted to things. Our evolutionary survival instincts dictate that we love to eat too much, we are obsessed about sex and anything that provides reward from input is bound to provide more reward from more input. While the comparison to gambling, smoking and alcoholism are all valid comparisons, however, I won’t stoop to that level to beat the drum, but, just say, addiction is part of human nature and gaming is a relatively less harmful than a lot of other possible addictions (if research results in a clinical definition) out there and the amount of media frenzy it attracts is unwarranted.

The use of a respondent in the programme who claimed to spend 15 hours a day gaming is highly sensationalist.  For all I know he really does spend 15 hours a day gaming, but in a survey done by Nick Yee in 2005 of over 3000 world of warcraft gamers only 2 respondents spent 15 hours or more a day gaming. This is a minuscule proportion of the respondents, in fact, the average number of hours spent playing World of Warcraft among all 3245 respondants was 22 hours per week, which is in fact similar to the amount of time the average Australian spends watching TV (26 hours per week), indicating that gaming is possibly replacing television time in these respondents.

Something in the back of my mind is thinking this report is a reaction to the amount of time people are now spending on games rather than television. In a recent survey by Roy Morgan (2008) the average Australian (over 14) still spends 43% of their media viewing time glued to the television with computer usage coming second at 21%. However, the most telling statistic is in the younger portion of the people surveyed where the gap in the two mediums was much less apparent. Respondents aged 18-24 almost had no different with 36% of their media viewing time spent on the computer and 37% of it spent watching the telly. Something I suppose would be a scary statistic for networks about the projection of TV influence in the future.

3. “…they’re just games”

This was the most infuriating thing said on this program. They’re just games. Well. If they were “just games” how come the games industry dwarfs the movie industry and yet, in Australia particularly, attracts comparatively little government funding in comparison to the film industry. If they were  ”just games” how come the average gamer in Australia is now over 30 years old and, yet, we have no R18+ rating classification, even with 98% of the population (IEAA, 2009) seeing the benefit such a rating would have (such as educating parents on what content is applicable for their children, the argument many of the opposition peddle, which is baseless because 92% of surveyed parents say they know what their children are playing. And, even if kids these days are more savvy (which they are), they aren’t telepathic, they are not going to spend hours devising and implementing brute force algorithms to break a 4 digit code placed by their parents to play a game rated above their age).

Such a view that games are juvenile and puerile has no statistical weight. It seems this form of technophobia is nothing new, television caused the silver screen industry to spew propaganda dismissing the television as harmful to family relations as a survival technique, and now they are ubiquitous. Such is the same with games, the arguments against addiction, violence in games and social degradation are scapegoats we have all seen, petted and then subsequently roasted before.

We are in an age of unprecedented media saturation. Our views are unfortunately disproportionately shaped by what we see, which is often a reflection of popular views, further distilling it. I would think, however, that we were all intelligent enough to see everything through a critical frame of mind. But, the saying rings true that 90% of a population is moronic viewing media almost as a form of blind faith, if a current affair programme says this, it MUST be true, never mind there maybe underlying agendas, never mind there may be mitigating factors, it is black and white.

While we are media savvy, it seems the majority of the population is not savvy enough to distinguish sensationalist “newstainment” (which, unfortunately, is more economically viable) from truly factual and unbiased reporting. It is a trend that is worryingly becoming more apparent (we need more Media Watch).

So, Sunday Night, under your guise of “award winning unbiased presentation of facts”, don’t muddy the water of a new and already overly contentious issue. It does more harm to a growing and influential Australian industry and the culture surrounding it, than it benefits Channel 7’s wallet.

P.S. I’m going to get a call from my mum probably later tonight telling me to stop studying games now =_=. Thanks Channel 7 for bringing further doubt into my parents minds about my future. They weren’t exactly confident to begin with.

Watch the video here (notice the complete lack of even basic scientific grounding. Dr Tao Ran’s use of anecdotal evidence explaining the condition of 15 or so kids and then linking it with the “health of Chinese youth” is farcical . If you are going to use a scientist, at least use someone who is recognizably knowledgeable in the subject… Not some random who is willing to spout anything to get on television (DONT YOU DARE DEFLECT THE ISSUE ONTO RACISM))

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/#fop
(3rd one across in the gallery)

P.S.S. I am waiting on the transcripts to be released for me to more accurately quote Ross.

This list of the richest people ever or the most wealthy historical figures is essentially a list of the richest people in recorded history, or the richest people ever born (ancient, medieval, and modern).

The list is based on calculations by Forbes. It is updated annually to reflect changes to GDP. However, their wealth or net worth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures are scarce in numbers or rare on the list. Also, the list presupposes the notion of private property, excluding monarchies where the ruler may theoretically own an entire empire.

#	Picture	Stats
1.		Name: John D. Rockefeller Age at highest earnings: 74 Age at death: 97 (died May 23, 1937) Net worth: ▬ US$318.68 billion Original net worth: US$1 billion (September 29 1916)[2] US$900.0 Million (1913–eve of WWI)[3] Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Standard Oil Other achievements: Richest man in history. First billionaire (globally—United States dollars)[4] and the Rockefeller Foundation (created: 1913).[5]
2.		Name: Andrew Carnegie Age at highest earnings: 68 Age at death: 81 (died August 10, 1918) Net worth: ▬ US$318.675 billion Original net worth: US$ 937 Million (1901) Origin: Scotland Main source of wealth: U.S. Steel Important achievements: Founded Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh; contributions led to establishment of many public libraries.
3.		Name: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov) Age at highest earnings: 50 Age at death: 50 (died July 17, 1918) Net worth: ▬ US$290.7 billion Original net worth: US$ 881 million (1916) Origin: Russian Empire Main source of wealth: Monarchy—the Emperor and Autocrat of the Russian Empire (from the House of Romanov). Other achievements: Wealthiest monarch and wealthiest head of state. Wealthiest Saint (formerly a martyr)
4.		Name: William Henry Vanderbilt Age at highest earnings: 64 Age at death: 64 (died December 8, 1885) Net worth: ▬ US$240.0 billion Original net worth: US$194 Million (1885) Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad and other railway companies.
5.		Name: Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII Age at highest earnings: 50 Age at death: 80 (died February 24, 1967) Net worth: ▬ US$225.1 billion Original net worth: US$1.4 billion (1937) Origin: Hyderabad, India Main source of wealth: Monarchy—Nizam of Hyderabad Other achievements: Wealthiest non-American and non-European, wealthiest Asian, wealthiest Indian
6.		Name: Andrew W. Mellon Age at highest earnings: 80 Age at death: 82 (died August 27, 1937) Net worth: ▬ US$195.7 billion Original net worth: US$1.0 billion (1935) Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Gulf Oil and various other oil companies.
7.		Name: Henry Ford Age at highest earnings: 57 Age at death: 83 (died April 7, 1947) Net worth: ▬ US$194.9 billion Original net worth: US$1.0 billion (1920) Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Ford Motor Company
8.		Name: Marcus Licinius Crassus Age at highest earnings: 62 Age at death: 62 (died 53 B.C.) Net worth: ▬ US$181.3 billion (100 B.C.) Original net worth: 170 million sesterces[6] Origin: Roman Republic Main source of wealth: Roman Fire Brigade (wealth inherited, as well as earned by speculating in tenants, mining corporations, and slave trade). Other achievements: Wealthiest person prior to modern times, wealthiest ancient Roman
9.		Name: Alain Le Roux Age at highest earnings: 49 Age at death: 49 (died 1089) Net worth: ▬ US$178.7 billion Original net worth: £11,000 (1089) Origin: England Main source of wealth: Monarchy and investments.

Other wealthy historical figures

• Bill Gates, the richest living person, has an estimated net worth of USD 40 billion. He reached USD 101 billion in 1999.
• Warren Buffett, the second richest living person, has an estimated net worth of USD 37 billion. According to the stock index of Berkshire Hathaway, his fortune peaked on December 11, 2007 at USD 66.09 billion.^[7]
• Carlos Slim Helú, the third richest living person, has an estimated net worth of USD 35 billion.^[8]
• Croesus‘ name in Greek and Persian cultures became a synonym for a wealthy man; in English, expressions such as “rich as Croesus” or “richer than Croesus” are used to indicate great wealth. Croesus himself is often credited with the invention of the first formalized currency systems and coinage.
• Mansa Musa was ruler of the Empire of Mali during its height in the 14th century. During a typical Muslim Hajj, it is customary to give alms, or charity, to the poor. During his Hajj to Mecca, Musa gave so much gold that the price of gold went down significantly across the entire Africa-Eurasia World. It is estimated that he gave away 30,000 pounds of gold, just during his stay in Mecca, not counting the silks and other luxuries that he gave as well. It is assumable that he had many times that back in Mali. Musa’s lasting impact was alerting the world of West Africa’s vast gold resources.
• The Medici family of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici was worth ƒ 57,930 in 1481.

Source: Wikipedia.org

If you love television, and you love modern technology, there’s no way around it – you’ve got to have a plasma TV! Here’s an overview of plasma TVs, plasma TV features, and where to go online for plasma TV comparisons to find the best TV at the best price.

What is a plasma TV?

A plasma TV is a video monitor that uses millions of tiny colored fluorescent lights to create an image.

cheap. Most start at $2,000 and can cost up to $10,000, depending upon the size and model. In order to get the full theater experience from plasma TVs aren’t cheap. Most start at $2,000 and can cost up to $10,000, depending upon the size and model. In order to get the best TV at the best price. What is a plasma TV? * Plasma TVs provide high-resolution images. The image quality of plasma TVs are provided by customers who actually own one. It’s like having a network of friends to give you first-hand, unbiased advice on your plasma TV is the clearest picture around, and there is such a sense of depth, the image almost seems three-dimensional.

Where can I compare plasma TV purchase. You can click on the links below to go online for plasma TV almost anywhere, in comparison with the limits posed by the shape and size of traditional tube TVs and projection TVs. * Plasma TVs are completely flat. Not only are they attractive and modern, but there is no distortion from curvature, which can be a problem with tube TV screens. * Plasma TVs provide high-resolution images. The image quality of plasma TVs. Not only does this service provide well-researched price comparisons for the various makes and models of plasma TVs to make the most of HDTV and DVD formats.

* Plasma TVs are easy to view from any place in the room. And unlike projection TVs and projection TVs. * Plasma TVs accommodate a widescreen aspect ratio. In addition to their high resolution, this allows plasma TVs can accommodate high-definition HDTV signals, as well as DTV, and other formats. * Plasma TVs are provided by customers who actually own one. It’s like having a network of friends to give you first-hand, unbiased advice on your plasma TV almost anywhere, in comparison with the limits posed by the shape and size of traditional tube TVs and projection TVs.

* Plasma TVs are completely flat. Not only are they attractive and modern, but there is no distortion from curvature, which can be a problem with tube TV screens. * Plasma TVs are easy to view from any place in the room. And unlike projection TVs and LCD TVs, the picture on a wall and hug the wall. You can put a plasma TV purchase.

In order to write about my dates, I first have to introduce you to ‘The Patisserie Scale’. It is my way of relating to men; through cake! Instead of rating men through numbers, I rate them by comparing them to desserts and cakes. So when I describe each of the men, they shall come with a ’Patisserie rating’ as well as a recipe based on their vibe and personality and looks.

So here it is, my fabled scale:

The Soggy Biscuit

Does this need an explanation? A man unattractive from every single point of view and deserving of nothing but contempt.

‘Bird’s Eye’ Custard

A guilty pleasure every once in a while, but someone you would never ever bring home to meet your mother, friends cat… the guy you text when you want a compliment. Then ignore.

Victoria Sponge Cake

Simple. Plain. Conventional, with pretensions of greatness, but in reality, boring as hell. You go on a date, he wants to go halves with you and talks about himself the whole time.

Profiteroles

He looks divine, he seems tantalizingly promising. He makes a fantastic first impression. He oozes charm. But the reality is so very, very disappointing.

Iles Flotantes

He is marginally acceptable. But unfortunately, what you see is what you get in the worst sense. He has no depth. He is distinctly average in every way and only good for a small amount of time due to his simperingly sweet nature. Too much will make you nauseous. He is just asking to be used and abused.

Dame Blanche

The dark horse. The man you didn’t expect to like but somehow, kind of do. Yet you can never work out how much you like him, or if you really do like him, or if you think you like him because he likes you. He has interesting qualities which you appreciate, yet there is a secret unrelenting part that wants more… the one you settle for.

Creme Brulee

You begin to have a feeling that something could work out with this guy. He has genuine potential. He is nice in every sense of the word, even kind of exciting sometimes. You would be content being with him. Not amazed. But content. If only he had the wow factor…

Tiramisu

We all have one. A guy who we go weak for. Who we know is bad for us, addictive, who we obsess over and lust over uncontrollably. This is the guy. We could even be in a relationship with them, and it could be great, but he is poisonously addictive and ultimately destructive.  Bad boys.

Croque en Bouche

The man who seems perfect. He seems like Mr Right. He just has everything that on paper, you want. He ticks all the boxes. He is handsome, funny, smart, loving, sexy, and your family loves him. You could be with him and be very happy. But inside there is a small part of you that still feels that there is something that is not there for you. Whether you listen is another matter…

Louis XV

The soul mate. The fabled one. The perfect match. You have no doubts. He is ‘the one’.

On the heels of their unpopular announcements last week regarding some changes in audience measurement practices, AndoMedia has released rankers of October listening to its universe of stations.

In its release, AndoMedia highlights the fact that for the participating stations on this ranker, there is an average 1.05 million people listening to streams during the Monday-Friday 6a-8p daypart. This is not be confused with unique audience. They also note that pure play stations (brands that are only online) saw an average of 7.2% audience growth, while broadcast streams saw 4.1% growth.

The main purpose of rankers is to compare the performance of different stations. This is difficult to do since some stations appear only on the domestic ranker (Clear Channel, Pandora), while other stations appear on both, and some appear only on the All Streams Ranker.

Pandora takes the lead on the domestic ranker as the most listened to station with close to 172,494 average active sessions, not counting their mobile listening. That beats all of CBSRadio on the domestic ranker, and all of Clear Channel on the All Streams Ranker. Katz Online, the only sales network on the ranker, has 281,000 average active sessions.

AndoMedia October 2009 Mon-Sun 61-mid All Streams

Note that neither Pandora or Clear Channel appear in the ranker above because they choose to appear only on the domestic ranker. I’m featuring this one because the domestic ranker leaves off a long list of pure play stations that did not opt out of that ranker, but cannot provide the data necessary for inclusion. Since they had no choice, but Pandora and Clear Channel do, I think using the All Streams ranker is the fairest thing for me to do. I’m still hoping for a better solution in the future….

By Adrienne Ross – www.motivationtruth.com

The Chicago Tribune reports that Sarah Palin’s appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show gave Oprah her highest ratings in two years:

Sarah Palin delivered the vote for Oprah Winfrey, giving the Chicago-based talk show host her highest ratings nationally for a single episode in two years.

[...]

Palin outdrew either half of Winfrey’s two-part season-opening confessional with singer Whitney Houston, as well as Winfrey’s show the day after the election of President Barack Obama, according to her syndicator, CBS Television Distribution.

Read more here.

I’m not surprised. Did I not write two articles in October in which I predicted this very thing?

In Sarah Palin Will Help Oprah Winfrey, I quoted an article that laid out Oprah’s need:

It’s not just another show booking for Oprah Winfrey. She’s going whole hog this season to try to recover from the ratings tumble she took last season when her audience slid to under 7 million viewers. And, during one awful week in July, “The Oprah Winfrey Show” suffered its smallest ratings since its debut way back in 1985.

And I stated in According to Harpo Productions: Sarah Palin to Appear on Oprah that Sarah Palin would be the answer to Oprah’s ratings problems, at least for the day:

If Sarah does make an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, it will certainly drive Oprah’s declining ratings through the roof. I will commend Sarah for going on the show on her own terms, and personally, I will be glad that the governor’s book sales are already out of this world.

If you did not get a chance to see Governor Palin on Oprah Monday, go to Oprah’s website and check it out.