Top 10 Reasons Why There’s No TWiT Live Today

10. I did 20 hours of video in the past two days and I’m exhausted.
9. It’s time to give someone else a chance on Stickam.

8. My Energizers finally ran out.

7. There’s no more room under my desk to store the pee.

6. It’s been a month since I’ve answered my email.

5. My wife is coming home and I’ve got some ‘splaining to do.

4. I’m paraskevidekatriaphobic and I’m planning to run for the cure.

3. It’s half-price day at Keny’s Donuts.

2. Metal Gear Solid 4 beckons.

and the number one reason I’m taking today off…

Sometimes a guy’s just got to sit around naked.

98 Replies to “Top 10 Reasons Why There’s No TWiT Live Today”

  1. I hope your not that guy who is using the lawn mower naked, with the beer in the cup holder

  2. Tell us the truth Leo. Your going to your local Apple Store to get in line for the new iPhone!!

  3. Old men need time off! I can say that since I'm older than you and need time off too.

  4. You are the biggest nut I have ever followed on twitter. This was very funny. Have a Great Day! and put some cloths on… ya left the web cams running and the world will see ya!!!!!

  5. Good for you, Leo, you work like a madman! Enjoy your time in the sweet California sun.

  6. Hopefully you can combine number 5 with the number 1 reason, thanks for reminding me its Friday the 13th forgot about it till just now. Great job with the video over the past couple of days, thank you enjoy the time off, you have earned it.

  7. People tend to forget we were born without clothes. Once in awhile, it's great to just sit around naked and let everything “hang loose”. It re-invigorates those genes we have in common with the monkeys and brings back our connection with mother earth.See you on the Internets, Mr LL

  8. hey Leothats no problem anybodywith more than >6 coultonson the coultonmeter can take a day of anytime ;)thanks for the great content !

  9. Maybe everybody has just been too polite (or laughing too hard) to tell you that your camera hasn't been off and you mislabled the “Live” and “Standby” switch…….maybe……it could have happened…..but nobody is going to tell.

  10. It looks like it's finally starting to cool down a little in Petaluma over the next several days; that's nice.

  11. Leo, The whole point of your grand media experiment is to create a situation where you can work 20 hours when the spirit moves you and 0 hours when it doesn't. I will try not to be jealous and simply wish you all the best. Now if I could only come up with something that give me that same kind of freedom while keeping a roof over my families head.

  12. Leo,Great list and I hope you enjoyed your day off and thanks for the longs days the last 2 days. It's only on those days that I get a chance to catch Twit Live.

  13. The REAL top ten reasons:10. Realized that Twit Live is an anagram of little vw and spent hours flashing back to your hippie days.9. Someone on Gizmodo called someone else an idiot, and you spent the rest of the day researching Apple's new Diot.8. Sat in the studio, drunk and dejected, because Sumi Das won't return your calls.7. Sick of coming in the studio and having to clean up the Giz Wiz.6. Got stuck in the Badlands with your level 11 Warlock, and a guy's gotta have priorities.5. Intern was sick, and you couldn't find “On.”4. An especially gut-wrenching episode of Tyra made you come to grips with your feelings for Dvorak.3. Still bitter over having not been chosen the new Mahalo Girl.2. Spent day continuing to strategize for Hillary.1. Checked all of your sources, read all of the blogs, scanned all of your notes and came to realize that there was absolutely nothing that you needed to say!

  14. Leo, on the last TWiT it came to my attenzione that your accent Italiano needs a piccolo bit of help…If you screen this I'm sure it'll improve:”Mafioso” a film by Alberto Lattuada (criterion collection) four stars – in Italian – Milan Sicily & NY

  15. Leo,just listed to the debate on metering the internet. John's argument is much more accurate than your claim that there is no cost to bits. There are limited bits. Your enterprise makes use of a significant amount of bandwidth on the consumer and producer end. You said' “I'm putting out high bandwidth content” and you don't want that limited.Fortunately or unfortunately, a higher number of bits moving about will have fees attached to them. Why shouldn't those who use more pay more.John briefly, finally after a long debate realized that indeed you are in a conflict of interest. Face it. You can't be neutral, when the issue affects you. I know you defend the internet and want few limits on it. It can be transformative on the content distribution side because let's face it, your cost of distribution approaches $0. You compete against content creation schemes that have significantly higher costs. The business development model of amazon has the same advantages over bookstores. Shouldn't amazon users pay the cost of almost free access to the resource?

  16. Are you kidding? Even Jerry Pournelle's flem is wicked smart. I love the guy. I wish I had a living grandpa with that kind of wisdom and insight. More, more, more

  17. JCD makes one crucial mistake (which even the Leo didn't get): bandwidth problems are not due to the few heavy users but due to the failure of ISPs to keep up with the technology. If they provided us with the state of the art system, everyone would be able to use Internet at the rate of few todays heavy users without any issue. If ISPs provided us with the up-to-date system, we still wouldn't notice any issue with the few existing heavy users. But, they provide us with the outdated system and blame any problems on advanced users who do keep up with the modern technology and its capabilities…Technology develops fast. Still, technology develops FIRST and than people make use of it. First, the small number of first adopters. Than, others follow and it becomes a mainstream. ISPs can't sit idle (as they do) and must match their capabilities with the technological advancement. They have first adopters as a warning “canary in the mine”. If first adopters experience problems, ISPs better fix it or soon the majority of us will have the same problems.Now to the cost issue. ISPs in many countries worldwide (with varying social, economic, political and geographical issues) already provide the state-of-the-art Internet access to their customers. At reasonable cost. Most importantly: WITH PROFIT. If they can, so can the USA ISPs. But, they are lazy dinosaurs who unfortunately presently hold necks of both the Govt. and users in their monopolistic mouths. It will take a new and clever provider to make “killing” from this situation by providing modern Internet access at reasonable rates. Some are already growing “out there”… Market is merciless and if profit is possible someone will emerge to get it.Finally, “Why shouldn't those who use more pay more”: As I mention technology is developing fast. Say, today normal users maybe get 30-40GB per month. In few months I can bet it will be 60-80GB. And so on. So, in few months, if charged by amount you'd pay double for same “class” of usage. Or prices would need to be adjusted monthly… (Which they won't be. The whole “need” for charge by the byte is stemming from the ISP greed, not from real need or lack of profit). Also, there are some crucial Internet structure issues: ex. huge part of the bandwidth is in the ads… Make user pay by the byte and he is the one who'll pay for all those fancy Flash ads and such. Can I as such user go to the ad producer and say: I didn't want this, give me my bandwidth money back? Also the spam… If I receive a gig' of spam – who pays for it? Internet is simply not structured for “by the bit” consumption. And the technology is such that it is not needed.

  18. JCD makes one crucial mistake (which even the Leo didn't get): bandwidth problems are not due to the few heavy users but due to the failure of ISPs to keep up with the technology. If they provided us with the state of the art system, everyone would be able to use Internet at the rate of few todays heavy users without any issue. If ISPs provided us with the up-to-date system, we still wouldn't notice any issue with the few existing heavy users. But, they provide us with the outdated system and blame any problems on advanced users who do keep up with the modern technology and its capabilities…Technology develops fast. Still, technology develops FIRST and than people make use of it. First, the small number of first adopters. Than, others follow and it becomes a mainstream. ISPs can't sit idle (as they do) and must match their capabilities with the technological advancement. They have first adopters as a warning “canary in the mine”. If first adopters experience problems, ISPs better fix it or soon the majority of us will have the same problems.Now to the cost issue. ISPs in many countries worldwide (with varying social, economic, political and geographical issues) already provide the state-of-the-art Internet access to their customers. At reasonable cost. Most importantly: WITH PROFIT. If they can, so can the USA ISPs. But, they are lazy dinosaurs who unfortunately presently hold necks of both the Govt. and users in their monopolistic mouths. It will take a new and clever provider to make “killing” from this situation by providing modern Internet access at reasonable rates. Some are already growing “out there”… Market is merciless and if profit is possible someone will emerge to get it.Finally, “Why shouldn't those who use more pay more”: As I mention technology is developing fast. Say, today normal users maybe get 30-40GB per month. In few months I can bet it will be 60-80GB. And so on. So, in few months, if charged by amount you'd pay double for same “class” of usage. Or prices would need to be adjusted monthly… (Which they won't be. The whole “need” for charge by the byte is stemming from the ISP greed, not from real need or lack of profit). Also, there are some crucial Internet structure issues: ex. huge part of the bandwidth is in the ads… Make user pay by the byte and he is the one who'll pay for all those fancy Flash ads and such. Can I as such user go to the ad producer and say: I didn't want this, give me my bandwidth money back? Also the spam… If I receive a gig' of spam – who pays for it? Internet is simply not structured for “by the bit” consumption. And the technology is such that it is not needed.

  19. Yes, please have Jerry Pournelle back ! (phlem or not.)Keep up the good work.I just re-found you and I have some podcasts to catch up on.

Comments are closed.