 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station, which
> showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol
We have a joke that says the more TV channels you have the dumber you are.
:-)
In the UK it seems that the poorer the area the more likely they are to have
satellite TV (that's just my observation).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:38:43 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scott com> did
spake thusly:
>> So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station,
>> which showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol
>
> We have a joke that says the more TV channels you have the dumber you
> are. :-)
>
> In the UK it seems that the poorer the area the more likely they are to
> have satellite TV (that's just my observation).
I think that's when the BBC lost most of the football coverage to Sky and
certain areas looked as if they'd suffered from an explosion in a
satellite dish factory.
Can't do without the footie!
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:10:25 -0000, Patrick Elliott
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:
> On 3/8/2010 2:10 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Out of curiosity, which country do you live in?
>>>>
>>> The US. Why?
>>
>> I think the situation is slightly different in the UK.
>>
>> But sure, I'll go with your basic premis. There's a lot of free stuff
>> that you used to have to pay for.
>>
>> (I don't know about you, but where I am, at least 25% of the channels
>> have "+1" in their name. Yes, that's right. They rebroadcast the stuff
>> again in case you missed it the first time - even though that was in
>> 1970 or so...)
>>
> Actually wish we had some that re-ran stuff. Missed House last week, due
> to some sort of crisis/upgrade to the cable system, and it takes 8 days
> for it to run up on Hulu. lol
The +1 channels are quite useful as broadcasters still seem to be stuck in
an age you had to watch a programme when it was on and thus schedule
things to run against each other. I've lost count of the number of times
I've gone to record something and my box has had to suggest recording it
on the time-shifted channel to avoid clashes.
For re-run channels pretty much ITV3 and ITV4; Dave runs a lot and if I
find myself with some spare time I can pretty much guarantee either it or
Dave Ja Vu (+1) will be showing a old "Top Gear" episode. Classic shows
though are confined to "Gold" which is subscription only.
There's some good stuff out there, just have to wade though a lot more
dross to find it though.
I'm surprised it took so long to run "House" though, don't the channels
offer an online catch-up service?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott a écrit :
>> So.. the old joke about going to Europe and having one one station,
>> which showed nothing but how the local factory made cheese is true? lol
>
> We have a joke that says the more TV channels you have the dumber you
> are. :-)
>
The Quantity of Quality is constant, the more channels, the less part of
Quality per channel.
> In the UK it seems that the poorer the area the more likely they are to
> have satellite TV (that's just my observation).
Panem et circenses... Bad foods and entertainments...
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2010 2:17 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I'm surprised it took so long to run "House" though, don't the channels
> offer an online catch-up service?
>
Its something in the contract with the broadcaster or something. It
"must" be delayed that long.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, that too. Wasn't 24 FPS chosen because it's the *minimum* frame
>> rate that yields a believable illusion of motion?
Interesting paper from the BBC about higher frame rates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp169.shtml
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:34:30 -0000, Patrick Elliott
<sel### [at] npgcablecom> did spake thusly:
> On 3/10/2010 2:17 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> I'm surprised it took so long to run "House" though, don't the channels
>> offer an online catch-up service?
>>
> Its something in the contract with the broadcaster or something. It
> "must" be delayed that long.
Hmm I suppose it's run at different times in different areas, I can
understand the owners not wanting it made available to anyone with an
internet connection until they've rung all the money out of the standard
broadcasters.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
>>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
>>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
>>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>>
>> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
>> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
>
> The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
> signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
I'm talking about *bad TV shows*, not bad image quality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> >> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital TV.
> >>> There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high quality
> >>> programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all* showing utter
> >>> crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
> >>
> >> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of quality
> >> programming happened at the same time. Correlation != causation.
> >
> > The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
> > signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
> I'm talking about *bad TV shows*, not bad image quality.
I think that the point was that the increase in number of channels lowered
the average TV program quality because the majority of it is just filler.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:19:28 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> >> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> >>> (And that of course is the other undesirable thing about digital
>> >>> TV. There used to be, like, 5 channels, 4 of them containing high
>> >>> quality programming. Now there's 500 channels and they're *all*
>> >>> showing utter crap that nobody would ever want to watch...)
>> >>
>> >> That has nothing to do with digital TV. It's just the drop of
>> >> quality programming happened at the same time. Correlation !=
>> >> causation.
>> >
>> > The increase in available channels isn't related to the decrease in
>> > signal bandwidth per channel due to being digital?
>
>> I'm talking about *bad TV shows*, not bad image quality.
>
> I think that the point was that the increase in number of channels
> lowered
> the average TV program quality because the majority of it is just
> filler.
At least here in the US, the programmes are secondary - the whole point
of commercial television is the commercials - that's where the
broadcasters make their money.
The shows are what draws people to watch.
But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and the
ability to skip commercials), broadcasters are having problems justifying
the cost of ad slots since the number of views is lower because
technology allows people to skip commercials.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
