And lo On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:11:31 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>>> Then again are we just getting a large amount of rubbish these days?
>>>
>>> Otherwise known as "you're getting old". Apparently I share this
>>> affliction. :-(
>>
>> It's a glib answer, but is it true? I honestly don't think so.
>
> I don't have enough data to say with any certainty.
>
> (Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities  
> library...)

See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary (been  
slowly reading the "Kindling" thread)

>> and now the BBC is spread over
>> two more channels and two kids ones (discounting the news and  
>> parliament);
>> ITV's gained three plus a children's; Four's got at least two more as  
>> has
>> Five; plus all the other non-affiliated stuff. There's no extra content  
>> so
>> it's just being spread paper-thin over all these new channels.
>
> In other words, instead of having four or five quality channels, we have  
> 400 or 500 channels of filler. How sad.

Yup - well 20 channels anyway not counting the ones trying to overtly sell  
you something. Discounting Sky (which I hear so many say "I just bought it  
for the football/movies and there's nothing else on") and consider the  
jump to Freeview from five channels to over twenty. With no increase in  
budget how can there not be a hit in quality?

>> I have never, NEVER enjoyed soaps; they make my brain itch; fake
>> purporting to be reality while obviously being fake. It's a level of
>> self-deception I can't follow.
>
> I hate soaps too. And yet, we seem to be drowning in them today.

I can't even argue them as cheap television. I guess it's the continuation  
factor; once you've got a subject hooked they'll specifically tune in to  
watch and you can charge higher advertising rates.

>>> Then again, maybe I'm just bitter because you can't turn on your TV
>>> any more and watch science or nature programs. They just don't seem to
>>> make 'em any more.
>>
>> Couple of Horizon's on the BBC, the odd Attenborough, but no other than
>> that it's fairly bleak.
>
> Hell, Horizon used to be good stuff. Now it seems to be "hey, look at  
> this freak boy born without eyebrows, and watch the incredible reality  
> story of how doctors perform ground-breaking surgery to make him normal  
> again". To suffice, even Horizon is a reality TV show now.

Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the route  
of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect people to  
tune in late or they consider their audience memory-deprived.

>> There's always Dave.
>
> Dave. What are you doing Dave? This is highly irregular...

Dave Ja Vu :-P

-- 
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

>> (Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities
>> library...)
>
> See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary (been
> slowly reading the "Kindling" thread)

GLib apparently being unrelated to GLibC...

>> In other words, instead of having four or five quality channels, we
>> have 400 or 500 channels of filler. How sad.
>
> Yup - well 20 channels anyway not counting the ones trying to overtly
> sell you something. Discounting Sky (which I hear so many say "I just
> bought it for the football/movies and there's nothing else on") and
> consider the jump to Freeview from five channels to over twenty. With no
> increase in budget how can there not be a hit in quality?

Ah, shopping TV. That most hateful abomination. I suppose sport TV might 
be interesting if I was actually interested in sport. (Apart from darts 
and snooker, anyway.)

Can you tell that I basically just *don't watch* TV any more? Hell, when 
I do it's like taking a bad acid trip. What with the talking frogs and 
dancing babies and flying opera singers. Seriously, WTF are the 
advertising execs smoking?

>> I hate soaps too. And yet, we seem to be drowning in them today.
>
> I can't even argue them as cheap television. I guess it's the
> continuation factor; once you've got a subject hooked they'll
> specifically tune in to watch and you can charge higher advertising rates.

Well, yeah, that's it. Soaps do have the property that if you miss an 
episode, the rest just isn't going to make sense. So it sharply forces 
people to watch, which generates revenue.

Alternatively, "reality" TV almost always involves extremely expensive 
phone-ins, which also generates money.

Then we have the "talent contests" (which are of course *popularity* 
contents), which similarly generate money.

Suck to be you if you happen to have a brain...

>> Hell, Horizon used to be good stuff. Now it seems to be "hey, look at
>> this freak boy born without eyebrows, and watch the incredible reality
>> story of how doctors perform ground-breaking surgery to make him
>> normal again". To suffice, even Horizon is a reality TV show now.
>
> Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the
> route of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect
> people to tune in late or they consider their audience memory-deprived.

Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves 
every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think 
the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program cheaper 
if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.

> Dave Ja Vu :-P

That's one hell of a name choice, right there!

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:28 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary

Yes!
I didn't know that there were so many words I did not know until I could 
look them up.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:39 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> Couple of decent ones recently. Though sadly they have gone down the
>> route of re-explaining things every five minutes. Either they expect
>> people to tune in late or they consider their audience memory-deprived.
>
> Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves
> every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think
> the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program cheaper
> if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.

Me too!
I had a job one where I had to have the TV on all the time in my 
workshop. (To make sure that the satellite dish had not lost alignment.)
Sky News was the only thing I could bare to have on and it repeated 
every 20 minutes. It drove me mad(er)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 03:46 PM, Stephen wrote:

> I didn't know that there were so many words I did not know until I could
> look them up.

Yesterday I told my girlfriend "I didn't think hypernatraemia was good 
for hypotension". The look she gave me indicated that I was in danger of 
having the breakfast spoon I was holding shoved somewhere unpleasant...

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 11:44 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Nice to be back, just time, work  and blogging. Amazing how much of a
> time-sink that latter can be if you want to pepper your entries with
> something more filling than expanded tweets. Oh that and Minecraft :-)
>

Lost on me. I don't think that anyone (myself included) would want to 
read my ramblings.

>> What second childhood?
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again - children's TV programming
> often excels compared to that targeted at adults. Then again are we just
> getting a large amount of rubbish these days? "Have I Got News for You",
> "Never Mind the Buzzcocks", and "Mock the Week" in the short bursts they
> do. "Misfits" which has been simply outstanding. "Being Human" which
> just gets better. "Doctor Who" of course and... hmm that's about it.
> I've ended up setting the box to record the re-runs of "Malcolm in the
> Middle" on Fiver for a half-hour 'fix' of something decent. Everything
> else is Soap or soap-like - real-life turned to 11 and painted in
> day-glo fluorescent colours; or reality shows that aren't. Just nothing
> worth watching for most of the week.

I quite liked the Inbetweeners.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh God, I HATE THAT! >_< Why do TV programs have to repeat themselves
>> every 25 seconds these days?! I can only imagine that either they think
>> the people watching are absurdly stupid, or it makes the program cheaper
>> if they just repeat the same shots over and over again.
>
> Me too!
> I had a job one where I had to have the TV on all the time in my
> workshop. (To make sure that the satellite dish had not lost alignment.)
> Sky News was the only thing I could bare to have on and it repeated
> every 20 minutes. It drove me mad(er)

Well, news channels are like that. I guess the idea is that you tune in, 
watch for long enough to see what's happening, and then turn off again. 
So they just repeat the same news again and again, because people are 
arriving and leaving constantly.

But normal TV should *not* be like this! And I am now sufficiently old 
and demented to claim that it wasn't when I was young. I can only 
imagine they keep repeating everything to pad out the material and make 
it last longer. Feature films don't do this, so clearly it's not because 
the adult human has an attention span shorter than a goldfish.

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:55 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/01/2011 03:46 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I didn't know that there were so many words I did not know until I could
>> look them up.
>
> Yesterday I told my girlfriend "I didn't think hypernatraemia was good
> for hypotension". The look she gave me indicated that I was in danger of
> having the breakfast spoon I was holding shoved somewhere unpleasant...

Not surprising ;-)
But reading between the lines. Breakfast spoon?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/01/2011 3:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Well, news channels are like that.

I know but it still drove me bonkers.
>
> But normal TV should *not* be like this! And I am now sufficiently old
> and demented to claim that it wasn't when I was young.

I bet you can't remember "Rag, Tag and bobtail" :-P

I can only
> imagine they keep repeating everything to pad out the material and make
> it last longer. Feature films don't do this, so clearly it's not because
> the adult human has an attention span shorter than a goldfish.

Attention span is getting shorter as less and less is demanded of people.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:28:23 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> I don't have enough data to say with any certainty.
>>
>> (Also, the only "glib" I know of is the GNOME Foundation utilities
>> library...)
> 
> See this is why you need the Sony eReader with built-in dictionary (been
> slowly reading the "Kindling" thread)

Or indeed just access to dictionary.com. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message