>> ...unless it *isn't* useful at all, it's just another one of those
>> worthless things that "create the right impression".
>
> Being aware of technology is important.
>
> You find yourself in a job that you'd like to get out of, but you have no
> idea how to do it.
>
> People give you ideas, and you assert "that can't possibly work" or "that
> can't possibly be useful".
>
> But people who do those things actually find other jobs.
>
> You don't do those things, and you don't have luck finding another job.
>
> What does this tell you?

Well, for one thing, it tells me that now Christmas is over and it's 
February, I really ought to start applying for jobs again. I haven't 
done that in ages...

>>> A standardized XML file format allows the information to be published
>>> once and viewed by many different programs.
>>
>> Because XHTML isn't an XML format already. Oh, wait... actually yes it
>> is. And many different programs can view it. So...?
>
> Again, go look a the tour of Google Reader.

Not something I've ever heard of, but sure. That sounds like it might be 
much more enlightening than Wikipedia.

>> As best as I can tell, the idea behind RSS seems to be that you can see
>> if any of your subscribed websites have been updated, without having to
>> visit each of them one at a time. (As if that's in some way "hard" or
>> something.) Why the heck the article doesn't just /say/ this on line
>> one, I don't know. Instead it talks obliquely about how "all new content
>> is pushed onto the browser when it becomes available". (Funny, when it
>> says a feed reader "regularly checks for updates", that sounds to me
>> like a /pull/ model, not /push/...)
>
> It's time consuming to visit 100 sites to see if there's anything new.
> It's far easier to be alerted when there's something new that might be of
> interest.

100 sites?! o_O

Damn, you actually follow that much stuff? Jees...

>>>>>> I usually visit Tom's Hardware when I want to see what's happening
>>>>>> in the hardware world.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt you're going to get that by reading some text on a screen.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I just built a new PC - to experience the Core i7
>>>> first-hand.
>>>> :-P
>>>
>>> So then why bother going to Tom's Hardware again?
>>
>> Sarcasm? :-P
>
> Or perhaps to find out what the latest processor is that you might be
> able to afford?

For that, I go to various shopping websites. I visit Tom's Hardware to 
find out which products have good performance.

>> Want to bet that the BBC has servers all over the world?
>
> So you just happened to get a crappy connection, while I got a good one?

Or the BBC offers different quality levels in different parts of the 
world? Heck, maybe they're even using a different codec or something? I 
don't know.

>> With the latest update to our set top box, we can actually access
>> iPlayer and display it on a real TV. I can actually compare the recorded
>> TV broadcast directly next to the iPlayer version of the exact same
>> program. And let me tell you, the image quality is incomparable. (And
>> that's only SD, not HD.)
>
> Then your eyes are better than mine, or you got a really crappy
> connection.

Yes. Because it's the connection that determines the picture quality, 
not the sender. Oh, wait...

>> I don't think an 8 Mbit/sec Internet connection would be considered
>> especially slow...
>
> And yet I apparently get a better picture at half the speed from the
> other side of the planet....

*sigh*

Do you want me to go grab a frame? Would that make you happy?

>> The sound isn't the problem, it's the video. Sound is easily streamable.
>> But I'm baffled as to how you can download video in anything approaching
>> real-time, unless the quality is diabolically poor.
>
> Except that it isn't.  Part if it is called compression.

Sure, it's all compressed. But that almost always means lossy 
compression. You have to trade how much bandwidth you have for what 
level of picture quality you want. And that's the problem - it seems 
that to stream realtime over the Internet, you have to accept really low 
picture quality.

>>> But more to the point, do you now understand what streaming is?
>>
>> Yes. Although I'm still puzzled as to how anybody could make money out
>> of selling such poor quality stuff...
>
> Convenience is a huge motivational driver for consumers.  But more to the
> point, most people don't see the quality as being "poor".

Well, FM radio isn't exactly "high fidelity", and yet it's quite popular.

Then again, FM isn't so bad as to render the content /unrecognisable/. 
Right, let me go grab a frame from iPlayer...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '0006.png' (111 KB)

Preview of image '0006.png'