__/ [Peter Hayes] on Tuesday 13 September 2005 09:29 \__
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> > __/ [John Bailo] on Monday 12 September 2005 17:35 \__
>> >> I bought a tv saturday.
>> >> Just a classic style, tube, 20" for $139 at Walmart.
>> >> I wanted to watch the NFL games, and they don't have any streaming
>> >> services yet.
>> >> One thing I realized -- I like tv.
>> >> I turn it on, and there it is, entertaining me.
>> >> With computers, it takes a year and a day to get to the right music or
>> >> video and find something this is relevent to me.
>> >> It just takes so long.
>> >> I want something where I put a button, and the machine starts doing
>> >> something interesting.
>> > The same can be achieved with computers, but it takes experience, which
>> > TV fans often lack, often requiring some setups as well. I have cron
>> > jobs to download hundreds of songs overnight (via HTTP) and since the
>> > computer always stays on and has xbindkeys installed, it takes just
>> > CTRL+ALT+key to get things started.
>> > I ditched my TV altogether 2 years ago. TV is push technology while
>> > computers are pull technology. With TV you are a zombie that gets fed
>> > anything that sequentially comes your way. With computers, you choose
>> > your destinations and can skimp, skip and obtain depth where desired.
>> It's an interesting point, but I'd like to point out that my steerable
>> sat-dish pulls down >> 1000 TV channels, >> 200 radio channels,
>> my terrestrial digital TV box gets around 30 TV channels and about
>> 10 radio channels, my shortwave radio gets around 200 channels,
>> (excluding non-broadcast), my mw radio gets another 50 channels, my
>> lw about another 2 or 3, my vhf fm gets around 20 channels, and DAB
>> VHF gets around 30 channels, so I total up at around 1600 channels.
>> With sufficient broadcast channels, there isn't much difference between
>> the net and broadcast radio.
> There's a lot of duplication there, FM and DAB for starters.
> How many times do you trawl the Sky listings for something to watch and
> find little of interest - just endless repeats of makeover TV and
> shopping channels?
You made my point clearer, Peter. Cable providers are bound to give the
/illusion/ that many channels exist. In turn, the customer is bound to
boast the large number of channels to friends and colleague. However, TV
channels are often the equivalent of a Net mirror, they are not searchable,
you cannot coincide with them at the very /start/ of a program and you are
susceptible to intrusive commercials that cannot be skipped because of the
strict 'dimension of time'. Moreover, you do not multi-task with a TV,
which relates to my last point.
>> > Computers could be like TV. They could throw a bunch of junk at you,
>> > but what's the point? The Internet in particular is a revolution, owing
>> > to which we get the 'television' to show anything that takes our fancy.
>> I agree that the personal interaction makes the net somewhat different.
> Set up properly, pull technologies are the way to go, I watch very
> little TV - just FTA football and some documentaries and the news.
...and that _too_ you could, in principle, do with your computer, thereby
saving on some bills, maintenance of appliances and centralisation of data
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Black holes are where God is divided by zero"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
9:45am up 19 days 3:19, 3 users, load average: 0.24, 0.16, 0.21