|
Rage wrote: This makes your sig even more meaningful.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
It's all explained perfectly in the commentary provided by Babu below the article. He makes everything clear and logical...
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: It's all explained perfectly in the commentary provided by Babu below the article. He makes everything clear and logical...
I think I found my next guru. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, me too! I think I'll get all of my Science information from Creationist Law students in the future; maybe I can get elected to Congress. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: for many years past its design lifetime,"
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This is something that was created knowing that it would fail at some point. The fact that it lasted this long is nice, however lamenting the fact that it could have lasted longer is meaningless since if they wanted that they should have paid for that. But they didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Have they tried turning it off and on again?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Have they tried turning it off and on again?
Ironically, I think they're trying that, but since the antennas are no longer pointing at earth (the computer is apparently constantly rebooting now) they can't get a command to it. It actually amazes me how much they can do to reconfigure a spacecraft once it's launched (assuming they can talk to the thing.) For example, to get communication satellites in orbit faster, the firmware / software that operates the satellite (besides the basic stuff) is often still in development while the satellite is delivered to the launch vehicle, which of course can take months.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
This is something I was thinking about the other week, and been reminded of by the Breaking Bad thread below.
When I was but a lad we had 3 channels in the UK, then a fourth was added. (I'm either old, young, or the same age as you - I know).
This continued until a 5th was added when I was in my 20s.
Several years later we finally had some sort of cable offering.
Nowadays with several hundred TV channels, the ability to easily record programs or series and watch them back whenever, the ability to download hundreds or thousands of films and shows from all over the world.
I think my viewing habits are less varied now that I have all this choice than when there was none.
I seek out things I know I like, I take less chance, I find fewer 'new' things to watch.
I think it was better when you had to watch what was on, whatever it was.
What say you?
Smug hippies who are so much better now they have got rid of their TV altogether are welcome to make that point too if they must.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
We have a TV but only watch DVD's as their is no inbound TV signal set up. I do watch the news online and buy on DVD or download everything else.
I guess that has narrowed our viewing habbit but with the girls it has meant I have kept the house Hannah 'Yo Slutty-Slut-Slut' Montana / Justine Bieber / Lord Gaga / Wand Erection free. So there is an up side.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
When I was young I had one channel BFBS (British Forces Broadcasting Service) which then changed to SSVC.
BFBS what a mix of all the current UK Channels, it wasn't till I returned to the UK did they introduce channel 5. But when SKY came around all I thought was there is the same amount of crap that there was across the 4 / 5 terrestrial channels.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: Smug hippies who are so much better now they have got rid of their TV altogether are welcome to make that point too if they must.
Consider my point made. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's better to have a choice.
Same reason Radio is still alive, even when you have lot of songs in your library, which are available from anywhere, sometimes you don't want to choose/pick or you just want the element of surprise.
This is why Netflix is spending millions of dollar on the 'suggestion algorithm', because their huge library is becoming overwhelming for the users, they are spending considerable time deciding what to watch.
I like old fashioned live TV, but I still want the ability to watch things I like at my own time.
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking the dependency on the programming schedule is of immeasurable value. You can be deliberate about what you want to watch and when, rather than being forced to chose between the three things you're fed at any given time.
The freedom to be discerning isn't worse.
It sounds like you're just bemoaning your own laziness in choosing to broaden your TV viewing horizons and blaming accessibility.
|
|
|
|
|
I buy all my TV programs. (DVD)
I refuse to watch commercials so it's really the best option for me.
I don't remember the last time I actually watched a broadcast.
All marketers can go die in a fire.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when I was a child, and we had at best three channels. And we watched almost anything!
Now we have Sky, and I-have-no-idea-how-many channels - but it's a lot. And I watch very little. Why? Because most of it is cheaply made rubbish, or repeats of repeats of repeated material. Yes, I can record it, yes I can watch it later. But I don't, because most of it isn't worth watching at all, or I've seen it before. 
And if I have to sit through one more repeat of a fly-on-the-wall cops-are-wonderful reality TV show, I may throw something heavy at the set...
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre.
Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
We dumped Sky a month or two back and watch only what Freeview gives. Funny thing is we watch no more on Freeview to when we had Sky and to be honest you still get a lot of channels of cheap US shite and endless commercials which we used to pay Sky £30 a month for.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: When I was but a lad we had 3 channels
2 more than we did.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
I think in reality most of the people who still watch TV as broadcast already have reverted to the old pattern even if they have 100 channels available. BBC, ITV, and Sky1 if you've got it. C4 maybe very occasionally, C5 for the cricket. And that's it.
What I don't understand is how so many channels survive when, to all and intents and purposes, nobody is watching them! Even if you're just churning out repeats of shows from the 1970s it's still an expensive business.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the crap on the tube isn't worth watching. If it is good enough and survives and gets enough viewership then it'll get on netflix or some other site like http://watchseries-online.eu. If it gets there then I may try it out. If I like it I'll watch it.
Yeah, I'll have to wait a year or two, but so what? And I'll miss out one some stuff, but so what? Real life is more interesting.
Thanks for being my filter! 
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely turn the thing on anymore, other than to let my dog watch Animal Planet. I've got about 200 grossly overpriced channels of nothing to watch that interests me in the least most of the time, with an occasional movie. I'd dump it entirely, but my dog really likes Cats 101, and I'm not home most of the day.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: I seek out things I know I like, I take less chance, I find fewer 'new' things
to watch.
Of course the other factor is that you are in fact older. And presumably you have learned from experience to make judgments about things you might like or not like before you even try it.
For example you probably ate bugs as a child. Yet as an adult you probably don't pop every new bug into your mouth the first time you see it just in case.
ChrisElston wrote: I think it was better when you had to watch what was on, whatever it was.
What say you?
No I don't think that was better.
During that same time period there was also no computers, no video games, very little access to books, almost no magazines, very limited movies and theater (almost zero as I recall) and naturally no DVDs (nor VHS.)
Those bucolic times are recalled as such only through rosy tinted glasses that have been thickened by many years.
|
|
|
|
|
I grew up in a house full of books (there were several independent bookshops, not to mention a library within walking distance), and a town that had a cinema. It has long closed down unable to compete with the out of town multiplex some ten miles away. No chance of a group of kids walking there to see a film. Also I regularly went to theatres, with both school and family.
Both cinema and theatre are now prohibitively expensive, and some distance away, and all but the chain bookshops have closed down, and there are none of them round here either.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: I grew up in a house full of books
I grew up in a house that had many books. That however didn't mean that as a teenager I didn't have to resort to reading things like the encyclopedia and the dictionary because I had read everything else many times.
ChrisElston wrote: (there were several independent bookshops, not to mention a library within walking distance)
None of those within walking distance of me. None really within biking distance. The library was a non-trivial distance by car. Probably some stores within car distance which had only little relevance because one would not only need a car but would also need to know that they exist (since they were not on every corner the idea is hard come by) and one would also need a way to find them.
ChrisElston wrote: and all but the chain bookshops have closed down
Not sure what period you are referring to but just to be clear when I grew up there were no "chain bookshops". First book store I ever saw was in a completely different state and probably when I 15\16. There probably was a bookstore in my town but it wasn't something I ever saw and I seriously doubt it was close to me.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree;
With less choice, the quality was also higher, I think, but we all watched the same shows and either liked them or not. IN the days of 3 channels it was relatively rare in my household to have two shows on simultaneously that we wanted to watch.
Now I flick through the channels and the only shows that register are those I have heard of somehow.
If a new show is on satellite & I haven't seen some preview or review, I will tend to skip right past it (unless the title includes words that cannot be repeated here!)
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
