PDA

View Full Version : Television



CP/M User
December 27th, 2003, 02:18 PM
Is it just Australia, or does TV suck?

I mean, the way our commercial channels are
running is hopeless. Media are good for nothing,
since they didn't want to report what's really
been happening.

By 2008 there telling us (the public) that if you
want to recieve their stations to get a Digital
set top box, but really the way they are now,
I just wish they would pull the plug.

Okay, so it's not just the station, they get so
much reality TV, that it's just not real at all &
appauling IMO.

But it's not just that, it's the amount of lifestyle
crap which fills up time as well. And one
particular channel had to dump a really good
weather reporter, just because he turned 50
& another morning program has been turned
into a let's have some fun & seems to have
lots of fun replacing Men with females who are
hopeless & they turn around & give those
people their own shows.

2 of the 3 stations (or should I say 2 stations,
since the third one just shows copies of the
same program, shown on other channels &
wastes time by putting good programs on so
late, that you're too tired to watch).

I mean the only thing I watch (which gives me
a reason for getting a set top box) is the Cricket.
I just love my cricket, but everything else I could
eventually buy on DVD. There's some good shows
on telly, but since DVD is looking like an attractive
alternative (plus you don't have to put up with the
commercial breaks), it just seems like way to
spend quality time in front of the telly.

Digital Telly, HA what a joke, if those stations think
that I'm going to be so stupid & get a set top box,
then they have another thing comming. I'll just
listen to the cricket on the radio!! I mean, these
people think they can get away by shovelling us
crap & except us to pay $200 for a set top or even
more for a digital telly, if they were half smart they
would have gave us some quality programs & then
shovel the crap in once Digital is in for good! ;-)

Cheers.

barryp
December 27th, 2003, 04:30 PM
Is it just Australia, or does TV suck?

My solution is to either watch:

PBS
History channel
Discovery channel
Headline news
Movies (especially older ones)
Animal Planet

Or nothing. (my favorite)

CP/M User
December 27th, 2003, 04:59 PM
"barryp" wrote:

>> Is it just Australia, or does TV suck?

> My solution is to either watch:

> PBS
> History channel
> Discovery channel
> Headline news
> Movies (especially older ones)
> Animal Planet

> Or nothing. (my favorite)

Well the reason I thought that DVD was
a good option, is because you can get
quite a range of stuff off DVD & even
have Bonus things (which IMO works
better then VHS video). TV shows are
even comming out on DVD which is
good, but it all depends on how far
they can take it. Also eventually, there'll
be so much stuff (for any store to have
in stock), so Online Shopping will perhaps
be the next big thing, when these shops
realise what they can do with it! :-)

I like documentaries when it's about
something that I have an interest in &
old movies (again it depends on the type
of movie), which are slowly but surely
are comming out.

I wouldn't say that I was a big watcher of
telly, which is why I think Pay TV isn't for
me & here they tend to give you a whole
pile of channels at a low rate, but if you
want sports (well Cricket in particular), it'll
set you back even more!

A friend of mine has Pay & while they
believe that commercial is a waste of time,
they tend to watch lots of telly which has
good stuff on, where's I've had time to
spend doing other activities than to be
a couch potato.

Cheers.

Unknown_K
December 28th, 2003, 01:36 AM
Is it just Australia, or does TV suck?

My solution is to either watch:

PBS
History channel
Discovery channel
Headline news
Movies (especially older ones)
Animal Planet

Or nothing. (my favorite)

I watch the same channels, wierd.
Add HBO for comedy specials & Comedy channel

Erik
December 28th, 2003, 08:26 AM
I prefer DVDs myself but I'm bothered by the fact that they don't support true HDTV.

I watch the channels listed above, mostly, with a smattering of network for "chewing gum for the mind" entertainment.

I'm losing faith in HBO since they've seen fit to give Bill Maher a forum for his idiocy. I'll probably cancel HBO soon for just that reason.

Erik

Unknown_K
December 28th, 2003, 11:40 AM
I prefer DVDs myself but I'm bothered by the fact that they don't support true HDTV.

I watch the channels listed above, mostly, with a smattering of network for "chewing gum for the mind" entertainment.

I'm losing faith in HBO since they've seen fit to give Bill Maher a forum for his idiocy. I'll probably cancel HBO soon for just that reason.

Erik

What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny and like his show.

Terry Yager
December 28th, 2003, 01:41 PM
What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny and like his show.

Me too.

--T

CP/M User
December 28th, 2003, 01:45 PM
"Erik" wrote:

> I prefer DVDs myself but I'm bothered by
> the fact that they don't support true HDTV.

Yes, & don't HDTVs use a sound system which
isn't Dolby Digital compatable?
In Australia they are trying to introduce two
types of Digial Telly & of course you can by
set top box which you hook to your current TV,
to pick up the digital signal. Where also seeing
a number of different types of tellys like Plasma
& LCD, while Plasma is a nice thin screen, I
don't think they are any better than an ordinary
telly, where's LCD seems to much better, but
the trouble is, is how would the DVDs look on it.
Which is why I'm sticking with the current TVs.

> I watch the channels listed above, mostly, with
> a smattering of network for "chewing gum for
> the mind" entertainment.

> I'm losing faith in HBO since they've seen fit to
> give Bill Maher a forum for his idiocy. I'll probably
> cancel HBO soon for just that reason.

I'm not familiar with him (perhaps it's for the better!),
but I also must just say that when it comes to the
3 commercial stations we have, when you compare
them with the other 3 stations we have, then the
commercial stations seem to be up themselves. But
perhaps 2 or the 3 commercial are really bugging
me, the other one at least tries to put something on
for everyone (durning the day/night).

But we still have some good stations which aren't
commercially owned & do a good job at what they
have. One of those is a privately owned station &
while the quality isn't as good as the other stations,
they do a good job at putting some good programs
on durning the day.

Cheers.

Erik
December 28th, 2003, 01:50 PM
What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny and like his show.

I still think the comments he made after 9/11 were inappropriate (which justifiably cost him his last job) and he isn't that funny, IMO.

Erik

CP/M User
December 28th, 2003, 02:08 PM
"Erik" wrote:

> What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny
> and like his show.

> I still think the comments he made after 9/11 were
> inappropriate (which justifiably cost him his last job)
> and he isn't that funny, IMO.

Anyone who jokes about 9/11 should be locked up!

barryp
December 28th, 2003, 06:53 PM
I'm losing faith in HBO since they've seen fit to give Bill Maher a forum for his idiocy. I'll probably cancel HBO soon for just that reason.

I dropped HBO a while ago; I realized that we didn't watch it. Their area of focus doesn't interest me.

Unknown_K
December 28th, 2003, 09:05 PM
What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny and like his show.

I still think the comments he made after 9/11 were inappropriate (which justifiably cost him his last job) and he isn't that funny, IMO.

Erik

The comment about how people called the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC cowards, and he didnt think they were cowards?

Personally I dont think anything he said at the time was that big of a deal

CP/M User
December 28th, 2003, 11:08 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote:

>>> What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny
>>> and like his show.

>> I still think the comments he made after 9/11 were
>> inappropriate (which justifiably cost him his last job)
>> and he isn't that funny, IMO.

> The comment about how people called the terrorists
> who flew the planes into the WTC cowards, and he
> didnt think they were cowards?

I remembered a statement being said along those lines,
but I don't think it's funny at all. If Bill was half smart,
he would have realised that Terrorists aren't Soldiers
which is why they are branded as Terrorists, & why they
don't fight like real Soldiers would.

> Personally I dont think anything he said at the time
> was that big of a deal

Exactly, because he's stupid! ;-)

Cheers.

Unknown_K
December 29th, 2003, 01:48 AM
"Unknown_K" wrote:

>>> What bothers you about Bill Maher? I think he is funny
>>> and like his show.

>> I still think the comments he made after 9/11 were
>> inappropriate (which justifiably cost him his last job)
>> and he isn't that funny, IMO.

> The comment about how people called the terrorists
> who flew the planes into the WTC cowards, and he
> didnt think they were cowards?

I remembered a statement being said along those lines,
but I don't think it's funny at all. If Bill was half smart,
he would have realised that Terrorists aren't Soldiers
which is why they are branded as Terrorists, & why they
don't fight like real Soldiers would.

> Personally I dont think anything he said at the time
> was that big of a deal

Exactly, because he's stupid! ;-)

Cheers.

I dont think he is stupid at all. That comment wasnt meant to be '"funny" it was meant to be truthfull. Calling somebody a coward who does a pre planned suicide mission against what he sees as an enemy and its symbols is about as stupid as calling people in the twin towers heroes for dying at their desks on what should have been a normal workday (not talking about police and firefighters etc, just the people who worked in the buildings). Your definition of what real soldiers do is part of the reason the US didnt win their war in vietnam, and why we are having such problems in Iraq now. The war is over when the enemy admits defeat, not when you say you won.

During the revolutionary war in the US the militia (not soldiers as per Englands specifications) didnt fight in the intended way for most of the war (hiding and shooting long range instead of lining up and trading shots close range). I am sure the British refered to them as traiters to their governement (England) and terrorists. Its all just the perspective of each side. The other side doesnt care what you call them if their fight affects you in the way intended.

Anyway I hate how people cant say what they really think anymore because somebody might be offended. Bill's show made fun of being politically correct, which is what I liked about it.

vic user
December 29th, 2003, 03:30 AM
Oh boy, has this topic turned into something that can get pretty heated!

Chris

carlsson
December 29th, 2003, 03:32 AM
I couldn't care less about movies in general and DVD in particular. *yawn*

Regarding reality TV and the other crap broadcasted - yes; TV stations have found a rather cheap source of programs to fill their broadcasts with. The good thing is that those not interested in the shows might do something more useful than watching TV all night (sitting in front of the computer?)

Analogue broadcast is also about to end here in Sweden. I believe it has said to be 2008 too, but to get that working, a few things have to fixed:

1. There HAS to be a STANDARD for digital TV. There are a number of systems depending on if you're getting aerial, dish or cable TV, and every operator has its own solution. Also, to my knowledge there is not a single TV, VCR/DVD or similar which has a digital tuner built in, as the systems seem to be different from eachother.

2. We have public service TV which is paid through a yearly TV owning license, as well as commercial channels paid through commercials, subscriptions etc. The "free" supply of public service and similar channels has be reinforced, so the cutting of analogue doesn't mean cutting the basic contents.

3. These digital TV boxes have to drop a lot in cost, practically been given away for free (or the public service TV license has to be eliminated, although it would only gain commercial channels) to make most people interested in getting one. Of course, if they HAVE to get one to see ANYTHING, it will work too but generate tons of complaints.

When it comes to commercials, I've understood that the advertisers often ignore the audience 59+ years, maybe because they focus more on what products they want to sell than the products the viewers will want to buy. This leads to the commercial channels in particular, but public service too as they try to stay close, ignore the 59+ years old viewers, as programs for those people will not attract advertisers anyway.

Unknown_K
December 29th, 2003, 05:04 AM
Maybe, but probably not. If you can see the other sides point of view then its just a normal debate. Its when you cant you have problems.

Its like in computers where somebody preaches that one platform is the best and the rest are worthless compared to somebody who has experienced many systems and knows each systems has its good points and bad points.

Unknown_K
December 29th, 2003, 05:12 AM
I couldn't care less about movies in general and DVD in particular. *yawn*

Regarding reality TV and the other crap broadcasted - yes; TV stations have found a rather cheap source of programs to fill their broadcasts with. The good thing is that those not interested in the shows might do something more useful than watching TV all night (sitting in front of the computer?)

Analogue broadcast is also about to end here in Sweden. I believe it has said to be 2008 too, but to get that working, a few things have to fixed:

1. There HAS to be a STANDARD for digital TV. There are a number of systems depending on if you're getting aerial, dish or cable TV, and every operator has its own solution. Also, to my knowledge there is not a single TV, VCR/DVD or similar which has a digital tuner built in, as the systems seem to be different from eachother.

2. We have public service TV which is paid through a yearly TV owning license, as well as commercial channels paid through commercials, subscriptions etc. The "free" supply of public service and similar channels has be reinforced, so the cutting of analogue doesn't mean cutting the basic contents.

3. These digital TV boxes have to drop a lot in cost, practically been given away for free (or the public service TV license has to be eliminated, although it would only gain commercial channels) to make most people interested in getting one. Of course, if they HAVE to get one to see ANYTHING, it will work too but generate tons of complaints.

When it comes to commercials, I've understood that the advertisers often ignore the audience 59+ years, maybe because they focus more on what products they want to sell than the products the viewers will want to buy. This leads to the commercial channels in particular, but public service too as they try to stay close, ignore the 59+ years old viewers, as programs for those people will not attract advertisers anyway.

After a decade of talking about HDTV I think we now have a standard here in the US, and companies have started to include the tuners in the box on some units.

Ever notice that platforms like vcr's that keep programming content ofline for later viewing are being dumped in favor of Tivo's that hold limited amount of content online? Nobody wants you to be able to record anything on tv for long term storage anymore. I dont think we will ever see an analog recording format for HDTV or a digital format that grabs the correct resolution for a long time (DVD isnt anywhere close to 1024i)

I think alot of the 59+ year olds are targeted by the drug companies via comercials on TV, but they are not the group that has alot of cash to spend on junk like the 20-30's croud.

Erik
December 29th, 2003, 06:09 AM
I dont think he is stupid at all. That comment wasnt meant to be '"funny" it was meant to be truthfull. Calling somebody a coward who does a pre planned suicide mission against what he sees as an enemy and its symbols is about as stupid as calling people in the twin towers heroes for dying at their desks on what should have been a normal workday...

No, deliberately attacking civilians - women and children and people just trying to make a living - to make some point, any point, is cowardice in its most perfect form.

The people killed by the terrorists were hardly heroes although the emergency workers on 9/11 certainly were. The terrorists themselves and all of those who support them (including Bill Maher) are the worst kind of cowards.



During the revolutionary war in the US the militia (not soldiers as per Englands specifications) didnt fight in the intended way for most of the war (hiding and shooting long range instead of lining up and trading shots close range). I am sure the British refered to them as traiters to their governement (England) and terrorists. Its all just the perspective of each side. The other side doesnt care what you call them if their fight affects you in the way intended.

There is a fine line between these types of actions. I have no substantial problem, for instance, with most of the Iraqi insurgency. There are elements in that nation that are fighting for what they believe in by attacking an occupying force. That is fair. When they blow up aid workers or civilians of their own nation, however, they become outlaws rather then rebels.

Even as rebels I don't like them or want them to succeed, but I can at least recognize that their actions are reasonable.


Anyway I hate how people cant say what they really think anymore because somebody might be offended. Bill's show made fun of being politically correct, which is what I liked about it.

No, Bill's show made fun of being Conservative.

I agree that political correctness is a crock. I don't have a problem with people expressing whatever opinion they have. I just can't stand it when these people cry foul when their words come back to haunt them.

Bill Maher was well within his rights to make whatever stupid statements he wanted on his show but the viewing public and the network were also within their rights to react as they did. Boycotts and show cancellations are not censorship; they are the ultimate cost of doing business poorly.

Natalie Mains, as another example, is welcome to make whatever statements she wants. She and her supporters can't, however, cry censorship when radio stations feel the heat and drop her music. What she did was make offensively liberal statements when her support base was primarily Conservative. If you have a public forum and use it to piss off the public (in this case, her fans) then that again is the cost of free speech used poorly.

That's just my two cents, anyway.

Erik

vic user
December 29th, 2003, 06:44 AM
Maybe the word 'coward' should never have been used from the start of 9/11, to describe the people that took over the planes and killed tons of people.

If you look at both the definitions of coward and terrorism, you come up with some intersting things:

coward:
a person who shrinks from or avoids danger, pain, or difficulty

- I think this could easily be used to describe political leaders who perpetuate wars.

Also, can a person not be a coward, yet perform a cowardly act?
I would say so. I am sure many soldiers who push buttons to fire missiles at targets many miles away are not cowards, but the action sure seems to be a cowardly one.

terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

- Sounds like every single nation on the planet!

One person's terrorist is another person's beloved soldier.

As a previous poster mentioned, it all depends on what side you are on.

Not to mention, in the modern way of killing each other, civilians (especially children), are the most likely to be affected by war, be it through death, loss of loved ones, relocation, etc..

I myself feel pretty priveleged to be able to live the life I have. Hell, I get to screw around collecting old computers and stuff, while thousands of people die every day, from completlely preventable deaths. So much malnutrition, wars, people not able to get proper medication although the medicines are readily available in developed countries.

All killing is evil in my opinion, whether it isrom someone flying a plane into a building or a soldier shooting at his 'enemy'. Makes no difference.

Chris

Unknown_K
December 29th, 2003, 01:11 PM
Erik I dont see how you can say Bill supported the terrorists with his comment. Bill was just pointing out that "coward" may not have been the apropriate word to use thats all.

If somebody says they dont think we went to war in Iraq for a good enough reason does that mean they support Sadam?

As far as the Dixie chicks are concerned I dont think the people who paid money to see that concert wanted to hear about their political views. They should have released a statement on their own time.

The Iraqi insurgents view the new Iraqi police as traiters to their country for actively helping the americans occupy thier land.

One of the reasons we have terrorism is that the smaller countries and ethnic organisations have no other course of action against a highly militirised agressor. There is nothing the palestinians could do to fight occupation of their land then what they are doing now. They have no army, and even if they did Isriel would wipe them out in 5 minutes. So you either strap a bomb on and try to make Isriel get off your land or grin and take it for 1000 years. There have been UN resolutions to help the palestinians I believe but they are not enforced so nothing changes. Selective enforcement of UN resolutions depending on the whim of bigger nations just makes the opressed people feel like nobody cares. The main difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is which side the person is on at that given moment.

Anyway I think we hashed out both sides of the story without any name calling so I'm done. :)

Erik
December 29th, 2003, 01:33 PM
Anyway I think we hashed out both sides of the story without any name calling so I'm done. :)

You make some good points and I understand most of them, even if I don't agree with them all 100%.

That said, your quote that I copied above is worthy of special mention. . .

I probably haven't been as diligent as I will eventually have to be with regards to rules here at the forums but your comment represents rule number one here.

Personal attacks, flaming and other impropriety against members of these forums is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. I try to read every post, but if I miss anything, please call it to my attention.

Even in these off-topic areas I still expect civility even if we have disagreements.

Thanks for the great dialog!

Erik

vic user
December 29th, 2003, 02:16 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I was worried about this particular rant thread turning into something ugly, considering the strong opinions and emotions people have on this.

Nice to see it didn't turn out that way.

Chris

Erik
December 29th, 2003, 02:24 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I was worried about this particular rant thread turning into something ugly, considering the strong opinions and emotions people have on this.

Nice to see it didn't turn out that way.

I'm pretty confident that the folks here are reasonable and that they won't let stuff get out of hand.

I'm also glad this thread proved that! :)

Erik

CP/M User
December 29th, 2003, 05:35 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote:

>> Exactly, because he's stupid! ;-)

> I dont think he is stupid at all. That comment wasnt
> meant to be '"funny" it was meant to be truthfull.

Err yes! How obvious! :-)

> Calling somebody a coward who does a pre planned
> suicide mission against what he sees as an enemy
> and its symbols is about as stupid as calling people
> in the twin towers heroes for dying at their desks on
> what should have been a normal workday (not
> talking about police and firefighters etc, just the
> people who worked in the buildings). Your definition
> of what real soldiers do is part of the reason the US
> didnt win their war in vietnam, and why we are
> having such problems in Iraq now. The war is over
> when the enemy admits defeat, not when you say
> you won.

Exactly. I agree that War isn't a fly-by over night, they
may have caught Sadam, but what about all his followers,
who are still out there?

> During the revolutionary war in the US the militia (not
> soldiers as per Englands specifications) didnt fight in
> the intended way for most of the war (hiding and
> shooting long range instead of lining up and trading
> shots close range). I am sure the British refered to
> them as traiters to their governement (England)
> and terrorists. Its all just the perspective of each
> side. The other side doesnt care what you call them
> if their fight affects you in the way intended.

If you've ever watch the film Gapolli with a young Mel
Gibson, you'll perhaps learn about how lots of soliders
were wasted & killed as a result.

> Anyway I hate how people cant say what they
> really think anymore because somebody might be
> offended. Bill's show made fun of being politically
> correct, which is what I liked about it.

That reminds me, I read somewhere that one of the
shows Americans really hate is Hogans Heros (with
Bob Crane I think). Is this true?
It had something to do with being Politically Incorrect!
Personally, I feel that since this show is a comedy of
sorts, it doesn't have to be Correct! ;-)

Cheers.

CP/M User
December 29th, 2003, 05:49 PM
"Erik" wrote:

> Bill Maher was well within his rights to
> make whatever stupid statements he
> wanted on his show but the viewing
> public and the network were also
> within their rights to react as they did.
> Boycotts and show cancellations are
> not censorship; they are the ultimate
> cost of doing business poorly.

> Natalie Mains, as another example, is
> welcome to make whatever
> statements she wants. She and her
> supporters can't, however, cry
> censorship when radio stations feel
> the heat and drop her music. What
> she did was make offensively liberal
> statements when her support base was
> primarily Conservative. If you have a
> public forum and use it to piss off the
> public (in this case, her fans) then that
> again is the cost of free speech used
> poorly.

Something which bugged me right after
9/11 was the media, as they were getting
peoples views on it. And of course some
didn't know what they were talking about
(not to say that I would) & the media just
crawled all over them & sent a bad
impression of them.
Personally, I believe it's difficult to
understand unless you were there, course
they had TV coverage which was
disasterous, but I kinda feel it's more
about being there.

Cheers.

CP/M User
December 29th, 2003, 05:53 PM
"vic user" wrote:

> Oh boy, has this topic turned into something
> that can get pretty heated!

It's also nice to see that someone thinks that I'm
a raving idiot & should quit trolling this
messageboard! HEH! ;-)

Cheers.

CP/M User
December 30th, 2003, 02:15 AM
"vic user" wrote:

> I don't know about anyone else, but I was worried
> about this particular rant thread turning into
> something ugly, considering the strong opinions
> and emotions people have on this.

> Nice to see it didn't turn out that way.

Actually, I not totally sure we're out of the rat hole
yet, as I've only discussed one aspect of television
which I dislike & has created this so-called other
issue about what is going on in the world about this.

Unfortunately, my statements towards this don't
help, because they could so easily be flawd, even
though my statements to this thread have mostly
been opinion, instead of fact.

Though it's interesting to see from a view at how
powerful this subject is, even though we're 2 years
ahread of the event, it still seems to be a popular
topic of discussion. It wasn't an imediate thing,
however, since I was on the subject of dislike &
telly, it's come out in the form of other's dislike
towards some guys view. This in effect has
brought in others views about this & to which
seems to have turned into focus of this thread.

So really, telly has slightly changed the way we
look at it, with the terror & views it has brought
us & could still be a subject of conversation for
years to come. As an observation, I believe it
could have changed the way people look at the
telly, as this is reality at its worse.

My initial statements briefly opened the doors to
how we don't look at the telly as a thing of
pleasure, but as a tool which we can use for
tasks in everyday life. It would be interesting to
see at what telly is doing to people mentally, as
there maybe bad reprocussions which the telly
has sent people & now they decide to do bad
things as a result. But of course this bad things
could also come out from just been bad behavour
in the beginning & then there are those who get
bad ideas from programs & test those ideas on
others.

CP/M User.