View previous topic | View next topic

Episode 1

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Caradoc
25859.  Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:55 am Reply with quote

Jumping Jack,

The things that the beeb chooses to repeat mystifies, me as virtualy nothing that I like is repeated more than once, but things that bore me rigid seem to be repeated endlessly.
Channel 4 seems worse, where are the repeats of Black Books & Chelmesford 123 (series 3 was not broadcast in Wales)

 
Jenny
25874.  Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:01 am Reply with quote

Try watching BBC America. They're still repeating Benny Hill ad nauseam, and I think they've only recently stopped repeating Are You Being Served.

 
Rory Gilmore
25889.  Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:56 am Reply with quote

Perhaps they broadcast poor shows time and time again, so that those wanting to watch the good programmes again have to fork out twenty quid for the DVD, saving the taxpayer millions, no doubt. Well, tens of thousands maybe.

 
JumpingJack
26037.  Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:26 pm Reply with quote

One of the problems is these mysterious people called 'the schedulers' who have huge power and absolutely no responsibility.

They do not reply to emails and are not accountable to anyone as far as I can make out. And they are ubiquitous.

Quite agree Carl the lack of repeats of Black Books is an utter disgrace. It's also been shown just once in the US - where you can see anything else 20,000 times a year

 
Gray
26059.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:02 am Reply with quote

The internet is changing this, however. There are many places where you can download and watch more or less any television programme from anywhere in the world (including QI!). Once the schedulers latch onto that, they'll be able to measure what people actually *want* to watch.

It does rather make one wonder how programmes will ever be sold, but there's no going back now. The industry will have to change to accommodate it. If it's digital, it will be copied. Broadcast media and its associated advertising will soon be a dinosaur. It already is in some ways.

 
Rory Gilmore
26109.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:41 am Reply with quote

I don't suppose on the offchance you could name some of these (entirely legal) websites?

The difference between broadcast advertisments and those on the internet is people actually pay attention to the television/radio
broadcasts, people usually ignore internet ads as it is common knowledge everything on the net is either porn or a virus (commonly both).

 
Jenny
26129.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:08 pm Reply with quote

That's the problem Rory - I don't think there are any legal ones. I know there are file-sharing websites that use bit torrent, but I'm so paranoid about doing illegal things and falling foul of the immigration people over here, that I don't go on them.

 
Rory Gilmore
26130.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:21 pm Reply with quote

Go on, listing a few names will surely do no harm.
It's legal, provided that users are informed not to download copies of files they don't already have.

Yes, I know.

I suppose it's handy if a CD you have gets damaged. Maybe then it's permitted. Probably.

 
dotcom
26134.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:51 pm Reply with quote

cough try limewire cough

 
Rory Gilmore
26136.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:53 pm Reply with quote

The thing about um... limewire did you say... yes... well if I did have this um... limewire, I certainly wouldn't use it to download limewire pro at the companys own expense... No, never.

 
dotcom
26138.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:56 pm Reply with quote

You don't need to. Free limewire is fine as long as you check for viruses.
Not that you'd ever indulge in such things :P

 
Rory Gilmore
26139.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:06 pm Reply with quote

Generally... so I'm told... files with viruses are a suspiciously low size.

 
dotcom
26140.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:10 pm Reply with quote

Fancy that.
I had to stop filesharing because my dad's an IT teacher and it would be a wee bit embarrassing if he got taken to court over it..

 
Rory Gilmore
26141.  Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:18 pm Reply with quote

What if someone were to anonymously create a virus that instructed the computer to download certain things? Could you be held responsible even if there's no proof the ''virus'' was of your own design?

 
dr.bob
26215.  Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:04 am Reply with quote

I believe that's already happened. Some of the people implicated in the "Operation Ore" police investigation into internet paedophiles turned out to have innocently been infected by a virus which then downloaded kiddie porn onto their hard drive without them knowing it in a kind of P2P network system.

Of course, they only managed to prove that after many months of intense police investigations which weren't too much fun for the computer owner or their friends or families.

So, remember kids. Be *very* careful about what you install on your PCs.

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group