Slashdot Mirror
Will the Web Replace TV?
dratcw writes "With the continuing writers' strike cutting way back on the number of new and original TV shows available, many media Web sites are providing alternatives to TV that can be found on the Web. A number of sites are offering features describing broadcast/cable TV alternatives while you wait for that next episode of 'Chuck'. 'What better time than during the writers' strike to (re)discover Internet TV and video? The quantity, quality, and diversity of online video grows by the day; and though it's far from perfect, it is at least interesting enough to make you forget that you're watching it on a PC monitor.'" Any web-based favorites you'd like to point out for fellow commenters?
I've been watching them weekly since their hilarious "Rejected Wiiplay Games" movie. They're also the Desert Bus For Hope people. Anyway, they're somewhat hit-or-miss, but mostly hit IMO: http://loadingreadyrun.com/
instead of the web replacing TV, i think what is more likely is that TV's will be adapted to use the web... this has already started to happen (apple TV uses the web, doesn't it?)
i think that soon, our TV's will be a computer with a rather large, high-definition monitor
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
At over $60 for expanded basic, the web definitely replaced TV.
With various torrent sites, an rss feed, and XBMC the internet has already supplanted over the air television for me. It's going to be awfully hard for anyone to improve on that setup.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
For my artsy, music & avante garde stuff, I prefer SpecialTen, a UK DVD magazine I actually subscribe to. They offer their stuff for free though and I find it all to be either thought provoking, fun or both.
For my documentaries and also music stuff, I prefer VBS although I have heard many criticisms of it playing to hipsters and wanna be hipsters. This may be although I find the material interesting.
While they are nice and work well in Firefox (I watch them both in Linux), I find some of the reporting to be over the top shock reporting and also find the advertisements to be repetitive. I have seen the trailer for There Will Be Blood too many times to count and I THERE'S OIL HERE, UNDERNEATH THE TOWN AND I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN GET AT IT
Of course, I enjoy adult swim, the office, south park, the daily show, etc but you just go to the network sites for that stuff and I assume everyone knows that. And, of course, now that they're releasing the cap for Netflix, I will watch those online although I can't seem to get that to work in Linux. Perhaps they'll come around?
I do look forward to the responses to this in hopes to lengthen my list of channels.
My work here is dung.
More than the writers, I am guessing that the networks will be in more trouble. The reason is that it takes a LOT of money to become a network in the first place. A historical comparison is music. To create a big group use to take a lot of money. Now, more and more groups have nothing to do with the major labels, and that process will only accelerate. The networks are about controlling the finite TV channels. With the internet, there is an infinite number of channels. The infrastructure is up and coming and more of it is being OSSed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
TV? I don't watch a television device anymore, haven't for five years. The whole idea of attaching myself to a video broadcast at home seems so incredibly impossible to me. For the past five years, my chief source of entertainment has been reading and interacting with my favorite websites, posting comments, with the occasional game on the side. This to me is far more entertaining than the idea of gluing my eyes to a video broadcast. If there is a well-done TV show, I'll just download it off the bittorrent and watch it on the bus on the way to and from work.
Analog TV...sure. It will when Google buys up the 700 MHz band and takes over next year.
Digital TV - nope.
pr0n tags... and links...
Because, hey, it's better than the Goatse Channel. What is that, a test pattern?
I might point out that there are two new episodes of Chuck airing tomorrow night... of course, as far as I'm aware, those are the last two episodes written before the strike, so you can start waiting after Thursday night.
There is no alternative to TV. Reruns are still better than 90% of the dreck on the internet. And considering most of TV is dreck, this is quite damning.
Most of the mentioned "alternatives" are simply web-based pay-per-view sites of the TV companies.
And random youtube videos and fan fiction is not a replacement for TV.
Maybe in years to come, but firm answer to the web replacing TV is NO NO NO NO NO!
In my case the web has already replaced my cable/satellite services. I torrent pretty much everything and watch it on my TV which is hooked up to a PC.
As far as web only stuff, I started watching the CTRL-ALT-DEL series. It's not that great.
Not while most ISPs have so-called 'Unlimited' services that have FUPs with obscenely low download caps.
Given that 1/3 of air time is commercials, I'm hoping no.
The only channel you need... right here!
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
And I don't (necessarily) mean the quality of program. I just mean the basic quality of video and audio. Currently most web videos are nowhere near the quality of even the old NTSC standard, much less HDTV. YouTube is just painful to watch, with the blocky videos in tiny windows.
First, in the article outlining what's available over the web, they missed my favorite, that I highly recommend to all, Miro: http://www.getmiro.com/ - it's free and it supports Linux, OS X, and Windows.
Next, I'm going to shamelessly recycle one of my posts from another thread about Microsoft and others looking at internet over TV airwaves because if it comes to pass that that takes off, and if I'm right, then there may be a less-clear technical landscape for TV via internet than we might hope for today, especially for merging computers with TVs. (And, yes, I know most all HDTVs are already merging technologies on some levels.) Apologies if my point remains unclear, but it's this - I'm not ready to believe that commercial interests - led by Microsoft - won't yet win and screw us all. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423982&cid=22111742 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423982&cid=22127942
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
I can't wait to pay a license fee for my computer as well.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I recommend Chad Vader, day shift manager. There's 8 episodes each about 5 minutes long.
coding is life
Star Trek New Voyages is an absolutely amazing fan "series" and Star Trek: Of Gods and Men is an amazing mini-series (only part 1 has been released) and that are ONLY available online.
reading a book?
Its easy for us to say the net has replaced TV but I think it will be a long time before it replaces it for less tech savvy people.
"and though it's far from perfect, it is at least interesting enough to make you forget that you're watching it on a PC monitor.'"
yeah, i am going to have to go ahead and say "nope" to that.
I've been using Miro for some time, with MiroGuide as my show list and I'm having a very great experience... Interesting miro not being referenced in any of the links.
In this household there is no cable television, just a little OTA 19" set for when something major is going on which is pretty much never nowadays. The SO just likes the background noise.
But with services like Joost, and all the online movie sites that are already online or coming shortly it's looking more like television is dead.
I've also taken to watching the Real News clips on YouTube. I like the concept, it's essentially a publicly supported news gathering organization. I'd like to see local groups do the same in communities all across the country. The key difference with Real News is that it isn't just 30 second sound bites, they actually do a bit of analysis.
Yes.
What a stupid question.
You'd think the billions being poured into this industry would give it away.
Or perhaps the ridiculous amount of lawsuits to stop the people, who are already doing it in droves.
I haven't had a TV since about 2000.
Next article!
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I've already decided that when I cancel my cable subscription (soon, after I get around to watching The Simpsons Movie on demand) I'm gonna start reading more books. My brain is getting too mushy.
PUREPWNAGE.com Hilarious episodes, doubly so if you have played the games that the show discusses. Tetris DS battle? hell yes, me and some friends in the dorm all had Tetris DS and played it religiously against each other.
I would never give up the production quality and wonderful continuity of awesome shows like Dexter and Desperate Housewives for some amateur crap. Maybe the web will replace "reality TV," but that's probably it. Plus, HD content is not stream-able over too many household net connections I know of.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by moving to where you can't find them.
I guess in the MPAA's attempt to bribe the government to outlaw social and cultural evolution to help preserve profits just got a bit more expensive. For their sake, I hope congress is cheaper and more gullible than their writers, but for our sake... YIPPIEEEE!!!
Whose brilliant idea was it to screw the customers AND the people that help them do it all at the same time? Must be part of that Hollywood Magic I keep hearing about.
Viva La Free Culture
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
No.
I'm as much a computer lover as the next person, but there are a number of reasons why a TV currently and will always occupy a niche different from a puter:
1. Bigness. The gap is narrowing, but you can still get a bigger TV for less than a smaller monitor. As far as I can tell, more families have a room based off a TV screen than a computer screen.
2. Options. With monitors, it's either overpriced and pretty from Apple, or less overpriced and less pretty from someone else. With TVs, you can still pick a plethora of options.
3. Ease of use. The wiimote was so revolutionary, but the friggin REmote has been pretty much perfect for decades. It's simple, there's nothing extraneous like apps or downloads or email. You can switch back and forth between hundreds of options seamlessly, whereas on a computer you've got to load up the site and browse to the exact item. If you know what you want, the intarwebs are good, but if you wanna surf, TV is still better.
4. A lot easier to turn on/off.
5. No one is gonna sue you for making a tape of a movie.
The differences are narrowing, but for now, there's definite differences. Something kind of like AppleTV has a definite future in the world but we're still gonna sit around the set for the Super Bowl, not a computer (well, we will, but others won't).
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
I have never seen a reasonable solution for viewing live TV via the web. Specifically, sports programming. The various trials for this ( Masters coverage, NCAA Final Four ) have been unreliable, and very low quality when it did work.
Bandwidth will help this situation. But, we're still a LONG way from being able to service the equivalent of a TV viewer market for a big sporting event -- in HD. The total bandwidth required for that is off the charts.
I think my MythTV PVR with two ATSC tuners will continue to be used for quite a while. But, Internet services could supplement it, making it even easier to avoid expensive Cable/Satellite services.
That's the model I'm expecting.. My TV stays, regardless of the method for getting the content, the HDTV display device is needed. I continue to get the bulk of the programming I watch (NFL Football, NCAA Basketball, etc.) via ATSC broadcast, and Internet services fill in the rest (some cable shows (commercial free) via iTunes - such as The Daily Show, Sopranos, The West Wing, etc., HD Movie Downloads via iTunes or Netflix)
I cancelled my cable TV and kept my cable internet, and I still receive just over a dozen TV channels (including about 4 HD channels) over my 'internet only' cable line. Your mileage may vary depending on your cable company.
With TW looking to cap downloads at a pathetic 5 to 10 "shaped" GB per month, you will have no choice outside of broadcast cable. Have you noticed how slow YouTube is these days? It's not like Google does not have bandwith, it's like your ISP is fucking you. Even if you can put up with stuttering video or the 20 minute wait for a 10 minute video, you will quickly exceed your cap. Don't expect entertainment competition to grow as long as there's no real ISP competition and regulation actually favors dirty tricks for "security" and terrorism protection.
Comcast is charging a rate they think they can get away with. I dropped my cable TV when it hit $40 for basic, which included little more than broadcast TV, the shopping channel and the catholic channel. Comcast's $60 deal looks even worse.
I was one of the first people I know to not have a landline and use strictly a cell phone.. I now also haven't owned a TV in a few years, nor do I see the need to. I think many of us will still own giant TVs but the separation of "cable tv" and "internet" will cease to exist, I'd bet everything on it.
"Well turn SOMETHING on, I'm starting to think!"
Monstar L
You can also watch regular TV instead of 2 minutes clips of this and that. A few channels broadcast live stuff via windows media. You can see some at sites like Streamick.com , but the overall quality isn't superb.
The TV is here to stay, if for no other reason than being a good display device for the living room. Nobody is doing to switch to a computer display as their primary video display (other than slashdotters).
So, that nice big HDTV will be there, and some Internet-enabled device will be attached to give access to a wide range of video.. something like the AppleTV - but better. With some aggressive pricing plans (Netflix model: View all you want for $20/month) they give cable big problems.
But, that TV will also have an integrated HDTV tuner, ensuring your local broadcaster's value. They provide all the big sports programs, and expensive-to-produce TV shows.. It's there, it's free, and it's better quality than downloads. So, it will continue to be used.
Try Yacht Rock:
http://www.yachtrock.com/
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
.. and in the public domain are just as entertaining today as they were in the old days. Google is great for that stuff.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
tv broke a couple of years ago and couldn't find a compelling reason to replace it. since then, started watching most programming online, or through "series DVDs" from netflix. recently, decided to buy a small LCD tv with DVD player built in.
the only thing i find myself watching on it, other than DVDs, is football. till i can get live sports online, there's a place for TV....although, in the years without a TV, the local pub filled that need.
no i have not shot my gun in the air and gone 'Ahh!'
Analog TV...sure. It will when Google buys up the 700 MHz band and takes over next year.
Don't you think that Google will be smart enough to use the spectrum as intended, for packet communications aka digital TV? Kind of like a pipe to YouTube? Yes they will take over, because that is already better than broadcast shit. If they break the last mile, it's all over for the old broadcasters.
...and diversity of online video grows by the day"?
Quantity, quality of production and diversity -- Perhaps.
But quality of the actual material i.e. writing, dramatisation, performance? -- Not so sure.
If using the internet to download and watch televised shows such a Lost counts then I agree: Online video is replacing conventional tv broadcasting for many.
But if we're just talking about the online shows that are NOT also broadcast on tv then let's face it: as soon as any of these shows start to get *really good*, they'd surely be snapped up in a flash by a big publisher and aired on conventional tv aswell!
I don't know the in's and out's of the writers strike over in the US but perhaps what's happenning is some of these writers are doing some (hush hush) moonlighting for web-based productions and hence the quaility of online video is rising...
"He Who Dares Wins"
I'm still waiting for traditional cable networks (or even individual programs) to offer subscriptions, streaming HD content to my set-top box over the Internet. I don't even care if it's live. So much of what I watch is on the DVR anyway. Let me cancel my (evil) cable TV subscription and just get the shows or networks that I'm interested in.
Live IPTV would be nice too, but since you can't do QoS over the untrusted, public Internet, I'm not sure how you'd get CATV-style latency and reliability without violating "network neutrality".
Fox recently released their free online Fox On Demand service. It requires you to install some software but the whole thing is web based and I have nothing but good experiences with it. New episodes appear on the service a few days after they air.
I prefer downloading torrents rather than watching a show on the web, but sometimes you can't find a show anywhere but on the TV stations website, so I watched one such show on mtv.com, and err, I don't mind a commercial break, even if it's one commercial every ten minutes, but at least, PLEASE, don't make it be the same fucking el cheapo commercial every single fucking time!
I mean come on, what are you trying to achieve by showing your viewers the same commercial 7 fucking times during a TV show? Will I want to subscribe to Verizon because they interrupted my show 7 times to tell me that "Science is wrong, the world revolves around you" and that because of that I needed unlimited plans or whatever it was they were trying to sell to me (yeah, I saw that commercial like 30 times, I remember every word of it, except the last few which were about what they were trying to sell to me. Oh, and was it Verizon or Vodafone?)? Fat chance, I don't even live in the US!
My point? Oh yeah, if they want Web "TV" to go anywhere as serious as regular TV, they need to be serious about it. Showing many times during a show the same commercial that is so cheap that it doesn't even contain images filmed with an actual camera makes it sound like no one could even be arsed to find more than one company to advertise for, and that this company couldn't be arsed to produce a half decent commercial. I get the feeling that they have no clue what they're missing out.
You just got troll'd!
In retrospect and light of the responses, I'm sorry I ever tried to share these links with the Slashdot crowd.
OT eldavojohn
In most places, a library card is still free. Why not start there?
/. crowd.
If you must be entertained, then I suggest you start with borrowing some videos. DVDs/VHS... it doesn't really matter. Reaquaint yourself with the classics -- choose anything from the AFI top 100 list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition))
Once you've gotten that out of your system, try some books on tape. Turn that hour-a-day commute time into something more productive than enduring the Morning Show Morons laughing at how drunk they got the night before or making ill-informed comments about the news of the day.
After a few weeks of books on tape, try reading a book. I know, I know -- you don't have time. Try it anyway. Read it during your lunch break. You'll eat more slowly and may lose a few pounds as a result. Spend an hour at night. If you take a train or bus, read it then. You'll be surprised at how quickly the time passes! If you're not sure what to read, choose anything which has won a Nebula Award which should appeal to the
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a television writer's stike and no-one noticed? After this exercise I suspect you'll find that your appetite for television entertainment has decreased. That's a good thing... it indicates you're more alive and using your mind actively rather than being passively entertained. There's life outside of television. Go find it.
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
There isn't anything on the web that can make me forget I'm watching it on a PC monitor - because my computer room isn't nearly as comfortable as my living room.
I completely agree. I think it's ridiculous that those of us outside of the UK can't just pay the license fee that British residents pay and get all of the BBC channels over the Internet.
Unfortunately, it comes down to bullsh*t licensing and protectionism. The TV stations and national networks don't want to lose the revenue that would be gained from pushing local/national commercials onto you. After all, if you spend all of your time watching the BBC, you're not watching commercials of local/national interest. The networks want to justify the costs of those commercials, so they write their international agreements to lock out viewing by people outside of that country. In my case, I'm sure that the Discovery Channel, which owns BBC America, would have a fit if the BBC allowed the US populace to pay for direct BBC access over the Internet because that would likely take away from the BBC America viewership.
It's the same kind of bullsh*t reasoning as to why people outside of the US can't buy MP3s from Amazon or iTunes even though there is technologically (and logically) no reason to prevent such sales. It all comes down to the money trail, and unfortunately we're not allowed to cross that trail to see what's happening on the other side. I'd love to pay the license fee to get the BBC over the Internet. Good luck on it happening.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I have no problem with downloading something to watch on the bus - I've done it to play catch-up on shows I didn't start watching at the beginning, and to just grab basic plot and character points of something I'm not really all that interested in. But to actually enjoy the experience of watching well done television or movies (even if it's just technically well done, not necessarily well written), the two inch screen on my mp3 player, or even the 15 inch screen on my laptop, just can't compare to a darkened room, a projector, a 92 inch screen and a 7.1 surround sound system. And this is pretty much an entry-level home theater system.
At some point, it will be simple to play web content on a setup like mine. At some point after that, there will be web content (other than bittorrent downloads) of a quality high enough to look decent at 92". Not quite there yet. And even when we are, that's merely a change of source material - my viewing environment will be the same.
That's what I'm working toward. I don't want my video options dictated by a single local cable monopoly, and while Apple is heading in the right direction I don't want them limiting my options either.
Give me a single high-bandwidth data pipe to my TV, and source material & providers geared toward the TV-style viewing experience.
Cable/satellite/broadcast had their chance to provide what customers wanted: a variety of good material, without commercials, on demand or in a casual drop-in format. Like so many practical monopolies, they forgot who their customers are. Now that broadband exists, others can provide what customers want. Let's get a move on, people!
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
YouTube is just painful to watch, with the blocky videos in tiny windows.
If it's not entertaining enough to watch at that size, you are better off doing something else. How long can time lapsed photos of flowers, for example, hold your attention?
I'd like to first state I don't have cable TV and I don't have an antenna either (which doesn't do much good in NYC anyways). I still watch TV through both legal (web sites) and illegal (torrents). I generally don't mind the ads, as long as they don't interrupt the show too much (though both ads that come up in the *middle* of a scene are really fucking annoying, as well as watching the *exact* same ad repeatedly .. I'm pretty sure there's a way of advertising without being a complete asshole..).
.. companies are already advertising with some of these companies (e.g. Joost, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.), though exactly how to manage is still being worked through (again, putting an ad mid-scene does not work). What's holding things up? Most likely things like stupidity, licensing issues (amount of content you can host), and lack of momentum (at least until the strike, people's appetites were sated enough).
I also try the various alternatives out there. I do Netflix, so I can watch low-quality on-demand as well as old series over DVD. I use Joost, though their interface is really really (extremely) horrible, and their content is slightly better than that. For reasons I'm sure make sense to someone else, each 'channel' can only maintain a small number of shows, so you won't be able to watch an entire series of a television show, and only a small percent of that channel is watchable. Which means that while they have the opportunity to create a system where you can actually watch exactly what you want, when you want, trumping TV once and for all, they don't. They completely and miserably fail. Did Also, did I mention how horrible the interface is?
Someone else mentioned Miro. It's a fine idea. Only, I can't find any content I really care to watch, especially as most of it are snippets from full programs, and have a total length of 5 minutes. I know the 5 minute clip is supposed to be the next revolution, but I'm sorry, it really isn't. Sure, I watch the quick YouTube clip every now and then, but it doesn't replace a full-length TV show. Additionally, for actual revenue to occur, an add would have to be added, which would likely double the length of the clip, and make you watch ads for half of your viewing experience.
Do we have the technology for alternatives? Definitely. Is there a method of revenue currently in place for it? Probably
You just nailed the reason that I stopped watching TV: I got sick of all the damned advertisements. Why in the name of Lilith's heart-shaped ass should I pay to watch adverts?
I won't say that I'm "too smart" for TV, but why should I bother arrange my life around a TV schedule? Why should I give Comcast at least fifty bucks a month when there might not be anything I want to watch on TV? Why should I bother with TV when I could be writing, reading, playing games, or just curling up with my wife and listening to her talk about her day?
I don't need the Web to replace TV. I have a life.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
There are many viable alternatives to standard television. So far the one I use the most often is Miro. It offers a wide variety of video in an easy to use interface. I really like the way it uses rss. That makes it really easy to tell when there are new shows to watch. Also if you want to, Miro can be used to grab "real" tv shows as well.
Another option is Joost. Lots of good stuff there but I find it much more difficult to find out when new episodes of my favorite shows are available so I tend to forget about it.
Finally I have been pleasantly surprised by hulu. Watching old episodes of my favorite shows from the 80's has been fun.
I know that many people don't like to watch TV on their computer but for me placing a 17" laptop on my lap and relaxing on the couch is better than watching our small 32" tv. For the times when others want to watch something as well, I have it setup so that I can easily connect my laptop to the tv and watch it that way. Today's HDTV is almost the same thing as a large computer monitor and usually can be used as such.
the Internet is just another distribution method, the beauty of the 'net is that it is inexpensive for individuals to have their own "station" (blog, youtube channel, whatever)
The 'net has/is fundamentally changing "media" in general (Dave Winer has been writing about this for sometime) - so the question is probably moot. as others have pointed out, there is a tv/web convergence going on
the "old media" (good ol' Time magazine) had "You" as the "person of the year" last year - recognizing the "user generated content" phenomenon
anyway, I still think ytmnd is funny
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
AT&T has some weird thing I haven't tried out yet called U-verse OnTheGo. The idea is that their Uverse TV subscribers can access TV content over the Web.
Vaguely interesting,
-l
/still waiting on their VOIP service to start up.
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
I've largely given up watching TV, as most of my "sit on my ass" time at home is spent playing games (COD2 addict) or surfing the web.
Given the choice between cable and internet, I take the internet. We had in introductory rate for cable+internet for 3 months at $55/month, then it went up to $100, at which point I canceled the TV part and stuck with just the cable for the same price.
We just signed on with Knowlogy for basic cable + 6MB internet for $67/moth. I figure an extra $10 a month for TV is an OK expense. It's not worth any more than that to me.
But TV over IP just isn't there yet. About the best I can reliably watch with my 6MB cable connection are the poor quality flash videos you see on Youtube. Try to watch anything of any kind of TV resolution and it's play....pause....play....pause....play.
I strongly suspect that I'm not getting the speed advertised on my cable internet, but I don't know how to realistically test it since I've heard all the ISPs give priority QoS to the common speed tests out there. I know my FTP upload attempts are lucky to break 43kbps, last time I tried.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Since 2000, I have not owned a TV. Couple reasons for this: 1. I had basic cable service before that, $20.00 a month, 70 plus channels and was constantly complaining that "there was nothing on". Nothing that interested me, anyway. 2. Sold my house in 2000, moved and at the time, DSL service in my area was $60.00 a month and basic cable had shot up to $35.00 per month. Could not afford the two together. Choice was internet or cable TV and, since I had bad experiences with cable based internet service in the past (my own and friends), no cable for me. I watch DVDs on my computer(s) when I want, I do not follow any TV shows at all. I miss watching some sports on TV, but follow games via internet radio and updated game details on various web sites, when I want to. Not watching TV has bought me gobs of time learning more about programming, reading, learning more about 3D design and animation, heck, even getting my guitars pulled out of the closet and getting them cleaned up for playing again. Can't say I miss TV at all. Course, people kind of look at me a bit funny when they talk about American Idol, Lost, Family Guy and other shows, but I just shrug.
I don't get it. The summary and most of the comments are pretty much describing an alternative to getting your programming through something other then the cable or satellite (FIOS if you are lucky) such as getting it through Joost, torrent and streaming to the set top box. But the writers strike hurts the networks that are creating those shows most people are getting on the web.
It seems to me that with the writers strike, people would find independently made shows that are probably free (or free with some non-intrusive ad support). I know a few people that like to watch machinima videos made from places like WOW and SL (used to love RvB). That's what I would think people would turn to with the writers strike. Those shows cost so much to make anymore that your going to have to pay to watch shows that will still have ads in them, and I'm sure that'll turn a lot more people off.
http://quarterlife.com/
High quality web based entertainment. This kind of stuff could replace TV.
My head almost exploded reading all of the "well I replaced TV eight years ago!!" and "t0rentszzzz!~" from all the no-TV snobs. This is exactly the type of article that brings them out of the woodwork I guess. "MY DAY TO SHINE!"
Of course, none of those iTunes downloads or Torrents would exist if there were no TV.
I don't think the WEB will replace TV. I think there might be something that's more interactive than TV, but less interactive than the Internet. The On-Demand stuff is a step in that direction.
Now, I've watched movies on the computer screen, and I've watched TV shows there too. But it's never as comfortable as lounging on the couch. The remote control is easy to hold, easy to use; you generally don't even have to look at it. There's a few hundred channels to choose from on most cable systems, and personally I can always find something to watch. It might be something I've seen before, but don't mind watching again, or it might be something new. The HD channels are where I spend most of my time. Between Discovery, HD Theater, Science and TLC, and sometimes HGTV, I can usually find something interesting enough to watch.
When I'm in for the night, and I'm settling down, I don't want to deal with crappy web pages and CLICK HERE!!! flashing crap I have to click around. I don't want to deal with server down, server overloaded, or whatever. I just want to watch TV.
I like TV. There's several shows that I think are top notch. I don't mind waiting for the next installment of whatever show. It's okay. Maybe it's part of getting a little older, or maybe it's because the Internet was only becoming a word that people knew when I was a Senior in high school. Perhaps I just have more patience for these things.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Roller Chester is good for a few laughs if you're a fan of absurdist humor. Admittedly, there isn't much there, but this isn't uncommon when it comes to web-based original video entertainment.
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
Seriously: with the new HDMI-based configuration, there is no way to "tape a movie" anymore. DVR gives you time-shifting and temporary storage, but you can't keep it anymore.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I seriously doubt that the web will replace television viewing. Much in the same respect as why I think that physical media will always be around in one format or another. Most fans are like myself and while we don't have time to watch television, most of what we watch are on DVD ...
I just think that the AMPTP are making a huge gamble on the fact that if they don't settle and the writer's are forced into accepting a bare bones contract that television programmning is over. It will never be over because then those who only have the ability to watch programmed television will be out of the loop and this is because of low income families who can barely afford cable television.
Most television shows that I watch are on DVD. I can't stand the week to week programming and broadcasting of television shows. I'd rather just have the studios to release television shows on DVD, bypass television altogether and go straight to DVD. Instead, the studios are fighting the strike because of DVD royalties and Internet-related profits that are being made by the studios. It's been announced by the studios that over the next three years, if the strike were settled with no new media or DVD concessions, that the studios stand to rake in over 3.5 billion in profits.
The studios are in a fight for their lives in preventing the writer's or anyone else from dipping into those profits and the longer they can hold the writers at bay, the more profits they stand to earn. However, I suspect that the shareholders mof those companies may be a bit more vocal as the strike dredges on longer.
It's all fine and dandy until your ISP starts charging you gobs of $$ to pull down those gobs of web TV......
I was in the position for just over one year. Then they noticed that I was hooked up without a contract and disconnected me. When I called to bitch about my net connection being cut off they apologized, hooked me back up and ... used the filter that they were supposed to put on to start with.
Now I have about five channels. Not a big loss as I am not a TV watcher anyhow - 19" old ass TV in a corner. Also, I have access to a Slingbox hanging of a satellite box in the US and one of analog cable in Canada. Just for those "breaking news" situations; for everything else eztv+Utorrent RSS is the answer.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
While the current TV technology is likely to change to something even cheaper and more effective, I wish that the experience known as TV will stay.
Tee... Vee? Now I know Dee-Vee-Dee, they ship those to me in the mail. And I often turn on the Tee-VOH when I'm surfing the web, it's fun sometimes except they're always interrupting it with that stupid little skill game where you try to blip through the spam as quickly as possible without running over too much of the following content. I don't know about this Tee-Vee, though.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
For the last 20 months, My roommate and I have not even taken the time to buy a set of bunny ears for the TV to pull local channels. The only purpose the TV in our front room serves is to watch DVDs or not-at-all-pirated-100%-legal-backup-copies of stuff on the media PC hooked to it. And to be a paperweight.
The only weird part is that since I am not used to it anymore, if I am in a room with a TV on at someone else's house I get distracted by commercials and appear comatose for 30 seconds.
But clearly you have something better to say...
a Huge advantage i see happening here is true analysis of what people are watching. Is the time slot (day/hour) at it's best. are there enough viewers to keep the show running. real time feed back. commercials, what ones cause people to change the channel. Family Guy came back. they made a movie to finish Fire Fly... things like this happen when they realize the had followings they didn't know about. perhaps we'll even see a new form of media for watching our favorite online videos (RedvsBlue)
Books are just excellent.
Another more suggestion:
Take your iPod, and use the ipod e-book formatter to put some nice books on your iPod, for reading while you listen to some great music. You can even make playlists that go with the story line!
You can convert e-books here: http://www.ambience.sk/ipod-ebook-creator/ipod-book-notes-text-conversion.php
Some great books here: http://www.craphound.com/index.php?cat=5
and here: http://www.geocities.com/davidbainaa/
and here: http://www.baen.com/library/
Free, or better Creative Commons books, are regularly mentioned on Boing Boing as well.
Blogging because I can...
At Adult Entertainment Expo two weeks ago, the Fyre set-top box was launched. This downloads porn from the Internet and outputs to standard TVs. Pay per view, Fyre handles the billing. They launch in April, with 20,000 movies.
Finally, TV-based video on demand with a big catalog. Another first for the adult industry.
I don't know exactly what the post was intending, but:
The "Web" is a "broadcast Medium", just like Cable, Satellite, Cellular or Radio [Waves].
A "TV" is a viewing device, like a Computer or Cell-Phone
These two categories are perpendicular to each other - for the most part. Devices like TiVo are bridging TVs with the Web.
So, is the "TV" dead? No - and it won't be. Most people don't kick-back and relax by sitting at their desk watching shows with their family on their lap 2 feet in front of their 17" monitor.
You think you're be liberated from outrageous cable-bills from Comcast by watching TV on the web? Think again. Comcast will be your internet provider. What happens when Web-TV gets sooo good that people start dropping their cable-TV service plans? That'll only happen when bandwidth for Web-TV programming is good to replace existing broadcast/cable TV quality. But how will content providers deliver all that Bandwidth to the end users? Who would be best suited to deliver the content on the networks edge? Hmmm...I dunno, people like Comcast?
Comcast is going to make their money from either the subscribers, or as a content provider. If their delivering the web content, and they already deliver Video-on-Demand content in a like-manner - is there any difference?
You're watching a YouTube video on Tivo, or a broadcast show on your computer - or both/either on your web-connected set-top box - suddenly - where's the line??
I havent read all the reps but me myself im a HUGE fan of STUMBLE VIDEO.. I even canceld my TV subscription!! Who the HELL needs it when you've got stumble video You can pick the channel you want science politics history or wierd shit.. And there you go tons of really good content ranging from MIT lectures to the latest slilly trick performed by some looney on a mountion with something .....
Well you get the point
stumble video is ......what i've been waiting for, but i guess you web savies allready figured that out years ago..
As big screens get cheaper, is it plausable that something like the Wii-mote would make it easier to surf from the couch?
I mean, the traditional TV remote with the 4 arrow keys is sorta like a Tab key, whereas a motion-sensor/IR device like the Wii-mote allows better "pointing" directly at links (without "tabbing" through them) from a distance.
How about a full (or near full) screen version of YouTube optimized for a Wii-mote device on a large screen LCD or Plasma?
Here is my lil contribution to some entertainment.
If you like drag racing, check out RSDTV.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=rsdtv&sitesearch=
Real Street Drags TV is in effort to showcase street racing 'on the track'.
I started shooting these things in the hopes of getting 'street racers' out to the track.
Basically street race rules (drivers get car lengths and the hit, or heads up). Clocks OFF. And drivers/spectators are welcome to openly bet on the races.
Nine Episodes. Ranging from 15 mins to 45 min each.
I wanted to watch avi files on my tv, so I thought 'Hang the expense, I shall buy a media centre pc'. Then I thought 'Hang the expense of a media centre pc', stuck an agp card with tv-out in an old PII-600 box, stuck the box in the cellar where i can't hear the fans whirring, wired it through the floorboards to the tv with a £10 s-video-to-scart cable from ASDA-Walmart, got a wireless mouse and keyboard for £25 and now i can net the intersurf and watch old Buster Keaton films at 800 x 600 and all for cheapness. The keyboard and mouse can be tidied away when not in use. :-)
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I watch Internet TV shows. YouTube, NBC/ABC Video, wwitv.com, etc. But I'm your average /. geek. I can't see anyone I know doing this over watching normal TV. Do I have the right Codec? The proper media player such as Flip4Mac? Ok, configure my bandwidth settings. Oh, yes, my Antivirus IMON makes it stutter, so disable that. WIFI's getting trampled on my neighbor, change AP channel. Now my videocard is overheating and generating artifacts...
Not until it's as easy as pushing "1" "2" on a remote and the channel working do I see this as replacing TV. The key word was replacing.
I was just watching a show on http://revision3.com/ Many Tech TV alums have shows, I like Techzilla myself.
'nuf said.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
If google wins the 700mhz spectrum and the fcc allows for 700mhz modems... at that point if joost just developed a set-top appliance. (ethernet & wifi links)
yeah, it would take awhile for the development houses to start pushing things out on that medium, but that would pretty much solve my problems.
get a good voip service and i'll never need cable/telco/anybody again.
What is this thing called "TV" that everyone is talking about? We have this box with a glass front that emits light and noise in a corner of the family room, but I haven't seen anything interesting there in quite a while.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
My son watches YouTube, Japanese anime, reads manga, and uses the web for something like 80 percent of the time, instead of TV.
He's fairly similar to most teens nowadays.
The change already happened.
And the nutso TV/movie insistence on not paying writers is just making people stop watching TV.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The web is a delivery mechanism, and the TV is a display mechanism... One can not replace the other... What will [and is] happening is that the CONTENT CREATORS have been pushed down to a level playing field with anyone with a video camera and a cable modem... Ultimately the TV is just a big PC screen, so when you add a Tivo, a Microsoft Media Center PC, a MythTV box, or whatever, you've got a nice network aware media player that will give you the CONTENT that you want on the display device that you want.
It's going to force the major networks of the world to put out some decent content, or they'll go the way of the AM radio....
-Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
Nobody in my house has watched any TV in the last 3 1/2 years.
When we put out house on the market a few months ago, our realtor told us to put in a TV so the house looked more 'normal'! (the TV which doesn't actually work - it was a prop)
We still had a number of people doubting whether anyone actually lived there because there was only one TV set!!!
The previous owner had 6 TVs (is that normal?)
51 episodes of Full Metal Alchemist
1-142 episodes of Bleach
1-150 episode of naruto
season 1-5 of Alias
season 1-2 of The UNIT
Season 1-4 of the Wire (just Downloaded and will be watching this weekend)
Every TV network should take a look at what the Cartoon Network is doing every Friday.
"Adult Swim" Video's is a great model for what I'd like to see CBS do.
It's really great when you hook up the laptop to the LCD TV and play it.
TV online
When you want it, where you want it.
In the meantime I wonder if Newspapers as a medium are capable of making the transition to the Internet and incorporating the new freedoms that brings? Slashdot is way ahead it seems in dealing with some of the issues raised by offering discussion forums, as an article being discussed in today's Guardian CIF : The bullies' charter by Linda Grant makes clear.
If anyone's interested, the role of online news papers is being discussed in a couple of recent articles running on First Monday at the moment:
Western European newspapers and their online revenue models: An overview. By Valerie-Anne Bleyen and Leo Van Hove.
Outside influences: Extramedia forces and the newsworthiness conceptions of online newspaper journalists
Personally, beyond Heroes and NCIS, I don't think I watch any American episodic television. And the longer the strike continues, the more I see shows like JPod (http://www.cbc.ca/jpod/) getting on to American television. Canada, Australia, England and all produce very good TV and I think it will be embraced.
Of course, my (currently down) torrent server gets me what I want all the time? My actual TV is for gaming and movies.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
"Would you like to know more?"
There are a few good shows on http://revision3.com/
One of my favourite web programmes is the short cartoon series "Big Bunny", by Amy Winfrey. Also her Making Fiends is excellent. It's all flash.
You're both right and wrong.
It's a false choice...tv or the web...it's about types of media and the method of delivery. "TV" is just video and audio. Take it a little further and you could say traditional ideas of "TV" involve sending video and audio content via broadcast radio waves. But, with the introduction of VHS home video, the traditional method started to erode.
provable that video and audio content will increasingly be delivered via the internet, and it is conceivable that internet broadcasting will replace traditional broadcasting altogether. Instead of the new Survivor episodd (or whatever...it's all trash) being broadcast at a certain day and time, it could simply be posted on the internet at the same day/time. It's simply a matter of bandwidth. Which leads me to:
So we agree...it's just a matter of time before the gap narrows and traditional TV and the internet merge as methods of delivering Audio/Video content. The differences are narrowing, but for now, there's definite differences.
Thank you Dave Raggett
If you don't like what they're charging for TV service, don't pay them. It's that simple. I get TV for free OTA, and couldn't be happier with life. Once in awhile there's a show I like so I watch it... like the new Terminator show. Otherwise, I spend my time surfing online, reading, chatting with friends, etc. The possibilities are endless. :)
As far as the bandwidth caps go... well, I'm on TW's 768mbps plan for $15/month, and that works just fine for surfing and skype. Of course, I don't download much or play online games... but I still spend a lot of time online.
Don't know if anyone mentioned this in the comments (and I'm not about to read through the 198 that are posted at the time of this writing) but Pure Pwnage is an EXCELLENT show. Very fun and imaginative stuff started by a couple of guys in their spare time.
The more recent episodes (i.e. Season 2) don't have quite the same "documentary" feel, but they are still highly entertaining. This is one of the ones that you have to watch from the very beginning though. http://www.purepwnage.com/ you can watch and download all of their episodes straight from their website.
Living With a Nerd
You only need a "media center PC" if you want small, quiet and pretty.
If you are willing to compromise on any of those, just about any cheap PC will do.
A PIII-600 probably doesn't have the chops for DIVX or h264.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yet another reason to watch Red Vs. Blue "What in Sam hell is a puma?!?!"
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
didnt see it throught the board, and maybe some people dont like it because of the ads, but its sure, its a great alternative to TV... Except if you actually care about downloads limits by months because of you're ISP.
It's still BETA, but don'T NEED AN INVITE to get it
Pah! I don't hold with these new-fangled h264 codecs(so haven't tried), but if you choose the right player (VLC FTW) a PII-600 can play divx encoded at DVDish res (720 x 480-or-whatever-it-is). Granted, you can't do much else at the same time. Small and pretty are bypassed if you hide it somewhere else, and that takes care of quiet, too. Now if only i can think of a way to keep those DAMNED kids OFF my lawn.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I suspect a lot of Slashdot's audience has played either tabletop D&D or some form of MMO or online RPG. This online web series should instantly appeal to you. It's written, directed, and produced by Felicia Day, who was a slayer in one season of Buffy. Hot red headed actress aside, this series is great and a ton of fun to watch. The jokes are witty, and it seems to capture the funny shenanigans of an online group of friends in a fresh way.
I highly recommend that everyone check out The Guild and support your favorite web-based TV shows. Shows like this have a real possibility of breaking the grip on entertainment that large media companies have. If they succeed they show others that it is possible to go straight to internet and bypass the media cartels.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Monday night, I was working on a project with my son (Call of Duty 4) and had totally forgotten about Terminator:Sarah Conner Chronicles being on. Come Tuesday, while the internet reality was on hold because it was WoW server maintenance day, I went to fox.com and decided to watch the episode online. It was that point that I realized I was doing a disservice to myself because I had a PC hooked up from the DVI on the video card to one of the HDMI inputs on my Samsung 50" plasma TV. I got to watch the entire episode, commercial free, in HD. It was convenient, widescreen, and from now on I plan on watching T:SCC at my convenience. Commercial free, of course.
To avoid corruption, one must remain dishonest.
I think you're missing the point here. In the music scenario, it is entirely possible to throw a few grand into a recording and make it work on a professional level. This is simply not the case with TV. For one, there are 10 times as many people involved, just at the production level, leaving out the rest of the industry (casting, agents, promotion, distribution, etc.). Where you have a rock band with, let's say 5 people in it, a median TV show cast probably has 5 leads, but also maybe a dozen supporting cast members. The production crew includes camera guys, sound guys, stage production, lighting, makeup, wardrobe, and a lot more. Then we get into post production. In the music scenario, this generally includes the 5 band members, the producer, and the engineer. In the TV scenario, it generally does not include the actors, but it will include the producer, director, editing staff, foley, special effects team, CGI, etc. All these people expect a check at the end of the day. Also, there is a whole extra stage of production in non-principal photography, where reshoots are done, stills and establishing shots, on location shots, etc.
I could go on, but you get the idea. To take a typical network TV show (not a reality show) and produce it on an indie level, for an indie budget, and come out with even a comparable level of quality is going to be pretty much impossible.
If this idea comes to pass, I think it would be possible to see a lot of well-written shows come to light, but there will not be any "Terminator" or "24" type shows. Something like "The Office", where there are little to no special effects, and is character driven will be doable, but even then will require a fair amount of capital in order to attain the production value we expect, let alone support the mammoth paychecks of A-List actors. Unfortunately, someone trying to produce a hot internet TV show for $10,000 a season isn't going to be able to pull in Steve Carrell or Kiefer Sutherland. Not that this won't give rise to smaller actors filling their shoes, but it's another point to consider.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
BBC used to be good a couple of years ago, now its just garbage. They still have some good documentaries but news is too blatantly left wing for my liking.
I think people are fed up with the content, but there is value in the medium. After all TV is typically a passive medium, with the internet its interactive, and requires more effort from you. So I think both will continue to coexist. Sometimes you just want to plonk yourself on the couch and press a few buttons and let your eyes make the decision.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3f716ffebe
For other people who can't wait out the writers strike, Go through these. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
Interspersed with heavy doses of these
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
...called torrents! I am using uTorrent until Deluge is more stable.
Here is why I don't read books.
/.'er). We are already working with a 17 hour differential here. So why not use just a couple of those hours and rent/go see a chick-flick (who knows, you might even like it). Compare that with reading, which is an inherently isolated/unsocial experience. I mean, have you ever head the dating/romance advice "just run down the library..."? If you have, promptly either ignore the advice, or punch them in the face for even suggesting such a stupid idea.
First, if it is a good book, then it will be made into a movie. I mean, if it wasn't made into a movie then its not worth my time reading to begin with.
Second, my time is valuable. I am not a blazingly fast reader (we'll just say 250wpm for arguments sake). Even though the "average" book is between 80k and 120k words, those aren't the caliber books that would get made into a movie. So, again for arguments sake, we'll use the Lord of the Rings as our example. I couldn't find an exact number, but most places say "over 300k" so in the interest of being fair I'll round down to just 300k. Meaning that it would take me 20 hours to read that book. The movie on the other hand was only 3 hours (178 minutes).
I am not going to argue that "the movie is better than the book" because I fully understand that the book is better, probably by a wide margin. However, I don't think that it is 6.6 times better.
Third, which is a different take on #2. What is the point of books/movies? Entertainment? Imagination? Invoke thought? Using the above reference, I can be exposed to over 6 times the variety of thought/ideas/ect through movies than books. Therefore by watching movies, you become a more cultured person since you are exposed to more points of view, etc.
Last, sex (take note
Conclusion. It is obvious that people who watch movies are smarter, more productive (therefore more wealthy), more cultured, and have an amazing sex life.
Disclaimer: I am posting somewhat sarcastically (sad that I have to actually say that) but I *personally* find some truth in my argument and actually do, in fact, prefer movies to books.
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
No. Because TV simply has more bandwidth.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Good example of high quality content that's free on the net: http://midwestteensexshow.com/
Actually, that's not true. There are thousands of shows on the net that are independently produced, watched by many (via Miro, KatchTV, etc). Many of them are making money commercially too, with advertisements, sponsorship, offers, promotions, etc.
I'd actually like to see standard TV die, just to see independent, standardised broadcatching flourish.
It already has for me, albeit because of BitTorrent, I've not used my set top box for about six months.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Stranger Things is quite good.
Rocketboom is also usually worth watching.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
And yes, yes it does work with linux!
I think the main appeal of the TV was that it spoon-fed you the content. You didn't have to look :).
for something, you just watched whatever was on (for me, that was in the past).
The web has this problem - there's too much content and the 'most rated' and 'most watched' is usually what is recommended to you. While that may be attractive for teenagers, I would much more appreciate a system based on recommendations from friends and trusted sources or a service which carries content which is of particular interest to me, which I can trust with my bandwidth and time
For instance, this little service - www.libertv.ro has a nice selection of movies and documentaries; every download is a surprise and I trust whatever they put on. Niche services like this, free, without quality limitations, ads and other such stupid things is something that is still lacking on the web today, but I think we're pretty close.
The powers that be are trying to turn the web into TV by killing P2P and limiting uploading and private servers.
What?
Definitely check out "The Guild" on YouTube. It's a webisode sitcom about online gamers. It spoofs a WOW-like guild in the style of "THe Office". It has 5 episodes up, totally independent and funded by fans, with millions of hits. More than that "Quarterlife" show. http://www.watchtheguild.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watchtheguild/ It stars a girl, Felicia Day, from Buffy, who writes and produces it as well. Hilarious if you know online gamers.
Well, that won't make the ISPs happy with everyone using their "unlimited" usage internet connection to view HD content online.
While away a useful few hours with Google Tech Talks
http://research.google.com/video.html
Then do some searching for podcasts, both audio and video. A quick sample of a hundred feeds or so:
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/podcast/podcast.xml
http://feeds.feedburner.com/AiBquicktime
http://www.archaeologychannel.org/rss/TACfeed.xml
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/rss/archive.php?seriesid=1906978378
http://aaweekly.blip.tv/?skin=rss
http://www.techonline.mtu.edu/iTunes_Media/astronomy_rss.xml
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Audio/Podcast.xml
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Audio/Podcast.xml
http://astronomy.libsyn.com/rss
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/podcasts
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~clgroks/groks.rss
Pick your own subjects!
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
We've been resisting the push to cable TV for years. Sometimes we watch just the news on regular TV, though having 1/3 of the time devoted to annoying commercials is extremely irritating. Nothing like eating dessert to the speech of a commercial about constipation or bladder control problems, with their godawful jingles that make you realize you never knew how good being stuck in an elevator could be. (I'm not the one who values the news so much that I'm willing to put up with that, it's the other members of the family.) But the FCC is going to silence the airwaves in 2009, so we were thinking maybe we just wouldn't have any TV at all anymore. Then late last year, AT&T came by with their new U-Verse "deal", cable TV plus Internet. I may yet cancel the deal-- so far, cable TV stinks.
I have little experience with cable TV. Missed out on those great contributions to our culture, Southpark and Beavis and Butthead, when they were new. Shucks. But I can say the Internet blows cable TV away. On the Internet, there's no checking if and when anything interesting will be on, then waiting around and planning to catch it. Or reserving particular times of the week for the latest episodes of the latest hot new hit shows. You just go get something the instant you want it. No, TIVO devices don't help a whole lot either, still a pain scheduling a recording and waiting on some show, then slogging through the commercials anyway when you at last do get to watch the show. And if it's not on, like 99% of the stuff that might be worth seeing, then you don't get to see it. Yeah, sure, could rent some things, movies particularly, but if that's not what you're interested in, the Blockbuster and Netflix sorts of businesses don't have much. To me, a TIVO is a lame excuse for what the Internet can do so much better. Surfed Youtube and searched around for a bit, and found stuff I had no idea was ever recorded or existed, and may never have been shown on any cable channel in the last 20 years if ever. How about great political moments like Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", or Gen. Schwartzkopf's press briefing where he laughed in their faces at how he suckered them over the supposed plan to do an amphibious assault on the Iraqis in Kuwait, stuff like that? Or clips of famous or not so famous musicians in concert? Could be a very long wait before one of the History channels or MTV gets around to playing those.
The web is going to eat TV alive.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
There was enough TV made between 1950 and 2008 to keep anyone watching for the rest of their lives.
Personally, I've replaced my boob-tubing with librivox.org. There are literally millions of books out there, and I'm betting very few of us have read all of them.
Old is the new new.
There's no way it will replace tv in Australia with current internet plans only allowing a certain quota per month. Internet tv can drain most plans within a few days/weeks.
Maybe if the ISP's had a mirror to local content, thus could avoid bandwidth costs...
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
XBMC. I hooked this up last week: cheap original Xbox from ebay, a softmod and install from the Slayer 2.7 disk, and it's great. Does all my media playback: off my NAS, off my iTunes shares, off the internet (Apple movie trailers, bittorrent, Joox, internet radio, BBC podcasts). Also acts as upscaling DVD player. Plug into the TV and away you go...
XBox Media Center. It's cheap, reasonably quiet (particularly if you replace the fan), it's small form factor, it has a DVD drive and usually comes with an IR remote. I hooked this up last week: cheap original Xbox from ebay, a softmod and install from the Slayer 2.7 disk, and it's great. Does all my media playback: off my NAS, off my iTunes shares, off the internet (Apple movie trailers, bittorrent, Joox, internet radio, BBC podcasts). Also acts as upscaling DVD player. Plug into the TV and away you go...
PBS stations are just coming off their months of [expletive deleted] pledge-drives, and getting back to regular programming. That means you've already missed the first new episodes of Nova, Frontline, Nature, POV, and Masterpiece Theatre this year. The good but less polished shows like Endless Voyage, Common Ground, Unfinished Nation, Western Tradition, Farmers' Almanac, Travels to the Edge, and more, have also resumed.
American Experience, Secrets of the Dead, several "This Old House" spin-offs, History Detectives, and others will be starting their new seasons soon enough.
News-type shows like NOW, Charlie Rose, and Bill Moyer's Journal (best US political coverage ANYWHERE) continue, uninterrupted.
Assuming you have a DVR, that's 16 hours of programming a week, in addition to whatever other shows your local PBS station has (Movies, Music, kids shows, etc.). Probably even more programming is available, if you have an HDTV tuner.
The only reason I've even noticed the writers have been on strike is the 2 months of reruns of The Daily Show. And if I may editorialize for a moment, it's amazing how often Bill Moyers shows exactly the same (hilariously ironic) news clips as Jon Stewart...
In addition to all of that, I've had a Netflix subscription for years, so throw in another, say, 3 movies a week. Even after watching several hundred movies through Netflix, I've still got a very full queue. And let's not forget they've just recently lifted their limit on "Watch Instantly," which allows downloading of several dozen major films, lots of old and current TV shows, and many more independent films, musical performances, stand-up acts, and documentaries.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
qwerty
For example:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Television
To suggest that online shows wouldn't exist without TV is short-sighted.
Do you think that the music industry should have died when gramophones started becoming popular, offering a viable alternative to radio? How about LP's? Cassettes? Did MTV kill the industry? CD's? Maybe DVDs? No.
Cinema reinvented itself by focussing on what it does well - big screen, big sound and someone else to clean up the popcorn.
It's simple - the medium moves on and media producers take advantage of the new features.
The drive for the in-progress media upgrade is that Internet is replacing TV by offering more choice from small providers, more interactivity for "viewers" and more effective advertising through *targetting* with *global* reach. This pull/push will cause more well-resourced shows to be released on the internet.
Also, TVs/monitors are now big enough and integrated media center/console/computers smart enough that you can use them in the living room, so you can read books, play games and experience local and broadcast media and content from your sofa. It's the (current) best of all worlds. Enjoy it!
Try out Miro. It's a TV like app for the computer that even has a channel guide. It downloads the shows you want. http://www.getmiro.com/
as the RIAA's jihad against music lovers has. That is, when the RIAA declared war I stopped buying their products or listening to commercial music and started learning to make my own. I still can't play "Stairway to Heaven," but whatever I can play well enough to scratch the musical itch.
Likewise, with the Writer's Strike and general dearth of good programming, I'm taking up writing my own stories. Whether they're any good or not is irrelevant. It's just a lot more fun than passively absorbing another's recycled script because I can make the plot twist or turn any way I want to.
So while the transition on both fronts has been a little painful because I have had to learn new skills, the end result is that I feel like a better person--sort of less a "consumer" and more a creator. And that has also changed my perception of myself in the workplace, less an employee and more of an active producer.
Maybe there are others out there experiencing the same thing I am, and perhaps the content wars will have the same effect on our culture and collective creativity that the Black Plague had on Europe in that it wiped away the old repressive structures and created space for new, great things to flourish.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
East Asians have high average IQs, poor or not, and are rapidly pulling themselves out of poverty. High average IQs and capitalism are together necessary for development. Some countries just don't have the high enough average IQs. Research should be focused on figuring out the cause of many nations low average IQs. Once we know the cause, we can then work on fixing it. Even if it is genetic in origin I am confident we can find a way. But the firing of James Watson, America's most preeminent living scientist, for telling the truth about such matters bodes ill for us ever finding a real solution.
- pjgoober
Red vs Blue
Ask A Ninja
Pure Pwnage
"Microsoft wants to own your identity and rent it back to you for a few bucks per month," - Clay Shirky
A few years ago, I severly slowed the amount of broadcast TV I watch when I got two things: Netflix and Cable Internet. I'm now on Blockbuster, still with cable internet. For me, this is partially motivated by wanting value for my entertainment dollar. The quality of a movie is (usually) MUCH higher than televison and with fast internet, I get to choose my own news instead of having to hear the broadcast talking heads drone on and on about fires, murders and bank robberies. (I suspect here on /. that I'm largely preaching to the choir with this last paragraph).
Value-wise, broadband is about $50/month and Blockbuster about $20/month. It's hard for me to imagine that $70 worth of cable/satelite tv would amuse me and my family as much. Sitting down to an evening or mindless TV is a decent pacifier, but it's not a pattern I want to impart to future generations.
It's also about not wanting my kids to fill their heads with all the utter CRAP that's been on TV for the last few years. I'm pretty confident that both they and I would rather they watch (for example) Shrek 3 over the drivel on network TV on an average weeknight. And the larger point with the kids is that they not spend so much time in front of the TV in the first place. This also reduces the volume of advertising fed into their heads each day.
Do I ever expect to not have a TV? No. I'll always enjoy watching a movie on the couch with my wife and/or family. I do enjoy the (very) occasional NFL game too. But for years I have spent much more time watching movies or gaming/surfing on my PC. So, I waste my hours in ways I find much more pleasurable than network TV.
If you want to see an example of a series that's done in a downloadable and on a small budget but still looks good then take a look at http://www.sanctuaryforall.com/
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
I want to watch TV on the TV - I'm using the computer for something else (yes, at the same time - almost nothing is good enough to devote 100% attention to)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating