Technology that refuses to die

Page 9 of 13 [ 201 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Arran
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

26 Apr 2013, 2:14 pm

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:

Some people feel terrestrial TV is a good bang for buck and that all cable and satellite providers are overpriced even on the most basic packages.

Does anybody know the true reason for implementing digital terrestrial TV broadcasting and switching off PAL in Britain and Europe?

The English Green Party was opposed to switching off PAL terrestrial TV broadcasting and wanted to see it continue for as long as there was consumer demand for it. A party spokesman believed that satellite, cable, and internet TV was successful at providing digital broadcasting and extra channels for those who wanted them, and that millions of people who only had PAL terrestrial receivers were happy and content with it.

xmh
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 335

26 Apr 2013, 3:00 pm

Arran wrote:

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:

Some people feel terrestrial TV is a good bang for buck and that all cable and satellite providers are overpriced even on the most basic packages.

Does anybody know the true reason for implementing digital terrestrial TV broadcasting and switching off PAL in Britain and Europe?

To allow that part of the radio spectrum to be sold to mobile phone companies (not that it is raising as much money as they hoped).

Quote:

The English Green Party was opposed to switching off PAL terrestrial TV broadcasting and wanted to see it continue for as long as there was consumer demand for it. A party spokesman believed that satellite, cable, and internet TV was successful at providing digital broadcasting and extra channels for those who wanted them, and that millions of people who only had PAL terrestrial receivers were happy and content with it.

Digital terrestrial broadcasting started in the UK in 1998. For over a decade both systems were transmitting simultaneously. Keeping the analogue transmission going for a handful of users would be a complete waste of energy.

NowhereMan1966
Snowy Owl

Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

26 Apr 2013, 3:12 pm

I know here in the U.S., you can get set top boxes that will convert HDTV signals into the NTSC that older sets use. I assume in Europe, you can do the same thing by downconverting the digital TV signal into PAL or SECAM. I've been using the same TV set since 1983, a 1982 Zenith, and we have a converter box on top of it.

coffee_converter
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27

26 Apr 2013, 5:56 pm

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:

coffee_converter wrote:

fueledbycoffee wrote:

CRT monitors. I have several friends who still use them.

Unix-based OS. They're getting better, but still needlessly complicated with limited functionality due to preferential software development for Mac & Windows. The only reason they're in use is because they're free, and a couple of nerds like to feel superior to average users because they can rock the sudo. Thinking rationally, should really have died out from the getgo.

DOSbox. Games were not better in the 80's. I know, I get nostalgic, too... but let's get real running to the right side of the screen and jumping over pits has nothing on S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

I completely disagree. I think windows and mac are the ones that are obsolete. I'll admit unix/linux aren't always consistent when it comes to things like specifying options, but it's still incredibly useful, and it is far more flexible than windows ever was or will be (when I read what you said my jaw literally dropped).

Open source kernels are pretty good - although the Linux kernel is finally getting a bit rusty the last 5 years or so - and their performance has driven Windows to improve, and they are the actual basis of Mac OS X. However, and this is a big however, open source guys are not equipped to do UI design or follow direction from nonprogrammers that would improve the experience of nonprogrammer users.

I disagree, I'm using gnome 2.3 and it is far better than the windows interface.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

26 Apr 2013, 10:28 pm

Sounds like the english green party is opposed to color television.

Arran
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

27 Apr 2013, 4:14 am

xmh wrote:

To allow that part of the radio spectrum to be sold to mobile phone companies (not that it is raising as much money as they hoped).

That's actually not true.

Quote:

The digital terrestrial in the UK between 1998 and 2002 was On Digital / ITV Digital that was an ill-fated venture by Carlton and Granada to have their own pay TV service independent of the cable operators or Sky. It was intended to complement PAL terrestrial rather than replace it outright. Shortly after ITV Digital closed down the BBC stuck their fingers in the pie and resurrected digital terrestrial as Freeview, an unencrypted and free to view service from the outset - almost the exact opposite of On Digital.

androbot2084 wrote:

Sounds like the english green party is opposed to color television.

They are luddites at times but the UK has been broadcasting on PAL before the Ecology Party (forerunner of the Green Party) was even founded. The Green Party decision was made at a time when there were probably fewer people with Freeview boxes than satellite or cable receivers and millions only had PAL terrestrial.

I suspect that if PAL was to be continued indefinitely and no legislation was passed that TVs had to contain Freeview tuners then Freeview would only be semi-successful and live in the shadows of satellite and cable.

CyborgUprising
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland

27 Apr 2013, 4:47 pm

Coil tattoo machines. Go pneumatic already. They do exist, and even though their initial cost is higher, the level of detail and efficiency is bar none, which means an even greater return on the investment.

CornerPuzzlePieces
Deinonychus

Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: B.C Canada

27 Apr 2013, 6:16 pm

TI-83+

http://xkcd.com/768/

PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

27 Apr 2013, 9:52 pm

True that.

Wandering_Stranger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,261

30 Apr 2013, 4:38 pm

CornerPuzzlePieces wrote:

BeautifulTechno wrote:

For me, touchscreen cell phones. Albeit more practical for cellaholics(not me, not even interested in buying a cellphone any time soon) battery lives are just dreadful and terrible. Can't they optimize it? Probably they can - they want cheap technology, that's what I think. Until it isn't optimized, let's hope that something innovating and refreshing comes out from technological companies.

That would be the backlight on the lcd screen.. something new that looks promising is O-LED's.

It's not the touchscreen that drains it, just turn the brightness down if you want amazing battery life!

It's not just the brightness. I've had my touchscreen for about 10 months now, already had to replace the battery and send it off for repair because of battery issues.

On the other hand, I have a cheap Nokia (one of those where you can only call and text on) which I got at the start of last year and have had no problem with the battery.

greengeek
Velociraptor

Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 434
Location: New York USA

24 May 2013, 10:55 am

crookedfingers wrote:

Florescent lighting, LED's are so much better for a lot of reasons.

LED's contain no Mercury, more energy efficient, and work properly in a wider range of temperatures.

_________________
Nothing is fool proof only fool resistant

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2013, 3:50 pm

greengeek wrote:

crookedfingers wrote:

Florescent lighting, LED's are so much better for a lot of reasons.

LED's contain no Mercury, more energy efficient, and work properly in a wider range of temperatures.

I am waiting for the price to come down a bit. Right now LEDs are rather expensive for any kind of serious lighting.

ruveyn

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

26 May 2013, 3:59 pm

A year ago there was a call to end free over the air broadcast television and now the broadcasters want to save their bandwidth by offering this insane 8K ultra-high definition television which promises IMAX quality.

Max000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

29 May 2013, 8:49 pm

Ichinin wrote:

TV, non-mobile phones (land lines), printed magazines... come on, its 2013 already!

Definitely agree with TV and printed everything, but I'm not sure I agree with non-mobile phones. Land lines are still more reliable then wireless. Plus I think its kind of a waste of bandwidth to use wireless, when you have a perfectly good land line available.

That said, I can live without a land line.

Max000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

29 May 2013, 8:54 pm

Tollorin wrote:

Ichinin wrote:

), printed magazines...

Not everyone got a tablet..

I don't have a table, but I haven't bought a printed magazine in 15 years.

Max000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

29 May 2013, 9:24 pm

eric76 wrote:

Ichinin wrote:

Arran wrote:

Terrestrial television is a debatable one. Some critics say that digital terrestrial television was developed primarily to appease older people who preferred the look of a yagi to a satellite dish.

Television has no right to exist! The internet can deliver pretty much any show you wanna watch, without some moron TV planner deciding for you what to watch. The concept of force fed entertainment has to DIE.

So your answer is to deny TV to people who live in remote areas? Make everyone move to a big city with cheap Internet?

There are many places without much in the way of Internet at all or with limitations on bandwidth.

Around here, most people have two choices for Internet -- satellite Internet that with severe limitations on your bandwidth and poor service or fixed wireless Internet with much better performance and fewer limitations. However, with the high cost of the multiple T-1 lines (ours has three T-1 lines) to service the customers it would be impossible for many to watch TV at the same time. Even with just three T-1 lines, the company just barely breaks even in spite of paying considerably less than competitive wages.

So if you want tv, you either get it over the air or you pay for it from Dish Network or Direct TV.

We should do whatever is necessary to bring high speed internet to everybody. No matter where they live. Then we should get rid of TV.

Page 9 of 13 [ 201 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Jump to:

Technology that refuses to die Post Reply New Topic

Technology that refuses to die