«

Chris Hope wrote:
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>
>
> http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...-enforcer.html
>
> I like this /. comment about it:
>
> "Phillips was just not thinking clearly when they invented this. There
> will be a flag at the start of commercials, and another at the end, to
> tell the anti-skip system when to activate. Just how long do you think
> it will be before someone figures out how to use the flags to start and
> stop the fast-forward button? This system of flags would be just as
> effective at automatically skipping ads."
>

I am sure someone will figure a hack for it. Some enterprising chinese
company will have a hidden bios allowing such an item, and sell millions
of units.

regards

Thing

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:51:12 +1200, Allistar wrote:
>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:01:37 +1200, Chris Hope wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The ultimate control - the switch on the wall.
>>>>
>>>> Not much use if you just want to mute it during the ads. Have to play a
>>>> guessing game about when to turn it back on again... I wonder if their
>>>> patent includes battery backup in the unit so if you turn it off at the
>>>> wall it will stay on until the ads have finished
>>>
>>> One of the reasons why I no longer watch much TV is because I loathe the
>>> adverts.
>>>
>>> I think that public television should be completely free from any form
>>> of commercial advertising - and I would not mind paying a TV licence
>>> that reflects the quality of the material broadcast.
>>
>> Public television is a service provided by companies at their discretion.
>> They can include as much or as little advertising as they see fit - just
>> as I decide to watch as much or as little of it as I see fit.
>
> Public television is provided by the state, dearie.

In the case of TVNZ, a part of it is provided by the taxpayer. The rest from
selling airtime.

> You've already paid for it in your taxes.

In the case of one provider, and only for part of the service.

(off the point, but I don't see why the taxpayer should be paying for any of
TVNZ. Make it fully private, I say).

>>> I won't have SKY or similar also because of the advertising. I fail to
>>> see why I should pay extra for the dubious privilege of receiving
>>> adverts from a satelite!
>>
>> At least with Sky movies there aren't any ads during the movies.
>
> SKY is a subscription service. You're paying for advert free TV - or so
> they said when SKY started. Yeah right!
>
> Sky - not worth the money, IMHO.

<shrugs>. Each to their own, I suppose.

> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Allistar.

Mutlley wrote:

> Allistar <> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I don't agree with legislation that prohibits a business from normal trade
>>during religiously observed holidays - it's just another stupid law that
>>should be removed.
>>
>>Allistar.
>
> So you believe every one should work 365 days of the year including
> all public holidays??

I said nothing about when people do and don't work - we already have
employment law the determines that.

I was talking about when businesses are allowed to trade.

Allistar.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:48:12 +1200, Allistar wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with legislation that prohibits a business from normal
>> trade during religiously observed holidays - it's just another stupid law
>> that should be removed.
>
> I agree with any law which removes junk/spam/advertising from the
> airwaves.
>
> I would support any law which would permanently and completely remove
> advertising, except for station call-signs and details of upcoming
> programmes, from TV and radio here in NZ.

How do you expect public and private companies to be able to stay in
business if they cannot sell airtime to advertisers?

And since when should the government be allowed to dictate what private
companies do with the portion of the spectrum they license? (excepting
illegal or offensive material, of course).

> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Allistar.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:29:30 +1200, Philip wrote:
>
>>> I don't care! I don't like, or want, broadcast advertising.
>>>
>>> I'd much rather have good, enjoyable, and uninterrupted drama, and
>>> educational documentaries during the earlyish evening back on TV again.
>>
>> And how do you suggest that should be paid for?
>
> Public broadcasting should be funded by... any means other than
> advertising.

By the taxpayer? By some sort of annual TV license?

The problem with those two is that you end up charging people for a service
they may not use, which is completely unfair. I don't want to fund the
leisure activities of other people.

Advertising is the best way. And it's been proven, magazines, newspapers and
the radio is no different. They all sell a portion of their medium to
advertisers so they can fund the rest of their service.

I'd support a subscription, and from a technical point of view the "free to
air" stations could be encrypted like Sky is. That way the user is paying
for the service, and they don't pay if they don't want the service. Just
like it should be.

> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Allistar.

Allistar wrote:
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>
>> Public television is provided by the state, dearie.
>
> In the case of TVNZ, a part of it is provided by the taxpayer. The
> rest from selling airtime.
>
>> You've already paid for it in your taxes.
>
> In the case of one provider, and only for part of the service.
>
> (off the point, but I don't see why the taxpayer should be paying for
> any of TVNZ. Make it fully private, I say).

TVNZ makes a profit, i.e. costs the taxpayer nothing and puts some money
back into the tax slush fund, though they get to keep most of their profit
for re-investment.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:19:29 +1200, Allistar wrote:

> How do you expect public and private companies to be able to stay in
> business if they cannot sell airtime to advertisers?

By ANY other means!


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Andreas Girardet: "In Suse, there are about 15,000 to 20,000
developers working on the project, and internally at Novell
we have about 1,000 developers devoted just to Suse."

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:19:29 +1200, Allistar wrote:

> And since when should the government be allowed to dictate what private
> companies do with the portion of the spectrum they license? (excepting
> illegal or offensive material, of course).

Ever since the government was capable of passing the laws of our land.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Andreas Girardet: "In Suse, there are about 15,000 to 20,000
developers working on the project, and internally at Novell
we have about 1,000 developers devoted just to Suse."

Nik Coughlin wrote:

> Allistar wrote:
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>>
>>> Public television is provided by the state, dearie.
>>
>> In the case of TVNZ, a part of it is provided by the taxpayer. The
>> rest from selling airtime.
>>
>>> You've already paid for it in your taxes.
>>
>> In the case of one provider, and only for part of the service.
>>
>> (off the point, but I don't see why the taxpayer should be paying for
>> any of TVNZ. Make it fully private, I say).
>
> TVNZ makes a profit, i.e. costs the taxpayer nothing and puts some money
> back into the tax slush fund, though they get to keep most of their profit
> for re-investment.

So it's not costing the taxpayer anything? Keep it public then.

Allistar.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:19:29 +1200, Allistar wrote:
>
>> And since when should the government be allowed to dictate what private
>> companies do with the portion of the spectrum they license? (excepting
>> illegal or offensive material, of course).
>
> Ever since the government was capable of passing the laws of our land.

I said "why *should* the government be allowed". Not "why could".

> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Allistar.