🚀 go-pugleaf

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:

> > And while an adding machine would find multiple uses around
> > the house, especially for balancing one's checkbook and a few
> > other household chores (and sometimes for kids' homework*),
> > a computer would also have plenty of uses around the home,
> > such as email and word processing. 
 
> But note that email probably incurs a monthly charge for Inet access. 

There are several free email services.


> Maybe that can be rolled into the cost of your phone (which will 
> probably be far higher than it was in 1967). 

Basic telephone service (if it is still available) has remained
the same, adjusted for inflation.  But not many people get it.

Most telephone services today include free national long distance.
Obviously long distance usage varies by individual, but generally,
most people are saving money.  (Note that "long distance" include
regional calling, or "short haul toll"; that costs can add up if
one is a suburban subscriber.)


> Or the cost of cable TV 
> (which will certainly be far higher than in 1967). 

The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
is 40%.

However, if one gets telephone service with their cable TV,
I believe the price is fairly reasonable, and it includes some
special features (which used to cost extra) as well as national
long distance.  One downside, at least in my area, is that
cable-TV telephone service has no power outage backup--if the
power goes, so does your telephone service, and it remains out
for a while even after power is restored.  Cable TV phone 
requires _both_ power in your house as well as power for the
junction boxes.




> I'll acknowledge 
> that these days, the various softwares can be found for free (whether 
> PD, free, open source, or pirated). For the WP, don't forget to add in 
> the cost of a printer (though if the number of clogged ink cartridges 
> I've seen is any indication, it's rarely used).


>   If someone is a collector,
> > the computer can be used to index the items within a collection,
> > allowing sorting by different keywords (e.g. date, description,
> > origin, etc.)
> > 
>  From the day's of the first HP(?) "home computer" long before PCs 
> appeared, this has been one of the suggested uses. And I'm sure it 
> would work fine for that. But in over 3 decades of providing support, 
> I've yet to see anyone actually do it (for long, anyhow).

FWIW, I know lots of people who do it.  I do it for myself, though
I just use notepad and plain text files.  But being able to 
easily search the text file is a powerful tool.


> Now, I'm not arguing against the computer. I've got a bunch of them, 
> and some are in daily use. While somewhere I have an adding machine, 
> I'm not sure that it still works (I do know the Selectric stopped 
> working).

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
> 
>>> And while an adding machine would find multiple uses around
>>> the house, especially for balancing one's checkbook and a few
>>> other household chores (and sometimes for kids' homework*),
>>> a computer would also have plenty of uses around the home,
>>> such as email and word processing. 
>  
>> But note that email probably incurs a monthly charge for Inet access. 
> 
> There are several free email services.
> 
> 
>> Maybe that can be rolled into the cost of your phone (which will 
>> probably be far higher than it was in 1967). 
> 
> Basic telephone service (if it is still available) has remained
> the same, adjusted for inflation.  But not many people get it.
> 
> Most telephone services today include free national long distance.
> Obviously long distance usage varies by individual, but generally,
> most people are saving money.  (Note that "long distance" include
> regional calling, or "short haul toll"; that costs can add up if
> one is a suburban subscriber.)
> 
> 
>> Or the cost of cable TV 
>> (which will certainly be far higher than in 1967). 
> 
> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
> is 40%.

I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like an hours
show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.
 
> 
> However, if one gets telephone service with their cable TV,
> I believe the price is fairly reasonable, and it includes some
> special features (which used to cost extra) as well as national
> long distance.  One downside, at least in my area, is that
> cable-TV telephone service has no power outage backup--if the
> power goes, so does your telephone service, and it remains out
> for a while even after power is restored.  Cable TV phone 
> requires _both_ power in your house as well as power for the
> junction boxes.

I'm getting a deal with bundled phone/TV/internet cheaper than TV and
internet alone.   I unhooked the phone modem and don't use it. All I was
getting were wrong numbers and salescalls.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-04-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>> is 40%.
>
> I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like
> an hours show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.

The Canadian comedy show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (which pokes fun
at current events) got its name from the fact that a typical half-hour
TV show contains 22 minutes' worth of actual content, the rest being
taken up by ads.

(Its name is a play on CBC's weekly current-events commentary called
"This Hour Has Seven Days".  That show ran for two years; "22 Minutes"
has been going for nearly 25 years now.  I guess comedy is an easier sell.)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On 4/17/2018 2:32 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:

>> But note that email probably incurs a monthly charge for Inet access.
> 
> There are several free email services.
> 
There are, but do they provide access if you don't have Internet 
access already?

> 
>> Maybe that can be rolled into the cost of your phone (which will
>> probably be far higher than it was in 1967).
> 
> Basic telephone service (if it is still available) has remained
> the same, adjusted for inflation.  But not many people get it.
> 
> Most telephone services today include free national long distance.
> Obviously long distance usage varies by individual, but generally,
> most people are saving money.  (Note that "long distance" include
> regional calling, or "short haul toll"; that costs can add up if
> one is a suburban subscriber.)

That "most people are saving money" is the argument my telco used when 
they stopped charging extra for tone (vs. pulse) dialing and raised my 
rates. Most people were paying extra for tone. I wasn't (my phones all 
had tone/pulse switches, and my modems could swing either way).

> However, if one gets telephone service with their cable TV,
> I believe the price is fairly reasonable, and it includes some
> special features (which used to cost extra) as well as national
> long distance. 

If you've got a decent (meaning reliable, rather than fast) always-on 
Internet conection, that's very inexpensive (I use voip.ms). My 
service has more bells and whistles than the telco can provide 
(including national long distance and voicemail via email). Living in 
a metro area, I can get TV over the air pretty well without cable.

On 17 Apr 2018 22:55:47 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2018-04-17, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>>> is 40%.
>>
>> I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like
>> an hours show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.
>
>The Canadian comedy show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (which pokes fun
>at current events) got its name from the fact that a typical half-hour
>TV show contains 22 minutes' worth of actual content, the rest being
>taken up by ads.
>
>(Its name is a play on CBC's weekly current-events commentary called
>"This Hour Has Seven Days".  That show ran for two years; "22 Minutes"
>has been going for nearly 25 years now.  I guess comedy is an easier sell.)

I was watching a 4 hour docmentary a month or so ago. 160 minutes out
of 240 minutes was show, the rest adverts. Ludicrous.

There is a cartoon series I watch. I get 15 minutes of cartoon, and 15
minutes of ads.

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
><hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>> is 40%.
>
>I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like an hours
>show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.

I was watching a _Man From U.N.C.L.E._ DVD the other day, and
noted that the episodes were 50 1/2 minutes in length (leaving
9 1/2 minutes for commercials).    Today, it is closer to 20
minutes for commercials.

On 4/16/2018 8:18 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 4/16/2018 1:42 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>>>> The price was $90 in 1967 dollars.
>>>> What is ironic is that I believe one can get a tax software
>>>> package today for less than that, and the software will not
>>>> only add up the taxes, but also figure them out.
>>
>>> Yes, but...  even with the tax software, there is still the cost of the
>>> computer...
>>
>> Someone said the $90 in 1967 was roughly $600 today.  That is
>> roughly what a computer costs today.
>>
>> And while an adding machine would find multiple uses around
>> the house, especially for balancing one's checkbook and a few
>> other household chores (and sometimes for kids' homework*),
>> a computer would also have plenty of uses around the home,
>> such as email and word processing. 
> 

Now the United States office of Internal Revenue has a new simplified 
tax form needing only two items:

1)  How much did you make last year???

2)  Send it in!!!


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>><hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>>> is 40%.
>>
>>I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like an hours
>>show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.
>
> I was watching a _Man From U.N.C.L.E._ DVD the other day, and
> noted that the episodes were 50 1/2 minutes in length (leaving
> 9 1/2 minutes for commercials).    Today, it is closer to 20
> minutes for commercials.

Actually, most (ALL?) stations are running constant
ads on the bottom of the screen.

I'm amazed that some of the side bar ads are animated.

Advertisers know no boundaries.

-- 
Dan Espen

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> 
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>>>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>>>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>>>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>>>> is 40%.
>>> 
>>> I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like an hours
>>> show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.
>> 
>> I was watching a _Man From U.N.C.L.E._ DVD the other day, and
>> noted that the episodes were 50 1/2 minutes in length (leaving
>> 9 1/2 minutes for commercials).    Today, it is closer to 20
>> minutes for commercials.
> 
> Actually, most (ALL?) stations are running constant
> ads on the bottom of the screen.
> 
> I'm amazed that some of the side bar ads are animated.
> 
> Advertisers know no boundaries.
> 

Haven't seen that (yet, at least).

-- 
Pete

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>><hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>>>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>>>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>>>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>>>> is 40%.
>>>
>>>I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like an hours
>>>show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.
>>
>> I was watching a _Man From U.N.C.L.E._ DVD the other day, and
>> noted that the episodes were 50 1/2 minutes in length (leaving
>> 9 1/2 minutes for commercials).    Today, it is closer to 20
>> minutes for commercials.
>
>Actually, most (ALL?) stations are running constant
>ads on the bottom of the screen.
>
>I'm amazed that some of the side bar ads are animated.
>
>Advertisers know no boundaries.
>

Just recently I saw my first picture-in-picture advert
_during_ the program.    Blech.

On 2018-04-18, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 4/16/2018 8:18 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2018 1:42 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The price was $90 in 1967 dollars.
>>>>> What is ironic is that I believe one can get a tax software
>>>>> package today for less than that, and the software will not
>>>>> only add up the taxes, but also figure them out.
>>>
>>>> Yes, but...  even with the tax software, there is still the cost of the
>>>> computer...
>>>
>>> Someone said the $90 in 1967 was roughly $600 today.  That is
>>> roughly what a computer costs today.
>>>
>>> And while an adding machine would find multiple uses around
>>> the house, especially for balancing one's checkbook and a few
>>> other household chores (and sometimes for kids' homework*),
>>> a computer would also have plenty of uses around the home,
>>> such as email and word processing. 
>
> Now the United States office of Internal Revenue has a new simplified 
> tax form needing only two items:
>
> 1)  How much did you make last year???
>
> 2)  Send it in!!!

The Canadian version adds one more line:

  3) Add 7% GST.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On 2018-04-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The television aspect of cable TV certainly has dramatically
>>>>> increased, yet, they have also dramatically increased the
>>>>> number of commercials in a show.  For instance, I timed it
>>>>> and years ago it was roughly 25% commercials while now it
>>>>> is 40%.
>>>>
>>>>I usually see 25-30%. When I watch a show I've DVRed it seems like an hours
>>>>show takes about 40-45 minutes when I skip the commercials.

About 43, from what I've seen.

>>> I was watching a _Man From U.N.C.L.E._ DVD the other day, and
>>> noted that the episodes were 50 1/2 minutes in length (leaving
>>> 9 1/2 minutes for commercials).    Today, it is closer to 20
>>> minutes for commercials.
>>
>> Actually, most (ALL?) stations are running constant
>> ads on the bottom of the screen.
>>
>> I'm amazed that some of the side bar ads are animated.
>>
>> Advertisers know no boundaries.
>
> Just recently I saw my first picture-in-picture advert
> _during_ the program.    Blech.

I think if they started doing that here I'd take John Prine's
advice and blow up my TV.  As it is, the animated things at
the bottom of the screen are running longer and longer into
the program after each break.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On 2018-04-18, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 4/16/2018 8:18 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 4/16/2018 1:42 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The price was $90 in 1967 dollars.
>>>>> What is ironic is that I believe one can get a tax software
>>>>> package today for less than that, and the software will not
>>>>> only add up the taxes, but also figure them out.
>>>
>>>> Yes, but...  even with the tax software, there is still the cost of the
>>>> computer...
>>>
>>> Someone said the $90 in 1967 was roughly $600 today.  That is
>>> roughly what a computer costs today.
>>>
>>> And while an adding machine would find multiple uses around
>>> the house, especially for balancing one's checkbook and a few
>>> other household chores (and sometimes for kids' homework*),
>>> a computer would also have plenty of uses around the home,
>>> such as email and word processing. 
>> 
>
> Now the United States office of Internal Revenue has a new simplified 
> tax form needing only two items:
>
> 1)  How much did you make last year???
>
> 2)  Send it in!!!
>
>

I remember Norm in `Cheers' who was supposed to be an accoutant, when
the US revenue 'simplyfied' the tax sustem, someone asked him how was he
coping with the changes. "Changes, what changes?"



-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:59:56 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-04-18, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-04-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> [22 lines snipped]
> 
>>>> Actually, most (ALL?) stations are running constant
>>>> ads on the bottom of the screen.
>>>>
>>>> I'm amazed that some of the side bar ads are animated.
>>>>
>>>> Advertisers know no boundaries.
>>>
>>> Just recently I saw my first picture-in-picture advert
>>> _during_ the program.    Blech.
>>
>> I think if they started doing that here I'd take John Prine's
>> advice and blow up my TV.  As it is, the animated things at
>> the bottom of the screen are running longer and longer into
>> the program after each break.
> 
> Fortunately, all that nonsense is forbidden in the YooKay.
> 
> 

I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program 
(on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the 
rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in 
at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

<ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-04-18, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2018 8:18 PM, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2018 1:42 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> The price was $90 in 1967 dollars.
>>>>>> What is ironic is that I believe one can get a tax software
>>>>>> package today for less than that, and the software will not
>>>>>> only add up the taxes, but also figure them out.
>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, but...  even with the tax software, there is still the cost of the
>>>>> computer...
>>>> 
>>>> Someone said the $90 in 1967 was roughly $600 today.  That is
>>>> roughly what a computer costs today.
>>>> 
>>>> And while an adding machine would find multiple uses around
>>>> the house, especially for balancing one's checkbook and a few
>>>> other household chores (and sometimes for kids' homework*),
>>>> a computer would also have plenty of uses around the home,
>>>> such as email and word processing. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Now the United States office of Internal Revenue has a new simplified 
>> tax form needing only two items:
>> 
>> 1)  How much did you make last year???
>> 
>> 2)  Send it in!!!
>> 
>> 
> 
> I remember Norm in `Cheers' who was supposed to be an accoutant, when
> the US revenue 'simplyfied' the tax sustem, someone asked him how was he
> coping with the changes. "Changes, what changes?"
> 

I never expected the "do your taxes on a postcard", but I got really turned
off when they didn't get rid of the loopholes. I wanted a flat tax, with
brackets but without deductions and exemptions.

-- 
Pete

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:59:56 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-04-18, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>> 
>>>>>> Actually, most (ALL?) stations are running constant
>>>>>> ads on the bottom of the screen.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm amazed that some of the side bar ads are animated.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Advertisers know no boundaries.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just recently I saw my first picture-in-picture advert
>>>>> _during_ the program.    Blech.
>>>> 
>>>> I think if they started doing that here I'd take John Prine's
>>>> advice and blow up my TV.  As it is, the animated things at
>>>> the bottom of the screen are running longer and longer into
>>>> the program after each break.
>>> 
>>> Fortunately, all that nonsense is forbidden in the YooKay.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program 
>> (on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the 
>> rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in 
>> at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.
> 
> The UK ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) rules insist there is a clear
> and perceptible difference between programme content and advertising, in
> order that even the dumbest viewer can be sure what is content and what
> advertising. So having, e.g., the host of a game show present an advert
> in the break, is not allowed. Hell, even (e.g.) holiday advertising in the
> breaks in a travel show used to be frowned on, although I suspect they've
> eased up a little on that kind of thing. Product placement within shows
> is also tightly controlled. The amount of advertising is also tightly
> controlled; it used to be restricted to no more than 15 minutes in any
> hour, although you were allowed to "borrow" a minute from adjacent hours
> (Although, it's been a *long* time since I worked for a TV company,
> so some of these rules may have have changed.)
> 
> I know 'Merkins fall about laughing at our "TV Licence", but the BBC is
> pretty good, despite its (many) faults. They have a pretty simple rule
> on advertising; no advertising. (Other than for their own shows).
> 
> When I watched 'Merkin TV, I'm appalled at the amount (excessive),
> quality (poor) and intrusiveness (very) of the advertising.
> 

The one hopeful trend is that a lot of ads these days are funny enough that
I actually want to watch them. there seem to be fewer car dealers yelling
into the microphone.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-04-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>> I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program 
>> (on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the 
>> rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in 
>> at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.

I hate that, especially when I'm trying to scan the cast list for the
name of an actor whose performance I enjoyed.  To make things worse,
the now-shrunken credits are often scrolled at a much higher speed
than in the original: compressed in time as well as space.

Then there are the networks who completely reset the credits - different
format, typeface, etc. - to better fit into their end-of-show ads.

> The UK ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) rules insist there is a clear
> and perceptible difference between programme content and advertising, in
> order that even the dumbest viewer can be sure what is content and what
> advertising.

I wish newspapers did the same.  Some of their "infomercials" are very
cleverly disguised.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 2:54:19 AM UTC-4, ma...@mail.com wrote:

> I remember Norm in `Cheers' who was supposed to be an accoutant, when
> the US revenue 'simplyfied' the tax sustem, someone asked him how was he
> coping with the changes. "Changes, what changes?"

Personally, changes in the tax code resulted in my ceasing
itemized deductions and taking the standard deduction.  I 
don't know how many people that has applied to, but I believe
it is a considerable number, by design.  The changes effective
for 2018 will increase that.

On 4/19/2018 6:48 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-04-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program
>>> (on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the
>>> rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in
>>> at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.
> 
> I hate that, especially when I'm trying to scan the cast list for the
> name of an actor whose performance I enjoyed.  To make things worse,
> the now-shrunken credits are often scrolled at a much higher speed
> than in the original: compressed in time as well as space.
> 
> Then there are the networks who completely reset the credits - different
> format, typeface, etc. - to better fit into their end-of-show ads.
> 

Mr. Gibbs, you can look up the episode on IMDb.com and find out more 
than you wanted to know about the actors.

In the future, I look forward to a post from you... listing some of the 
things you *really* like!  After all... *no* need in being negative all 
the time.  Just don't let the government know what you like... they will 
tax it or forbid it!  ;-)


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:59:56 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-04-18, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>
> I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program 
> (on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the 
> rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in 
> at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.
>

The BBC produces some of the best programs for TV anywhere, however
they have a UK bias, and need to be watched with that in mind.
Instead of commeccials, they have announcements about forcoming
programs. The Indepent TV channels, the commercials, are inundated by
ads for weekend lenders. Both are polluted by dumb quizzes  and
cookery programs, anything to fill in time.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 2018-04-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:59:56 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-04-18, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> [22 lines snipped]
>>> 
>
> When I watched 'Merkin TV, I'm appalled at the amount (excessive),
> quality (poor) and intrusiveness (very) of the advertising.
>


For pure awfulness, a few minutes of Italian TV takes beating. Every
dwelling in Damascus seems to have a satellite dish. Lets face it,
television is for thicko's. Here in Ireland, we have both
licence-based and commercial based stations , both of which also have ads.

I saw a film , made, I think, in the 50's, starring Calhoon, every
now and again he would pause, light a cigarette, and  say "*, the
thinking man's cigarette."

-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2018 6:48 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2018-04-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program
>>>> (on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the
>>>> rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in
>>>> at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.
>> 
>> I hate that, especially when I'm trying to scan the cast list for the
>> name of an actor whose performance I enjoyed.  To make things worse,
>> the now-shrunken credits are often scrolled at a much higher speed
>> than in the original: compressed in time as well as space.
>> 
>> Then there are the networks who completely reset the credits - different
>> format, typeface, etc. - to better fit into their end-of-show ads.
>> 
> 
> Mr. Gibbs, you can look up the episode on IMDb.com and find out more 
> than you wanted to know about the actors.

I do that a lot. Amazon prime video also has "x-ray" that lets you see
who's playing in a particular scene.

> 
> In the future, I look forward to a post from you... listing some of the 
> things you *really* like!  After all... *no* need in being negative all 
> the time.  Just don't let the government know what you like... they will 
> tax it or forbid it!  ;-)
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

On 2018-04-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/2018 6:48 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-04-19, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-04-19, Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I vaguely remember some "coming next" bit on top of the end of a program
>>>> (on ch4?); maybe it was the hoohah about that that caused a change in the
>>>> rules. A lot of the commercial channels squeeze the credits and jump in
>>>> at the end to tell you about something exciting coming up.
>> 
>> I hate that, especially when I'm trying to scan the cast list for the
>> name of an actor whose performance I enjoyed.  To make things worse,
>> the now-shrunken credits are often scrolled at a much higher speed
>> than in the original: compressed in time as well as space.
>> 
>> Then there are the networks who completely reset the credits - different
>> format, typeface, etc. - to better fit into their end-of-show ads.
>
> Mr. Gibbs, you can look up the episode on IMDb.com and find out more 
> than you wanted to know about the actors.

Sure, but that's not nearly as convenient as reading it off a list of
credits that scroll by slowly enough for you to read.  Edited credits
go by so fast that there's no way anybody could read it without
single-stepping the video (if the designers of your PVR will allow
you to do that).  I've concluded that the credits are no longer intended
to be read (at least as far as the networks are concerned), and the fact
that they're still there at all is merely to satisfy some sort of legal
obligation.

> In the future, I look forward to a post from you... listing some of the 
> things you *really* like!  After all... *no* need in being negative all 
> the time.

Have I become that much of a curmudgeon?  Good - all that hard work
has paid off.  :-)

OK, things I like...  playing acoustic music on instruments that
haven't changed in a century or more, flying a 50-year-old aircraft
through airspace using procedures that have evolved over time to
meet specific requirements rather than chasing fads, chatting with
people on newsgroups like this rather than uploading cute kitten
videos and my personal data to the likes of Facebook...  There are
lots of things I like, it's just that few of them are fashionable.

> Just don't let the government know what you like... they will 
> tax it or forbid it!  ;-)

You got that right.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On 4/20/2018 3:22 AM, ma...@mail.com wrote:

> The BBC produces some of the best programs for TV anywhere, however
> they have a UK bias, and need to be watched with that in mind.
> Instead of commeccials, they have announcements about forcoming
> programs. The Indepent TV channels, the commercials, are inundated by
> ads for weekend lenders. Both are polluted by dumb quizzes  and
> cookery programs, anything to fill in time.
> 
Genres like those are very cheap to produce. On this side of the pond, 
"reality" TV is another such. The typical sitcom or soap not far 
behind. Dramas like the BBC produces cost a lot to make.

On 20/04/2018 19:59, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Sure, but that's not nearly as convenient as reading it off a list of
> credits that scroll by slowly enough for you to read.  Edited credits
> go by so fast that there's no way anybody could read it without
> single-stepping the video (if the designers of your PVR will allow
> you to do that).  I've concluded that the credits are no longer intended
> to be read (at least as far as the networks are concerned), and the fact
> that they're still there at all is merely to satisfy some sort of legal
> obligation.

The credits allow the resume of cameramen and clothing designers to be 
independently checked.

On 22/04/2018 11:46, Huge wrote:
> 
> I hope not. I deeply despise steam train enthusiasts.
> 

The electricity upon which you depend comes from steam
power mainly, even in the case of nuclear power stations.

Care to explain to we all the physics behind the steam
powered water injector?

On Sunday, in article
     <K8ydnS1unZJqiUHH...@giganews.com>
     am.sw...@btinternet.com "Andrew Swallow" wrote:

> On 20/04/2018 19:59, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> Sure, but that's not nearly as convenient as reading it off a list of
>> credits that scroll by slowly enough for you to read.  Edited credits
>> go by so fast that there's no way anybody could read it without
>> single-stepping the video (if the designers of your PVR will allow
>> you to do that).  I've concluded that the credits are no longer intended
>> to be read (at least as far as the networks are concerned), and the fact
>> that they're still there at all is merely to satisfy some sort of legal
>> obligation.
> 
> The credits allow the resume of cameramen and clothing designers to be 
> independently checked.

Film credits are often savagely truncated when shown on TV.  My
favourite was a film where the cast were listed on separate pages
(instead of scrolling) in alphabetical order of surname, rather than
first appearance/importance as usual; they cut off the final page,
imagining they were down at the level of "second man is bus queue" and
therefore didn't matter, which meant that some of the main stars were
cut out of the credits. 8-/

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
si...@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer