TV is killing its self.

I don't watch a lot of TV any more. Largely because the shows I like are rarely programmed during prime time viewing. This means that in order to watch my shows I either have to watch TV at inconvenient hours or I have to go to the trouble of recording them to watch at my convenience. Neither of which I'm prepared to do.

Sometimes I'll watch individual shows but to take an interest in a series is something I'll no longer do after the 'Battle Star Galactica' experience.

The updated series of 'Battle Star Galactica' was launched in prime time on Australian TV and I watched it every week with enthusiasm. I really enjoyed the show. When season two went to air it was never advertised and was scheduled in the 'graveyard' shift of TV programming. I didn't know this until part way into the series. Of those times that I did remember I could never find what day it was screened. They seemed to move it around, changing the time and day depending on which side of midnight they decided to show it.

Never again will TV dictate my viewing. I'll watch whatever happens to catch my interest when I have some time to spare but that's it. I will not invest any more time than that. TV needs to change because I certainly don't need TV.

Shows need to be served up more like videos online. I'd rather watch the shows when I want. Even the obscure shows that only appeal to minority audiences. I'd rather be able to watch shows that were first programmed weeks, even months ago, able to be accessed from a TV stations archive on demand.

Most importantly I'd like TV shows to be free...supported by advertising that is truly targeted to the interests of people watching the show (much like Google does with its AdSense, web page advertising).

There is a better way to serve up TV and I sincerely hope that it's coming soon because, currently, TV is killing its self.

Firefox versus Internet Explorer.

Firefox versus Internet Explorer

I use Firefox and Internet Explorer browser about 50-50 i.e. I use Firefox about 50% of the time and Explorer about 50% of the time. Why? Because they both only work how they are supposed to about 50% of the time. In order to get a 100% operational browser I need to use two browsers!

Right now neither browser seems to be able to handle flash video properly despite having run it with no trouble in the past. I'm constantly subjected to jerky video and/or video that stops downloading half way through and refuses to continue. You might say it's the flash plug in that is the problem but I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling flash with little luck.

Whilst flash is my biggest problem Explorer is currently playing up by gradually grinding my whole system to a halt. It seems to eat up RAM until finally the system reports that there isn't enough memory to '...run the application' despite the only application running being Explorer. Add to this that every time, without fail, closing down Explorer results in that stupid 'Explorer as encountered an error and must close' box popping up (stupid really when I'm already closing the browser) and asking if I'd like to send one of those 'talk to the hand' error reports to MicroSoft.

I have the latest release of Firefox running (2.0 at this time) and it doesn't work with the Yahoo toolbar. Yahoo's toolbar is something I use extensively. Whilst the fault is really with Yahoo for being slow to upgrade their plug in I don't see why those people creating Firefox couldn't make their browser more backwardly compatible? Backward compatibility is the spirit of the web. For web coders like me we're always told to design web pages so that they are still viewable by people still supporting older browsers.

So whilst we're talking about Firefox I also wanted to address the so called 'higher security' that Firefox supposedly offers over Explorer. It doesn't. Firefox is the kind of browser that allows anyone to write plug ins/extensions for it. In fact I believe the entire browser is an open source project. This means that anyone can write destructive code for it with assistance from being able to see how the source code works. Much easier than writing malicious code for Explorer which isn't open source at all.

The only reason why Firefox is more secure would be a matter of statistics...more people use explorer therefore it is more likely to come under attack by malicious coders. Perhaps fewer people write malicious code for Firefox simply because there is no challenge in it?

Okay, so I'm not going to continue this rant by listing all my don't likes with each browser (such as: I hate how Firefox handles file downloads). However in the time I've been writing this article I've been waiting for Firefox to start downloading a flash video. It hasn't even started yet. Looks like I'm going to have to head over to Explorer to see if I'll have any better luck there.

Firefox versus Explorer. No contest. They both suck. (And don't think I haven't looked at Opera with your lack of plug in support).
Related Posts with Thumbnails