[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:53:13 +0000
Tom Potts <tompotts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Tom,
> On Friday 14 March 2008 07:36, Brad Rogers wrote:
> > That's the problem; With more channels, but the same number of
> > advertisers to pay for it all, the jam gets spread thinner. :-(
> Its worse than that - the creative talent gets spread thinner but the
> creative output is a cube of the thickness so twice as many channels
> means 1/8th the overall creativity.
I wouldn't put it as bad as that. Inverse square, certainly. But
inverse cube law seems too strong to me.
As for analogue being more bearable in poor transmission conditions, I
agree. *I* want to decide when a picture is too poor to view, not some
bit of electronic gear that has not aesthetic values whatsoever.
A snowy picture is preferable, IMO, to one that just stops and starts
every 15 seconds or so.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
It's got nothing to do with the need to impress
Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html