New Freesat service
 

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Agamemnon
writes

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with
DOGs. I don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by
your own expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most
people would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

YOUR STB TELLS YOU EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE CHANNEL OF PRES THE INFO OR
THE EPG BUTTON!!!!!!


The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not

WRONG! The main problem with DOGs is the fact that they are on your
screen. Even if they were only 1x1 pixel they would still be
annoying. Why do you think people don't like monitors with dead
pixels and send them back for a replacement?

catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller
images. The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with
reading if they were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright
yellow would be a lot better that the transparent greyish colour
some channels use.


You are having a laugh.

-- Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

It's no laughing matter. Not only do DOGs need to be bigger, highly
contrast and coloured yellow, they should also be animated, preferably
bouncing around the screen like the 'ball' in the early electronic
tennis games.

And also made "interactive" such that pressing the red button at any time
will take you to a concert by a performer you've never heard-of and which
has absolutely nothing to do with the programme you are watching at present
:o)

(kim)

New Freesat service
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Hmm. Perhaps that's carrying it a bit far. After all, a logo on a garment,
provided it is reasonably discreet and fits with the design of the
garment,
and is the logo belonging to the company that actually made it, could be
said
to be no more unreasonable than a manufacturer's badge on a piece of
electronics - i.e a simple piece of identification that doesn't interfere
with its primary function.

No, the special thing about this is that the logo would be on me -- on my
person -- which to me is far more intrusive than on a bit of kit.

Not that I would dare call you an awkward sod, of course.

Well you can if you like. Join the queue.

Bill

New Freesat service
 

Alan writes:

How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

Look down slightly and note the channel number which is clearly
displayed on the PVR sitting below the TV.

New Freesat service
 

Graham Murray wrote:
Alan writes:

How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

Look down slightly and note the channel number which is clearly
displayed on the PVR sitting below the TV.

Don't have a PVR, but what channel is a little green LED :-)

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

New Freesat service
 

In message , PeeGee writes
Graham Murray wrote:
Alan writes:

How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?
Look down slightly and note the channel number which is clearly
displayed on the PVR sitting below the TV.

Don't have a PVR, but what channel is a little green LED :-)

Everyone knows that it's the same channel as indicated by the little RED
LED (which you see when the PVR/STB is in standby). Unfortunately, not
all (even not many) units have front panel channel displays. Yes, DOGs
really, really are a must.
--
Ian

New Freesat service
 

In message , Bill Wright
wrote

No, the special thing about this is that the logo would be on me -- on my
person -- which to me is far more intrusive than on a bit of kit.

It only the tat made in sweatshops in India and China that needs to have
a logo on the outside - decent clothing can always be identified by
style :)



--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

New Freesat service
 

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:45:51 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Tim (not at home) wrote:
I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. *I*
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own expectations*
in this.

I think there's an important priciple to be considered here, much more
important than individual preferences even if there are individuals who don't
mind the screen clutter. Bookshops don't vandalise the books they sell,
whatever record shops are called nowadays they don't vandalise their CDs and
DVDs, and broadcasters should not vandalise the programmes they broadcast. If
you bought almost any other product and found it damaged or blemished you'd
take it back and complain, because the argument that some people in some
circumstances don't mind damaged goods just wouldn't be acceptable. The fact
that in the case of broadcasts the damage is applied deliberately by the very
people selling the product is an absolute outrage.

Rod.
Actually, you mention about not vandalising CD's, well, back in the
70's, some punk band released an LP with a sandpaper inlay, so it
purposly scratched the record when you removed it. It was the sound
they were after apparently.

Marky P.

New Freesat service
 

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:34:13 +0100, "Adrian" wrote:

kim wrote:
Alan wrote:
In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with
DOGs. I don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your
own expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most
people would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not
catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller
images. The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with
reading if they were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright
yellow would be a lot better that the transparent greyish colour some
channels use.

If they flashed on and off continuously that would help too! :o)

(kim)

Maybe a voiceover every 10 seconds for people that still can't see them.

.....and a BSL windmill in the bottom right corner of the screen for
those people who have had their retina partially destroyed by DOGS.

You've got to remember that in the multichannel competitive
environment every sense has to be stimulated. The latest TV's
emerging from Japan specifically for the DOG infested UK multichannel
competitive environment apparently have crocodile clips to attach to
either your nipples or scrotum.


--

New Freesat service
 

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:12:05 +0000 (UTC), Brian McIlwrath
wrote:

GTS wrote:
: Yes, everything. Sounds cheap, but by all accounts Sky only pays about ?35
: to the installers for their dishes...

That's not quite true! Sky both supply all the installation gear and then
give the dealer a bonus dependent on the new subscription.

Then prices you are quoting for Freesat are, at best, trade ones. What the
customer will pay is likely to be higher. The Freesat HD-PVR will never
be retailed for £149!

What never ever or just not for a few months?


--

New Freesat service
 

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:19:33 -0000, "Agamemnon"
wrote:


The BBC should have been forced by OfCom to sell all of its BSkyB shares
just like it is trying to forced BSkyB to sell its ITV shares. The BBC
owning 25% of Sky is not in the public interest and never was.

Freesat is going to flop like something really floppy.

Clytemnestra said the same about you :)


--