cyber.cafe first programme...oh dear
Richard Lloyd
Just a note to say that "cyber.cafe", ITV's first ever "networked" (at
about 1.30am on random days that is) show about the Internet, was rather
disappointing:
* Why was the picture framed in swirly green graphics at the top and
bottom ? HTML frames are bad enough - we don't need the TV equivalent !
* Whoever thought of continually switching from a colour close-up shot to
a longer B&W shot (which included the camera crew !) and then back again
frequently clearly deserves an entry in Chambers dictionary under the
word "irritating".
* There wasn't much to choose between "the best of the WWW sites" and the
"worst of the WWW sites" sections and why did we need two gormless presenters
(in a pointlessly framed box...ho hum) for this when a full-screen close-up
of the WWW pages with an offscreen commentary would have been much better ?
* Better editing of the interviews was clearly needed, particularly during
the McSpotlight interview where things did not flow smoothly.
For people who missed it (no need to cry, you didn't miss anything important),
there's always the WWW pages:
http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/
Makes you pine for the return of "The Net", doesn't it (which actually
improved markedly after its horrendous start) ?
Richard K. Lloyd, E-mail: r...@csc.liv.ac.uk
Connect, WWW: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/users/rkl/
5-31, Great Newton St,
Liverpool University,
Merseyside, UK. L69 3BX
Lance S. Buckley
In article <DtvH0...@csc.liv.ac.uk> r...@csc.liv.ac.uk "Richard Lloyd" writes:
] Makes you pine for the return of "The Net", doesn't it (which actually
] improved markedly after its horrendous start) ?
Kinda. I think that judging it so harshly after a first
outing is unfair. Having said that they won't improve unless we
direct a little -constructive- criticism their way. TV
desparately needs a good net related program. In it's present
format this is definitely not the one to fill that need.
However the production team is small, and probably the budget
too. This means they are going to be quite flexible in their
approach to the subject. I don't think useful suggestions to
them at Meridian will be ignored. After all if it folds after
the first season they'll all be looking for new jobs.
My suggestions are (in no particular order of importance):
Get out of that dreadful CyberCafe and change the name. Just
because it's computers doesn't mean you have to ram HiTek down
our throats. It won't appeal to the ignorati, and only serves to
piss of the nerds. If the program is any good, word will spread
soon enough. Pretending you're "hip" won't wash with those in
the know, and they're the only ones who'll bother to stay up and
watch it at first.
Don't treat your viewers like idiots. Even a Dixon's droid knows
what a "modem" is these days. You'll have to byte the bullet and
assume everyone watching knows the basics. You could do well to
take a look Gamesmater. They knew their target audience and
didn't condescend. Try not to be so gung ho. There's a lot of
crap on the net. Get a bit hard nosed about it and moan.
Try to be a little more original with your production
techniques. The current camerawork is the TV equivalent of
<BLINK> in HTML and as has been done a -lot- better already by
other programs.
I'f you're going to appeal to the purient interests of your
viewers then do it. Why not keep the "pervs on the net" stuff
confined to a regular slot. It could be one of a set of regular
tasks to set Anna during the show. I'm sure she'd have little
trouble tracking down something perverse each week. Possibly a
person who's WWW site she tracks down can be invited to the show
later to chat about it with her.
Make sure you treat at least one serious article in depth each
week. What would attract me to the show is the belief I'd learn
something there I couldn't find in 5 minutes on the net. The
McDonalds bit was a good start. Keep it up.
Don't keep it based all in one place. I realise you're on a
shoestring, but an occasional OB on Hi8 wouldn't break the bank.
I'd lik to see behind the scenes at ISPs and net related mags etc.
Last but not least, you sorely need a presenter who wears a Fedora.
Lance.
--
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Lederer/Vollet, alledged ex-head of B1(UK)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) J&D ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
Richard Sliwa
r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) wrote:
<snip reviewette>
erm.... shouldn't that be "...oh *cheap* " in the header?
:)
Sorry, couldn't help myself...
--
Richard, hoping it gets better, and MORE OF ANNA!
Adewale Oshineye
Lance S. Buckley wrote:
>
> In article <DtvH0...@csc.liv.ac.uk> r...@csc.liv.ac.uk "Richard Lloyd" writes:
> My suggestions are (in no particular order of importance):
>
> Get out of that dreadful CyberCafe and change the name. Just
Internet and all but they are'nt exactly on the cutting edge, are they?
> because it's computers doesn't mean you have to ram HiTek down
> our throats. It won't appeal to the ignorati, and only serves to
> piss of the nerds. If the program is any good, word will spread
> soon enough. Pretending you're "hip" won't wash with those in
> the know, and they're the only ones who'll bother to stay up and
> watch it at first.
>
> Don't treat your viewers like idiots. Even a Dixon's droid knows
> what a "modem" is these days. You'll have to byte the bullet and
> assume everyone watching knows the basics. You could do well to
> take a look Gamesmater. They knew their target audience and
> didn't condescend. Try not to be so gung ho. There's a lot of
> crap on the net. Get a bit hard nosed about it and moan.
community or are they trying to educate people who aren't on the Net.
They also have to make up their minds that they expect their viewers to have some sort
of access to the Net otherwise it's just pointless.
>
> Make sure you treat at least one serious article in depth each
> week. What would attract me to the show is the belief I'd learn
> something there I couldn't find in 5 minutes on the net. The
> McDonalds bit was a good start. Keep it up.
More than that how about looking at the developments which are affecting the Net, like
the naming debacle with Nominet.
> I'd lik to see behind the scenes at ISPs and net related mags etc.
Definitely!
>
> Last but not least, you sorely need a presenter who wears a Fedora.
I hear Douglas Hogg is going to be free, why not give im a call.
>
How about using your Website toi tell people when the show's on in different parts of
the country? Now that would be useful. Come to think of it the show doesn't really
make use of the Net, it seems to me to pretty much follow the standard programme
about hobbies format that the tv companies regularly churn out.
BTW seeing as most people will tape it and watch it at a later time you might as well
do something like "Bad Influence's" datablast, where they transmitted information that
viewers could read by pausing the video, that way the show could be marginally useful
to somebody.
--
Adewale Oshineye
Ambition is a poor excuse
for not having enough sense to be lazy.
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~websoc/ta5330
Dominic Ramsey
Adewale Oshineye <TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>Lance S. Buckley wrote:
>
>> My suggestions are (in no particular order of importance):
>>
>> Get out of that dreadful CyberCafe and change the name. Just
>
>Better still go to different cafes every week, I mean I like the people at Cafe
>Internet and all but they are'nt exactly on the cutting edge, are they?
This is probably quite difficult when they are filming 9 programmes at a
time, not to mention expensive.
>How about using your Website toi tell people when the show's on in different
>parts of
>the country?
Er... we are. See http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/trandate.htm
The trouble is the various regions seem to be able to change times
whenever they like. It's *probably* easier just to look in the paper.
>do something like "Bad Influence's" datablast, where they transmitted
>information that
>viewers could read by pausing the video, that way the show could be marginally
>useful
>to somebody.
The URL of the web site is given in the credits, and the web site
includes info and links for the current programme. There is the
possibility of expanding it to include some of the sites Anna finds in
her challenges though.
Dom
--
[ webmaster @ cyber.cafe ]
http://www.dynamite.co.uk/dynamo
DISCLAIMER: IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!
Richard Lloyd
In article <vl2OUHAg...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>,
Dominic Ramsey <dyn...@dynamite.co.uk> writes:
>The trouble is the various regions seem to be able to change times
>whenever they like. It's *probably* easier just to look in the paper.
Or you could employ the novel concept of editing the WWW page each week :-)
It's on HTV at 2.35am on Thursday morning this week, so the WWW page
is currently giving the wrong transmission time because it was last
edited at 11.01pm on Friday 28th June :-(
Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
"The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?
Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?
Nick Rothwell
In article <Dtywo...@csc.liv.ac.uk> r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) writes:
> Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
> couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
> "The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?
And "The Net" was?
(Join the Jules Fan Club here...)
--
Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL contemporary dance projects
http://www.cassiel.com music synthesis and control
years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again
Anthony Cunningham
In article <Dtywo...@csc.liv.ac.uk>,
r...@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd) wrote:
>Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
>couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
>"The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?
Are you suggesting that 'The Net' was good?
>Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?
Neither did the people who made 'The Net'.
T
Lance S. Buckley
In article <vl2OUHAg...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>
dyn...@dynamite.co.uk "Dominic Ramsey" writes:
] This is probably quite difficult when they are filming 9 programmes at a
] time, not to mention expensive.
Hmmm...well maybe it's something they can budget for in the next
series. That place it too claustraphobic for my taste. YMMV of course.
] Er... we are. See http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/trandate.htm
Hey, I went to the WWW site after the show, clicked on
Anna's picture and her clothes stayed on! What's the big idea?
Peter Ceresole
>Actually, this highlights an interesting issue - how come "cyber.cafe"
>couldn't get a networked slot (at a more sensible time) on ITV like
>"The Net" did on BBC 2 ? Is it perhaps because it's not all that good ?
>Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?
I'm sure the producers want it to be good. All producers want all their
programmes to be terrific, and sweat blood trying to make it happen. But
the producers are only a small part of the story. They're the hired hands.
The basic decision about what gets on the air, and the allocation of
resources, is in the hands of the channel commissioners and schedulers.
"The Net" happened because the controller of BBC2 wanted to do something
about computers and comms, and for two years was prepared to spend a fair
amount of money on it. It got an excellent slot and in general I thought it
was bloody good.
From the circumstances (I haven't yet managed to see or record a programme)
it doesn't seem that anybody at ITV has the same level of commitment as
Michael Jackson had. "Cyber Cafe" is fairly clearly a night time filler.
ITV grinds on ludicrously through the night broadcasting to nobody and
their insomniac dog, and somehow they have to find *cheap* moving pictures
to fill the hours. All "Cyber Cafe" has to do is fill some air time and a
major priority is that it does it at a very low cost. If it catches on in
some way, the schedulers have the opportunity to bring it into their
mainstream programming; if it fails they dump it and try another one of the
huge queue of ideas that are pressing on them from hopeful independents. So
there's no risk for them, only opportunity. For the people making it, it's
a calling card; an opportunity to show that they could do something bigger
and better, not necessarily about comms or computing. Within their
crippling budget they will do their very best. But don't kid yourself that
there's a determination to do something good about the Net on ITV. There
clearly isn't.
However, at least somebody is getting a crack at doing something. It's
better than nothing at all, and it may turn out to be good. People learn as
they go along- there's no other way.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
In article <AE006260...@fma3.fma.com>,
t...@fma.com (Anthony Cunningham) wrote:
>Are you suggesting that 'The Net' was good?
>
>>Or maybe the ITV controllers don't know what the Internet is anyway ?
>
>Neither did the people who made 'The Net'.
Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet. I
reckon that proves it was good.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
In article <NICK.96J...@suilven.an-teallach.com>,
ni...@cassiel.com (Nick Rothwell) wrote:
(CyberCafe not good?)
>And "The Net" was?
Yes, it was excellent. It definitely helped with the public consciousness
and acceptance of the Internet in Britain.
>(Join the Jules Fan Club here...)
Now you're talking. Jules was GREAT.
--
Peter
Dominic Ramsey
"Lance S. Buckley" <la...@avalon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vl2OUHAg...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>
> dyn...@dynamite.co.uk "Dominic Ramsey" writes:
>
>] This is probably quite difficult when they are filming 9 programmes at a
>] time, not to mention expensive.
>
>Hmmm...well maybe it's something they can budget for in the next
>series. That place it too claustraphobic for my taste. YMMV of course.
I thought it was Ok. I think the atmosphere is certainly better than if
it had been filmed in a studio.
>] Er... we are. See http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber/trandate.htm
>
>Hey, I went to the WWW site after the show, clicked on
>Anna's picture and her clothes stayed on! What's the big idea?
Funny you should mention that. The site is, after all, still under
development. Keep clicking on Anna and you never know what might happen.
:)
Geoff
Peter Ceresole (pe...@cara.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet. I
: reckon that proves it was good.
Even more how fascinating the amount of people who go around
slagging off "sad trainspotters on Usenet". Most of these are almost
certainly dweebs who will believe anything "The Net" tells them.
Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who actually knows anything
about the internet? Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who
doesn't like being talked down to, who doesn't like the phrase
"surfing the information superhighway" being rammed down their throats?
.
Anna Warman
OK. I've stayed out of the fray so far, but here are a few of my views -
and I'm *not* speaking on behalf of the programme-makers, but as an
internet-user who has become involved in the programme via an ad in uk.net
and has seen how things work from the other side.
First, no internet programme is going to satisfy everyone. Somewhere
along the line, you're going to have to pitch it at a specific audience.
cyber.cafe is aimed primarily at non-internet users, which is why it's
felt that terms like 'modem' have to be explained.
Second, the budget for this programme is *miniscule* - around UKP4,800
per episode (as opposed to something in the order of UKP80,000 for each
episode of The Net). With such a tiny budget, this programme is very
ambitious and I think it's to the production team's credit that they can
produce so much for so little. Look at other small budget programmes
broadcast at similar times for a comparison.
Four weeks ago, we filmed the first seven episodes in three days. Last
week, we filmed 9 episodes in three days. The effects of doing it like
this are a) the editing is being done at a phenomenal rate (the first
ep going out three weeks after filming) b) the production team are under
enormous pressure and c) any feedback about the programme can't be
incorporated until towards the end of the series (we film the final 10
programmes at the end of September).
With regards to updating the website. Dom is doing everything he can -
but he has to wait on information from the cyber.cafe team, who, it's
been established, are up to their eyeballs in editing. Dom had
redesigned the site the day after it was broadcast, based on what he'd
seen on TV - I think he's doing a great job.
The programme is very reliant on people getting in touch with them
about their own internet experiences. I think they've done very well
to get the diversity of people they have, so far.
Rather than slag off the programme here, why not write to Jeremy Smith
(Associate Producer) with ideas and suggestions on topics they could
research for those last 10 episodes. They are unable to reply to
criticism here, due to Meridian policy (whereby they can only write
here what they've written in a press-release). Their email address
is: cybe...@interalpha.co.uk
ANNA 'The Keyboard Queen' :)
Visit my in-flight safety page - http://www.plsys.co.uk/~anna/inflight.htm
Peter Krüger
>Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet. I
>reckon that proves it was good.
I think the ‘train spotters’ have moved on to whinging about
the finer points of html on media orientated web sites. The
trouble with TV programmes about the net is that everyone has
their own idea of what the Internet is and should be. Over the last
year or so most of the expansion of the Internet has been driven
by corporates to suite commercial interests. This leaves what in
the PC market would be regarded as hobbyists or home users
maginalised.
If applications such as voice on the net and video on demand catch
on - and if the bandwidth is available to support such applications -
then maybe programmes such as Cyber Cafe will have something
constructive to talk about. At the moment the lowest common denominator
on the Internet is text based communication. This does not make
good TV - even though it is the only area of the Internet where innovative
content is being developed. This leaves programmes such as Cyber
Cafe dealing the weird, wonderful and trivial all of which would be
laughed at, or ignored, if they were produced in any other medium
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gold.net/flames/
fla...@flames.cityscape.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cunningham
In article <AE00919E...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet.
Isn't it time for you to pick up your anorak from the dry-cleaners?
T
Peter Ceresole
In article <4rerok$a...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
geo...@jumper.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff) wrote:
>Even more how fascinating the amount of people who go around
>slagging off "sad trainspotters on Usenet". Most of these are almost
>certainly dweebs who will believe anything "The Net" tells them.
I hardly think so. I wasn't slagging them off; after all, they're God's
creatures too.
>Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who actually knows anything
>about the internet? Maybe "The Net" was a bit crap to anyone who
>doesn't like being talked down to, who doesn't like the phrase
>"surfing the information superhighway" being rammed down their throats?
No. It was a good programme with faults- like all good programmes. Real
people would point out the faults, and give praise for the bits that worked
well. The trainspotters simply couldn't make that leap of the imagination
and spluttered all over their keyboards.
--
Peter
Nick Rothwell
In article <AE00919E...@cara.demon.co.uk> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
> >(Join the Jules Fan Club here...)
>
> Now you're talking. Jules was GREAT.
I've been out-trolled.
Peter Ceresole
In article <4rg69j$h...@tardis.tardis.ed.ac.uk>,
t...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Anthony Cunningham) wrote:
>>Fascinating how "The Net" was attacked by sad trainspotters on Usenet.
>
>Isn't it time for you to pick up your anorak from the dry-cleaners?
You have to be joking. Far too modern for me. I am sitting here wearing my
WW2 surplus Army driver's leather jerkin. So cool it's cryonic.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
In article <83647133...@ciscw97.demon.co.uk>,
fla...@flames.cityscape.co.uk (Peter Krüger) wrote:
>I think the ‘train spotters’ have moved on to whinging about
>the finer points of html on media orientated web sites.
Well it does pass the afternoon pleasantly enough.
>At the moment the lowest common denominator
>on the Internet is text based communication. This does not make
>good TV - even though it is the only area of the Internet where innovative
>content is being developed.
Absolutely right. The pleasure of the Internet is 99% in ASCII. And for a
programme maker, ASCII is a killer.
I made quite a few 'Horizons' and even in the time I was making them,
computers became more and more important in the science and technology I
was trying to explain. Every time a computer sequence came up, my heart
sank. They are inherently dull to look at. In the good old days a scientist
might be working at a bench, and the glass and brass might be belching
interesting fumes from the reaction of multicoloured liquids. Now, they are
more likely to inject a tenth of a mil into a plastic machine, and then
analyse reams of info on a screen.
It's okay; with a lot of work and imagination you can get back to the
people behind it all and tweak them into revealing the enthusiasm that's
almost always there. Graphics can help explain what's going on as well as
being fun and elegant (although they cost a bomb). Best of all is when
something horrific happens to the results and the group huddled round the
screen breaks up; that's great but it takes a long time to get- *if* it
happens at all. But computers themselves are a visual dead loss, and screen
shots of text are even more boring than Barry Manilow.
Making programmes about what people actually do on and with computers is a
killer. You need time and money to make it work. I think "The Net" gave it
quite a good crack. "CyberCafe", with their micro-minuscule budget, are
really up against it.
--
Peter
Anthony Cunningham
In article <AE01BFD0...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>You have to be joking. Far too modern for me. I am sitting here wearing my
>WW2 surplus Army driver's leather jerkin. So cool it's cryonic.
Kewl! Where did you get it? Do they have any left?
T
Geoff. Lane
In article <AE028F579...@fma3.fma.com>,
May I just mention "dweebs" here?
No?
Oh.
--
Geoff. Lane. | | http://swirl.mcc.ac.uk/
Make Headlines..use a corduroy pillow....
Scott Thomas
>] Makes you pine for the return of "The Net", doesn't it (which actually
>] improved markedly after its horrendous start) ?
interesting and varied.
However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
James Eibisch
On Wed, 03 Jul 96 22:27:47 GMT, Anna Warman <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>Rather than slag off the programme here, why not write to Jeremy Smith
>(Associate Producer) with ideas and suggestions
Twice I mailed Jeremy with some input, and twice got no reply. I shan't
bother again.
--
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://www.i-way.co.uk/~jeibisch/
=======
Dominic Ramsey
Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
>ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
In other words, it's just like usenet and IRC? :)
Anna Warman
In article <Ku5kvXAM...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
Thanks Scott.
ANNA, an on-line wally :(
Peter Ceresole
In article <AE028F579...@fma3.fma.com>,
t...@fma.com (Anthony Cunningham) wrote:
>>You have to be joking. Far too modern for me. I am sitting here wearing my
>>WW2 surplus Army driver's leather jerkin. So cool it's cryonic.
>
>Kewl! Where did you get it? Do they have any left?
My dad got it in 1948. He was very cool (that was how it was spelt in those
days). I inherited it, along with his first world war German army belt.
Kewlerama.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
In article <4ril6r$5...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
zza...@swirl.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff. Lane) wrote:
>May I just mention "dweebs" here?
No.
"Kewl' is the only word that covers it.
--
Peter
Gordon Joly
On the subject of "The Net", the web page speaks for itself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/the_net/
Gordo
--
--
Gordon Joly http://pobox.com/~gjoly/
go...@dircon.co.uk gordo...@pobox.com
Dominic Ramsey
Anna Warman <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Ku5kvXAM...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
> sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
>
>> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
>> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
>
>Thanks Scott.
>
>ANNA, an on-line wally :(
Hmmmm. I wonder if Scott is ashamed to be alive with all the real-life
wallies there are out there?
Paul Copsey
Scott Thomas (sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
: ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
Funny thing is, I found thee second one to be not as bad as the first.
Paul
Adewale Oshineye
the first episode didn't make me want to set my VCR to tape it.
--
Adewale Oshineye
The sooner you fall behind,
the more time you have to catch up.
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~websoc/ta5330
Scott Thomas
In article <836604...@warman.demon.co.uk>, Anna Warman
<AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> writes
>> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
>
>
>
>ANNA, an on-line wally :(
Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
sleaze and trash.
I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!
--
Scott Thomas
Dominic Ramsey
Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
>mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
>sleaze and trash.
>
>I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!
Ah, so it's the internet you don't like, not the programme?
Paul Copsey
Adewale Oshineye (TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
: Somebody tell me what it was about I missed it, way past my bedtime. And
: the first episode didn't make me want to set my VCR to tape it.
Some saddo chatting up women on IRC, who got caught, seeking out nude
celebs on the net, and some other stuff I've forgotten ;-)
Paul
A Stoat
>
> Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
> mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
> sleaze and trash.
Yes! I would be interested in other country's net cultures e.g. what
proportion pay for net access; how many are just freeloading on some
University/employer account; what services are used most (email, usenet,
web etc.); is it fun/useful/essential/obsessive to people; uk net magazine
reviews (I stopped buying EARLY days, have they improved?).
Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
downloading web pages etc.?
Hate the bw camera bits.
Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.
--
A Stoat
Richard Sliwa
A Stoat wrote:
>
> >
> > Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
> > mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
> > sleaze and trash.
>
> Yes! I would be interested in other country's net cultures e.g. what
> proportion pay for net access; how many are just freeloading on some
> University/employer account; what services are used most (email, usenet,
> web etc.); is it fun/useful/essential/obsessive to people; uk net magazine
> reviews (I stopped buying EARLY days, have they improved?).
>
> Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
> Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
> downloading web pages etc.?
> Hate the bw camera bits.
Have you emailed them directly? During the show, they appealed for ideas on
what sort of items to cover. Discussing this stuff here is fine, but you
have the opportunity to takes your ideas straight to the top. Take advantage
of it! I'm in no way connected to the show (in fact, there are a few
articles in this ng where I've had my say already), but having written to
them myself, I can tell you that they are *very* keen for all net users'
ideas.
For the record, you want to write to Jeremy Smith at
>
> Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.
Isn't it just! ,*grin*>
--
Richard Sliwa
Guy Barry
Scott Thomas wrote:
> Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
> mention of Usenet?
Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream media
coverage of the Internet?
(Maybe it's just as well. We'd probably get an even higer proportion
of hopeless cases posting than we do at the moment.)
Guy Barry
Paul Rhodes
Guy Barry <gba...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> wrote:
>Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream media
>coverage of the Internet?
Umm.... seen Mission: Impossible yet?
Now how did he do *that*?
Paul
Scott Thomas
In article <d8Qo7KAD...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>, Dominic Ramsey
<dyn...@dynamite.co.uk> writes
>Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
>>sleaze and trash.
>>
>
>Ah, so it's the internet you don't like, not the programme?
>
>Dom
potentially a wonderful and creative medium for interesting and
informative global debate and information. However it is being clogged
up with mindless sleaze and twaddle, which is a sad reflection on
humanity in general.
--
Scott Thomas
Anna Warman
In article <836850...@alanhe.demon.co.uk>
3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk "A Stoat" writes:
> Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
> Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
> downloading web pages etc.?
The Cafe Internet has a leased line which is pretty fast. The sites do
sometimes take a while to access and download, so I save the pages I've
found and intend to use. It would be really dead time, TV-wise, if we had
to wait for the pages to download.
> Hate the bw camera bits.
I've got the feeling you're not the only one...
> Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.
Oooh. :) Thanks.
ANNA, who's become a dab-hand with search engines.
Anna Warman
In article <CH6wOXA4...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
> <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> writes
> > sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
> >
> >> However Cyber Cafe was truly appalling. In fact it almost made me feel
> >> ashamed to be on-line with all those other wallies! IMHO :)
> >
> >ANNA, an on-line wally :(
> Don't mention it! Any time! :))
<pout>
> Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease.
I had a blast, doing that. :) I was also pleased to note that there
were quite a few pics to titillate women - I've always been led to
believe that most of the sleaze is aimed at men.
> The WWW is so overrated anyway.
In some respects it is - but there's lots of good stuff out there. My
biggest bugbear is that it's all so *slow*.
> Why no
> mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
> sleaze and trash.
The programme is aimed at people who know little or nothing about the
internet. For that kind of audience, what would be of most interest
are the people who already use it and the stories they have about it.
An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).
Not all of the programme is about sleaze - Mark Thomas was interesting,
the item on McSpotlight was too. There are quite a few interviews coming
up which have nothing to do with sex/porn/other_sensationalist_stuff.
> I may be only 25 but the Internet makes me feel very old!
You must be doing something wrong. :)
Anyway, if you've got some really good ideas, write to Jeremy Smith
(Associate Producer) at cybe...@interalpha.co.uk - there are ten
programmes left to film - here's your opportunity to help shape them.
ANNA, who was long ago labelled a usenet smut queen and likes the sleazy
bits of the internet. :)
Steve Paget
In article: <31E2569E...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk> Guy Barry
> Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream
media
> coverage of the Internet?
>
> of hopeless cases posting than we do at the moment.)
Mee to
--
I wonder where that sig has gone?
You did love it so, you treated it like a son.
And it went.. wherever I... did go!
Charity
Guy Barry (gba...@cybercity.westnet.net.uk) wrote:
: Scott Thomas wrote:
: > Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why no
: > mention of Usenet?
: Indeed -- why is Usenet pretty much invisible in *all* mainstream media
: coverage of the Internet?
Because it's hard to sell, from a media point of view.
You can >show< someone a web page, and they can grasp it on some level
at first glance. They are colourful, and they make sense, if only on
a level of "it's an electronic brochure"
Try showing someone who's never seen the net Usenet -- it takes longer
to grasp what's happening, and how it happens, and what it's use might
be, and as a visual thing, it's just not as interesting a screen shot.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Web is the end-all and be-all,
just that if you want to show something briefly without losing half
your audience with explanations, the Web is the obvious choice...
* Sylvia *
--
syl...@intrigue.co.uk http://www.roundabout.org/~sylvia/
"instant gratification isn't quick enough"
Guybarry
In article <836944...@warman.demon.co.uk>, AN...@warman.demon.co.uk
(Anna Warman) writes:
>An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
>probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
>see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).
Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It could
open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.
Guy Barry
Dominic Ramsey
Guybarry <guyb...@aol.com> wrote:
>Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It could
>open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.
Why not go the whole hog and invite the flame war participants into the
cafe and give them all semi-automatic weapons...
...excuse me while I mail Jeremy... :)
Jeremy Smith
Scott Thomas <sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+Nude celebrities? Purrrrlease. The WWW is so overrated anyway. Why
no
+mention of Usenet? A review of Internet providers? No just juvenile
+sleaze and trash.
Hello there. I think the points above could do with being answered,
and since I work on the show I thought I'd answer them.
Nude celebrities. A controversial challenge. Two points: The show is
trying to appeal to both net-people and non-users. We didn't suggest
as part of the item that the presence of this material on the Web
makes the Net a bad thing.
A review of internet providers - brilliant idea. One that we've all
come up with during production meetings. Sadly, since we film all the
shows a long time before transmission, all the information would be
out of date when it went out. It's a practical point forced on us by
the budget.
Why no coverage of Usenet? Firstly as someone has already pointed out
in this thread, ASCII makes dreadful television. Secondly, we *are*
covering Usenet where we can. For example, keep watching for a man who
found support in a newsgroup when he was diagnosed with a terminal
disease.
We love doing these stories: they're really interesting, but sadly I
have found them hard to get.
Regards,
Jeremy Smith
Associate Producer
cyber.cafe cybe...@interalpha.co.uk
www.meridian.tv.co.uk/cyber
anonymous cybe...@anon.penet.fi
Paul Copsey
Anna Warman (AN...@warman.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <836850...@alanhe.demon.co.uk>
: 3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk "A Stoat" writes:
:
: > Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
: > Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second when
: > downloading web pages etc.?
:
: The Cafe Internet has a leased line which is pretty fast. The sites do
: sometimes take a while to access and download, so I save the pages I've
: found and intend to use. It would be really dead time, TV-wise, if we had
: to wait for the pages to download.
So it's not real? My illusions are shattered. I thought there was a
place where the web wasn't slow :-(
: > Hate the bw camera bits.
:
: I've got the feeling you're not the only one...
It's one of those 'kewl' camera techniques that tend to get up most
people's noses, I've never understood why the TV co's stick with them
: ANNA, who's become a dab-hand with search engines.
It's where the hand gets dabbed that's scary ;-)
Paul, who would have loved to have seen the Spock/Kirk pic, but loved
the careful 3am friendly description ;-)
Anna Warman
> AN...@warman.demon.co.uk (Anna Warman) writes:
>
> >An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
> >probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
> >see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).
>
> Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It could
> open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.
Hehehe. Actually, this sounds like a good idea. Would we have to get
permission from the posters to read out their material, though?
ANNA, who thinks the bleep machine would probably overheat. :)
Geoff. Lane
In article <4s0plv$q...@news.aladdin.co.uk>,
cybe...@interalpha.co.uk (Jeremy Smith) writes:
[Lots of stuff about the difficulty in finding good TV subjects on the
web/usenet]
Perhaps concentrating on the ideas conveyed rather than the mechanism used
would be better. WWW is pretty but essentially content free; Usenet is full
of content but difficult to film; both have very low concentrations of
useful/interesting stuff.
Why not do a fake news bulletin each week about the major events of the
week? "We now hand you over to Kate Adie for another report on the war in
alt.religion.scientology..."
--
Geoff. Lane. | | http://swirl.mcc.ac.uk/
FANATIC: one enthusastic about something you don't care about.
Guybarry
In article <837020...@warman.demon.co.uk>, Anna Warman
<AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <4s0980$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> guyb...@aol.com "Guybarry"
>writes:
>
>> AN...@warman.demon.co.uk (Anna Warman) writes:
>>
>> >An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
>> >probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
>> >see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).
>>
>> Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It
could
>> open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.
>
>Hehehe. Actually, this sounds like a good idea. Would we have to get
>permission from the posters to read out their material, though?
I'd say yes, just as a matter of courtesy, though I don't know the legal
position. When you display Web pages on your programme (which
I haven't seen, by the way), do you have to get the permission of the
publisher?
Guy Barry
Jeremy Smith
A Stoat <3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+Yes! I would be interested in other country's net cultures e.g. what
+proportion pay for net access; how many are just freeloading on some
+University/employer account; what services are used most (email,
usenet,
+web etc.); is it fun/useful/essential/obsessive to people; uk net
magazine
+reviews (I stopped buying EARLY days, have they improved?).
I work on this show, and I thought I'd answer your points here.
Other countries' net culture: good idea. I'll add it to the pile.
Probably have to be France since we don't have a load of money for
travel expenses and posh hotels.
The fun/useful/obsessive thing we are trying to cover bit by bit. I
think it's all three, and we have guests from every camp. Next week we
also have a chap on who has researched a very similar area and divided
all net users into 8 stereotypes. We give his email, if you want to
write to him....
Net mag reviews: not bad. Maybe we could conduct a poll on our WWW
pages and invite the best and worst editors in. Yes, why not? If we
can put it together, it's a good item.
+Plenty of hype and buzz but anyone got the facts?
Which facts would you like us to put in?
+Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second
when
+downloading web pages etc.?
We do, believe me, it's just we edit it out otherwise the show would
last h-o-u-r-s. We also use WebWhacker to grab sites in case they go
out of service. When Mark Thomas came in, one of his favourite sites
was down so we had to rethink. Things like that slow us down and cost
money in overtime.
+Hate the bw camera bits.
Yes, well, that's a matter of opinion. I quite like them, and they
make editing a lot easier. :-)
+Anna has a top web page btw, full of personality and enthusiasm.
I'm sure she's read this.
Thanks for thinking about the show.
All the best,
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <4s2c1p$f...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>
zza...@swirl.mcc.ac.uk "Geoff. Lane" writes:
] Why not do a fake news bulletin each week about the major events of the
] week? "We now hand you over to Kate Adie for another report on the war in
] alt.religion.scientology..."
S'a bloody good idea. I like it.
Maybe a rundown of things happening in CyberMags such as Biased
Journalism and CyberVanguard etc. would be a source of timely
and intereting scuttlebutt. I'm sure the authors would love to see
their efforts mentioned in the mainstream (if bleary eyed) media.
And speaking of my own particular hobby-horse...
I hope that when they do get around to the ars v Co$ war, it's
treated properly. I'd rather see 3 minutes of high quality TV
journalism than 10 minutes of sensationalism about this topic.
There's a whole heap going on there, and much of it has major
implications for the future of the net in general, so -please-
do it justice.
Lance.
- --
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Lederer/Vollet, alledged ex-head of B1(UK)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) J&D ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMeT1KCjzbaRloMBtAQEqEgQAnCOuiQe/re8IpUE4gR2GXGXjegY1euT8
nPaz0eTsgFrF2ikDM5G/och4YzHkcwpvZ2W6C3q3f7Mzj3CQ7ntcZa69jtr3KVT+
xSYj7t9rXhtHM4p9YTG+Qtj0vjuOpoIgapFDTPcoNbA0EMvZH4jTYt4zHs4vDZYD
yZhG+btm9eg=
=FcVF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Illtud Daniel
In article <4s2c1p$f...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
Geoff. Lane <zza...@swirl.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Why not do a fake news bulletin each week about the major events of the
>week? "We now hand you over to Kate Adie for another report on the war in
>alt.religion.scientology..."
How about an interview with M*ke C*rley? I'm sure we'd all like
to see him on the box, and at least he'd then be right when he
says that everyone's watching him...
--
_ Illtud Daniel ida...@jesus.ox.ac.uk
X "I was born outta time" Napoleon Wilson -buy SFA- FFPGP
Tim Leighton-Boyce
In article <4s2vlo$g...@news.aladdin.co.uk>,
cybe...@interalpha.co.uk (Jeremy Smith) wrote:
>
>Net mag reviews: not bad. Maybe we could conduct a poll on our WWW
>pages and invite the best and worst editors in. Yes, why not? If we
>can put it together, it's a good item.
>
If you do, please ask them why it is that so few people writing about the
web explore the obvious example of interactivity -- using the mailtos,
forms etc to contact the people creating the sites?
Last month someone who's writing about a site I maintain mailed me to clear
up a few points, and I was astonished. It was the first time I can recall
that happening in a couple of years of working on a variety of sites (some
of which have received a fair bit of coverage).
My point is that many of these features or reviews treat the subject as if
they were dealing with something non-interactive, like a book or a record
-- or indeed a CD ROM (chosing from options, not interacting with people).
In real life many users of sites seem very happy to mail, fill in forms or
whatever; indeed I feel a lot of web users seek out such interaction with
real people.
The tradition of the detached impartial reviewer has lots going for it, but
it ignores one of the distinguishing aspects of this medium. And I have a
vague feeling that this is also another of the reasons why Usenet seems to
get less coverage than the Web.
Tim
----
tim...@c21pub.demon.co.uk +44 (0)171 377 6294
The Knowhere Guide -- a user's guide to Britain fax +44 (0)171 377 6297
http://www.state51.co.uk/knowhere/
Scott Thomas
>Hello there. I think the points above could do with being answered,
>and since I work on the show I thought I'd answer them.
>
>Nude celebrities. A controversial challenge. Two points: The show is
>trying to appeal to both net-people and non-users. We didn't suggest
>as part of the item that the presence of this material on the Web
>makes the Net a bad thing.
way to do it? When I told people I was thinking of going on-line my
non-internet friends immediately accused me of doing it to see free
porn! That seems to be the first thing non-internet people thing of. I
also think it is one of the reasons relatively few women seem to be on-
line in the uk. Instead of informing people about the internet you are
just confirming people's existing prejudices.
>A review of internet providers - brilliant idea. One that we've all
>come up with during production meetings. Sadly, since we film all the
>shows a long time before transmission, all the information would be
>out of date when it went out. It's a practical point forced on us by
>the budget.
services and internet providers and give some examples of each. Provide
a factsheet or a teletext page with up to date info. Save money on
getting rid of the moronic "Best and Worst" of the WWW. WWW pages can
disappear or move but this doesn't stop you giving out the addresses!
>Why no coverage of Usenet? Firstly as someone has already pointed out
>in this thread, ASCII makes dreadful television. Secondly, we *are*
>covering Usenet where we can. For example, keep watching for a man who
>found support in a newsgroup when he was diagnosed with a terminal
>disease.
what were his favourite newsgroups were, he didn't even know what Usenet
was!! I suspect this is the true reason it is missing! :P Seriously
what's wrong with someone just explaining what it is and how it works?
Why do we screenshots all the time?
Two other possible topics. Firstly, a brief explanation of smilies. You
use them throughout the programme but still no explanation of what they
are or what they mean!
Secondly, "Great Flame Wars I started!". Surely this is one of the most
fun things to do on the internet! My best was when I e-mailed the guy
who was cross-posting an advert for a "Virtual Glastonbury". I tracked
down all of his posts and followed them up with the legend
"All hippies must die!". I never knew hippies could sound so violent!
--
Scott Thomas
Paul L. Allen
In article <4s2vlo$g...@news.aladdin.co.uk>
cybe...@interalpha.co.uk (Jeremy Smith) writes:
> A Stoat <3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> +Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second
> when
> +downloading web pages etc.?
>
> We do, believe me, it's just we edit it out otherwise the show would
> last h-o-u-r-s.
Yes, but it's doing those who aren't on the net no favours. So why not
parody cooking programs - show it starting off slowly and then say
`Here's one we downloaded earlier'? That way people don't get any false
illiusions about speed.
> +Hate the bw camera bits.
>
> Yes, well, that's a matter of opinion. I quite like them, and they
> make editing a lot easier. :-)
I'd love to comment, but I'm in STV-land where they've decided not to bother
showing it. A perusal of RT leads me to believe that STV's early-morning
slot is filled with crap, crap and more crap, all of it cheap filler, so
I dunno why they turned your show down - it's cheap, so maybe it's not crap
enough...
--Paul
Paul Copsey
Tim Leighton-Boyce (tim...@c21pub.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: If you do, please ask them why it is that so few people writing about the
: web explore the obvious example of interactivity -- using the mailtos,
: forms etc to contact the people creating the sites?
:
: Last month someone who's writing about a site I maintain mailed me to clear
: up a few points, and I was astonished. It was the first time I can recall
: that happening in a couple of years of working on a variety of sites (some
: of which have received a fair bit of coverage).
Quite. I've seen a site that I host get a mention in .net, with
absolutely no attempt made to contact either of us. I know they print a
lot of sites, but I'd never have known if the guy who wrote the pages
hadn't told me it was in there.
(Aimed more at Jeremy) Also, ask them why they are so happy to pan
some sites, well put together, with lots of content, praise some
which are quite frankly just "knuckle shufflers" and then whinge about
porn on the net? Making fun of readers (ex now in my case) is not the
way to hold onto them, ignoring emails asking why they got the site
address wrong (admittledly on a technicality, but you'd expect them to
do better) and why they do this sort of thing is even worse.
Paul (Who knows the .net mob do lurk around, and would love to see
a response)
Jeremy Smith
Guybarry wrote:
>
> In article <837020...@warman.demon.co.uk>, Anna Warman
> <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >
> >In article <4s0980$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> guyb...@aol.com "Guybarry"
> >writes:
> >
> >> AN...@warman.demon.co.uk (Anna Warman) writes:
> >>
> >> >An explanation of usenet, with film of a monitor full of text would
> >> >probably be pretty boring - I've tried to explain it at work and I can
> >> >see people's eyes glaze over! (It's the way I tell 'em!).
> >>
> >> Why not get actors to read out the parts of the various posters? It
> could
> >> open up a whole new dimension to flame wars.
We thought of this, and you're right it would make the whole thing
watchable, but it's not possible within the budget and time restraints
under which we film these shows. It's a push to get the presenter and
interviewee to finish talking in time for the next person - add a load of
actors and who knows what might happen?
Although edited out of most of the interviews so far, Dan and I sometimes
sit in on the interviews and give a round-up of messages in relevant newsgroups.
All the best,
Jeremy Smith
Associate producer
--
Jeremy Smith
Illtud Daniel wrote:
>
> In article <4s2c1p$f...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
> Geoff. Lane <zza...@swirl.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Why not do a fake news bulletin each week about the major events of the
> >week? "We now hand you over to Kate Adie for another report on the war in
> >alt.religion.scientology..."
>
> How about an interview with M*ke C*rley? I'm sure we'd all like
> to see him on the box, and at least he'd then be right when he
> says that everyone's watching him...
I did actually approach him, and his reply was very strange.
Jeremy Smith
Peter Ceresole
In article <31E7AE...@interalpha.co.uk>,
Jeremy Smith <cybe...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>I did actually approach him, and his reply was very strange.
Okay. Did you get the impression that he was:
a) A real person, but mad.
b) A real person, running a huge troll.
c) A psychology department at a Canadian university having some fun.
d) The first almost but not quite successful Turing machine?
All are possible. a) and c) seem to me the most likely. I'd love to have
your impressions.
--
Peter
Lance S. Buckley
In article <hRM+$KAjgk...@murmur.demon.co.uk>
sc...@murmur.demon.co.uk "Scott Thomas" writes:
] >Nude celebrities.
[Context? Wossat?]
You can tell Nikki I'm disappointed in her. Not once did she
mention my contribution to her career. How soon they forget.
Lance.
Matthew Jones
> In article <4s2vlo$g...@news.aladdin.co.uk>
> cybe...@interalpha.co.uk (Jeremy Smith) writes:
>
> > A Stoat <3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > +Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second
> > when
> > +downloading web pages etc.?
> >
> > We do, believe me, it's just we edit it out otherwise the show would
> > last h-o-u-r-s.
>
> Yes, but it's doing those who aren't on the net no favours. So why not
> parody cooking programs - show it starting off slowly and then say
> `Here's one we downloaded earlier'? That way people don't get any false
> illiusions about speed.
Or how about having a speeded up clock in the corner of the screen showing
how fast it really takes to download a page. That way people know whats
what without slowing up the program.
I also have to add my name to the list of people who hate the black and
white shots especially the ones including the cameramen. In the last show
you even saw the cameraman getting up on a box for the next shot which
distracted from the actual interview.
Also, lose the shots of the guys in dressing gowns with big feet. The
point of that slot is to show good and bad web sites so it would be better
to have more shots of the actual sites with just those blokes doing
voiceovers.
Other than that its not bad. The thing about spammers and flamers is the
sort of thing you need more of although that segment wasnt as good as it
might have been. Overall I give it high marks for content but low marks
for presentation. A bit like the Channel 4 web site but thats a whole
different flame war.
/-------------------------+------------+--------------\
| Matthew Jones | Dex on | The Truth Is |
| mat...@mcb.net | IRC | Out There |
\-------------------------+------------+--------------/
Guybarry
In article <bQdGj...@sktb.demon.co.uk>, "Paul L. Allen"
<p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I'd love to comment, but I'm in STV-land where they've decided not to
bother
>showing it. A perusal of RT leads me to believe that STV's early-morning
>slot is filled with crap, crap and more crap, all of it cheap filler, so
>I dunno why they turned your show down - it's cheap, so maybe it's not
crap
>enough...
Oh my God! STV are censoring Cyber Cafe! Quick, start a campaign...
Guy Barry
Guybarry
In article <31E7AC...@interalpha.co.uk>, Jeremy Smith
<cybe...@interalpha.co.uk> writes:
>We thought of this, and you're right it would make the whole thing
>watchable, but it's not possible within the budget and time restraints
>under which we film these shows. It's a push to get the presenter and
>interviewee to finish talking in time for the next person - add a load of
>actors and who knows what might happen?
Eh? Don't you edit the programme?
Guy Barry
Peter Ceresole
>I work on this show, and I thought I'd answer your points here.
I've finally caught up with numbers 1 and 3.
For what it's worth, I like it. I do have niggles, but making no allowances
for the budget or anything like that, I still think that there is good
stuff, and I watched them through without wanting to fast forward.
Okay, I think that in the first programme you sometimes chopped up the
interviews in such a way that I lost the thread- the digressions were too
long. But that seemed better in programme 3. And you have got in some good
characters. I thought the discipline lady was particularly good value. A
wonderfully English madam, and she was was quite someone in her own right.
A real character, very sexy. Can't fail.
And the sleazeball spammer was a gem. Kantor and Siegel he ain't, but I
loved the way he was up-front. Isn't it wonderful what people will do for a
moment on air? Just as well, otherwise we'd never be able to make TV
programmes at all.
Your presenter, however, is going like a rattlesnake on re-heat. Far too
frenetic; it doesn't make for pace, just for chaos. For God's sake lay him
back a bit. By programme 3 he was also clomping all over Anna Damski which
is very unprofessional and makes the show look stupid. She's saying what
she has to say perfectly well and she's projecting plenty. She ought to be
given more than two seconds without interruption, and he shouldn't be
shutting up another presenter on the show. Either the slot is worth doing
or it isn't. It looks okay to me, so let it happen.
As for the monochrome camera shots...
>Yes, well, that's a matter of opinion. I quite like them, and they
>make editing a lot easier. :-)
Looking at it, I don't think they work. Before I saw the show, and from
what you'd said, I imagined that they would be different from the other
shots, sufficiently different to allow you to make a thought break. In that
case they would be useful for editing. But in practice the editing looks
absolutely straightforward to me. Any two-camera interview shoot in that
style finishes up looking like that. The mono shots are identical to the
others; just in mono. Maybe they're slightly more mobile, but in practice
the 'NY PD Blue' shooting style flattens the contrast between the shots.
It's all shaky-crawly (which can be fine). The thought breaks are supplied
by graphics and smileys. If the mono shots were used much more sparingly,
then they might work. As it is, it appears that you couldn't afford two
colour capable cameras, and shot it straight anyway. It looks like you
either have a director who's not in contact with the cameras, so he picks
them up at strange moments, or you record two clean feeds and cut them
together later (my belief- is that right?) From the shots I've seen, I
think you'd gain by having them both in colour, and save the mono shots for
big transitions and thought changes. At the moment, they look like an
accident. But it's your show. Your mileage clearly varies...
Having said all that, I repeat that I enjoyed the two progs I have seen,
and the interviews were well worth it. On the budget, you've done bloody
well- but do try to get your presenter under control.
O yeah- what happened to the Damski credit on prog 3? Inquiring minds want
to know...
--
Peter
Anna Warman
> <cybe...@interalpha.co.uk> writes:
>
> >We thought of this, and you're right it would make the whole thing
> >watchable, but it's not possible within the budget and time restraints
> >under which we film these shows. It's a push to get the presenter and
> >interviewee to finish talking in time for the next person - add a load of
> >actors and who knows what might happen?
>
> Eh? Don't you edit the programme?
Remember, *three* programmes are filmed each day. Each part of each
programme is allotted a time. The more complex the item, the longer it
takes to film. While expenses are paid to everyone who appears on the
programme, paying actors their fees would start to get very expensive.
ANNA, who's would like to apologise if this has already been answered,
but Demon aren't sending her all the posts to all the newsgroups she
subscribes to. :(
Illtud Daniel
In article <AE0DA247...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <31E7AE...@interalpha.co.uk>,
>Jeremy Smith <cybe...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>I did actually approach him, and his reply was very strange.
>
>Okay. Did you get the impression that he was:
>
>a) A real person, but mad.
>b) A real person, running a huge troll.
>c) A psychology department at a Canadian university having some fun.
>d) The first almost but not quite successful Turing machine?
>
>All are possible. a) and c) seem to me the most likely. I'd love to have
>your impressions.
Oh, Mike is definately a). He's not good enough to be a d), b) & c) are
conceivable but the campaign he's waging just isn't funny or interesting
enough for it to be people out for a laugh.
No, Mike is a loon, but a likeable one when he has his lapses of
clear-mindedness and non-velveetizing.
Scott Thomas
I suppose you got Nicki the Cyberslut on too make the nude celebrities
intellectual! Personally the last three grand National winners have
been better looking!!!!!!!!!! Flame Wars Rule!!!!!!!!
Go on Nicki reply if you dare!!!!!!!!!!1 :)))
--
Scott Thomas
Anna Warman
In article <JmfbTVAx5X6xEw$w...@dynamo.demon.co.uk>
dyn...@dynamite.co.uk "Dominic Ramsey" writes:
> Sylvia Wrigley <syl...@intrigue.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You can >show< someone a web page, and they can grasp it on some level
> >at first glance. They are colourful, and they make sense,
>
> ...some more so than others... :)
After a job, Dom?
ANNA
Dominic Ramsey
Anna Warman <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>After a job, Dom?
Well, if you insist... but what would David say? :)
Sean Lewis
Like the brightest bright thing from bright-land "Paul L. Allen"
<p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <matthew-1307...@mattsmac.mcb.net>
> mat...@mcb.net (Matthew Jones) writes:
>> In article <bQdGj...@sktb.demon.co.uk>, p...@sktb.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > In article <4s2vlo$g...@news.aladdin.co.uk>
>> > cybe...@interalpha.co.uk (Jeremy Smith) writes:
>> >
>> > > A Stoat <3sow...@alanhe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +Why does no-one in these programmes experience 150 bytes per second
>> > > when
>> > > +downloading web pages etc.?
>> > >
>> > > We do, believe me, it's just we edit it out otherwise the show would
>> > > last h-o-u-r-s.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it's doing those who aren't on the net no favours. So why not
>> > parody cooking programs - show it starting off slowly and then say
>> > `Here's one we downloaded earlier'? That way people don't get any false
>> > illiusions about speed.
>>
>> Or how about having a speeded up clock in the corner of the screen showing
>> how fast it really takes to download a page. That way people know whats
>> what without slowing up the program.
>Or, better still, take a leaf from Horizon, when they went down-market and
>yoofy in order to capture a bigger (but stupider) US audience, and use fast
>frame? I hated this when Horizon did it - they switched from using
>semi-intelligent filler (or at least shots of lab equipment which gave us
>some idea of the working environment of scientists) to fast frames of said
>scientists driving across town - absolutely irrelevant drivel, and
>annoyingly so. In fact, the combination of that program, and another one in
>the same series when they had the fullerene people introducing themselves in
>a round so you couldn't tell what any of them were actually saying caused me
>to stop watching Horizon - it was either that or put a hammer through the
>TV in annoyance at a good program being ruined in order to increase the
>ratings at the expense of content.
>But, in this case, it seems to me that fast framing a web download, with
>the user in shot so we see him tapping his fingers at frenetic pace, going
>off to make coffee, reading a book, mowing the lawn etc., would be germane
>and give a true impression of just how slow the web is.
>--Paul
Just Hire News Bunny and the playschool clock!
Sean.
--
Happiness is September when the Kids go back to school,
And they aren't even my Kids!
Paul L. Allen
Dominic Ramsey
Sean Lewis <sean....@hiway.co.uk> wrote:
>Just Hire News Bunny and the playschool clock!
Too expensive I think. Anna would have to wear the bunny suit...
Jeremy Smith
Dominic Ramsey <dyn...@dynamite.co.uk> wrote:
+Sean Lewis <sean....@hiway.co.uk> wrote:
+>Just Hire News Bunny and the playschool clock!
+Too expensive I think. Anna would have to wear the bunny suit...
Now there's an idea.... And it's a good one!
Jeremy
Jeremy Smith
Dom Ramsey
Jeremy Smith <cybe...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>Dominic Ramsey <dyn...@dynamite.co.uk> wrote:
>
>+Sean Lewis <sean....@hiway.co.uk> wrote:
>
>+>Just Hire News Bunny and the playschool clock!
>
>+Too expensive I think. Anna would have to wear the bunny suit...
>
>Now there's an idea.... And it's a good one!
I thought so. :)
I have some ideas for what Wingham could wear if you're interested...
Eva Pascoe
Oh dear
Is it really that difficult to make an intelligent program about the Net?
Or are the program makers
so stretched by the meager budget that the poor souls simply have no space
left for a little more
imaginative approach that does not insult an average citizen?
I am prepared to fund a decent program and sponsor anybody who comes up
with a Good Idea -
no more boooring TV magazines pleease...
Have a mercy and send us scripts
Eva
Ian Collier
In article <4s597q$s...@news.ox.ac.uk>, ida...@jesus.ox.ac.uk (Illtud Daniel) wrote:
>How about an interview with M*ke C*rley? I'm sure we'd all like
>to see him on the box, and at least he'd then be right when he
>says that everyone's watching him...
I thought that just after I saw the introduction to programme 3 (?) which said
something about telling your weird/unbelievable experiences to the net. :-)
Or if he doesn't want to appear (even anonymously), how about a brief summary
of the Corley Story by someone else?
D'you know he even has a web site with frames and graphics now? He has too
much time on his hands... [Surely a candidate for best/worst of the net if
nothing else. :-) ]
Ian Collier - i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk - WWW Home Page:
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/ian.collier/index.html
Ian Collier
In article <837374...@warman.demon.co.uk>, an...@warman.demon.co.uk wrote:
>Remember, *three* programmes are filmed each day. Each part of each
>programme is allotted a time. The more complex the item, the longer it
>takes to film. While expenses are paid to everyone who appears on the
>programme, paying actors their fees would start to get very expensive.
You could probably get away with just travel expenses if you invited the
actual participants to read their postings instead of actors (you'd have
to make sure they can speak coherently first, I suppose).
Eva Pascoe
Anna
thanks for your 'helpful' remarks. However, nothing changes the fact that
the program appears
to follow a format developed for last year Channel 1 series filmed from
Cyberia. For the future it could be more interesting to try to develop
perhaps a more original approach.Repeating a previously tested format
served only one purpose i.e limiting intellectual efforts of the production
team. Small budget should not be an excuse for a small mind.
Anna Warman <AN...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<836432...@warman.demon.co.uk>...
> OK. I've stayed out of the fray so far, but here are a few of my views -
> and I'm *not* speaking on behalf of the programme-makers
Jeremy Smith
guyb...@aol.com (Guybarry) wrote:
+In article <31E7AC...@interalpha.co.uk>, Jeremy Smith
+<cybe...@interalpha.co.uk> writes:
+>We thought of this, and you're right it would make the whole thing
+>watchable, but it's not possible within the budget and time
restraints
+>under which we film these shows. It's a push to get the presenter
and
+>interviewee to finish talking in time for the next person - add a
load of
+>actors and who knows what might happen?
+Eh? Don't you edit the programme?
Yes we do. It's the filming, not the editing, that would be affected
by having actors. We have to film an *entire episode* (except the Best
and Worst bits) in two and a half hours - including time for technical
problems, guests arriving late, repositioning cameras, putting on
radio mikes, everything.
The only way to make actors work would be to film their bits
seperately, which would mean extra filming days, which we don't have
the money for. :-(
Jeremy Smith
A.P.
Adewale Oshineye
somebody wrote:
>
> I wonder what has happened to Meridian TV's Web Site ?
>
> http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk seems to lead to the BBC !
Either Meridian have decide to advertise the BBC, out of the goodness of
their hearts or someone's playing about with client pull/server push or
maybe a crack team of Birt's Berets have infiltrated Meridian and
subverted their Website.
--
Adewale Oshineye
The sooner you fall behind,
the more time you have to catch up.
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~websoc/ta5330
Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats
Andrew Wong (ach...@pobox.com) wrote:
: Your Honour, on Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:33:07 GMT, cybe...@interalpha.co.uk
: (Jeremy Smith) alleged:
: >Net mag reviews: not bad. Maybe we could conduct a poll on our WWW
: >pages and invite the best and worst editors in. Yes, why not? If we
: >can put it together, it's a good item.
: Hands up who thinks .net is written by arts graduates who sneer at anything
: which smacks of untrendiness...
Why do I get the feeling you applied for a job there and they turned you
down Andrew?
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Bradford Bulls RLFC | Rugby League Home Page: |
| Wembley Finalists 1996 | http://www.brad.ac.uk/~cgrussel/ |
| British Beef - You won't | Full club-by-club guide to the 1996 |
| get better! | European Super League season |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Andrew Wong
>Other countries' net culture: good idea. I'll add it to the pile.
>Probably have to be France since we don't have a load of money for
>travel expenses and posh hotels.
You could always do what ITN did once - set up some kind of mini-Cam
thing with another University, or get some kid with a camera to go around
San Francisco asking real Californians if they've ever used the Net or not.
They'll do anything for their 10 seconds of fame :-)
>Net mag reviews: not bad. Maybe we could conduct a poll on our WWW
>pages and invite the best and worst editors in. Yes, why not? If we
>can put it together, it's a good item.
Hands up who thinks .net is written by arts graduates who sneer at anything
which smacks of untrendiness...
Andrew Wong \ "Gissa job!"
-----x----- \
E-mail: ach...@pobox.com \ Yosser, Boys from the
WWW: http://pobox.com/~achwong/index.html \ Blackstuff (1984)
Pager: 01426 686 486 (between 10am and 7pm) \
somebody
Dominic Ramsey
somebody <any...@still.awake> wrote:
Interesting name. You're not hiding anything are you?
>I wonder what has happened to Meridian TV's Web Site ?
Apparently Interalpha was hacked.
>http://www.meridian.tv.co.uk seems to lead to the BBC !
Gave me heart failure when I discovered that. I've fixed it for now, but
I'm sure some kind soul will be along shortly to attack it again.
[alt.ph.uk removed from newsgroups]
Sam
any...@still.awake (somebody) wrote:
>I wonder what has happened to Meridian TV's Web Site ?
It's meridiantv as one word, IIRC. What happened to yorkshiretv
though?
And that program needs to think about what it wants to be, and who
it's audience is.