nemesis's Journal

How do you squeeze in more ads into a one-hour program? Channel Ten's found a cunning way.

I came across this phenomenon when watching Burn Notice for the first time on Ten a few nights ago. Something just didn't sound right -- everyone's voice was slightly higher. I played the US source against Channel Ten to make sure I wasn't going insane.

I was right. Everything was slightly higher. This is typically caused by the source being played faster, like when you hit the "2x" button on an audio tape and hear chipmunks.

The source was indeed being played faster; gaining about 10 seconds in 5 minutes, by my estimates. That's about 1.04 times the speed of the original source -- equating to Channel Ten being able to squeeze in around two more minutes of advertising.

You can only really do this with a new show, like Burn Notice. After all, most of the Australian Audience has never seen it before, and so doesn't know what the actors' voices sound like, or what key the opening theme is in. You certainly couldn't do it with a show like The Simpsons. You've heard the opening theme thousands of times, and more than a few people will notice that it's now in C# Major, instead of C Major.

I guess I can see where Channel Ten is coming from. Content doesn't earn money. Advertisements earn money. But where do you draw the line? Playing shows at 1.5 times the speed, to squeeze in half an hour of ads?

Is this just another example of commercial television stations taking Australian viewers for granted? Will Australian consumers just give up completely on commercial television?

1 Comments »

I was watching "The Car Show" on Win this afternoon, and it dawned on me how boring it was. I watched an episode of Top Gear afterwards to compare.

I reckon there's three key elements:

• The presenters
• The music
• The Camera work

The presenter on "The car show" just don't have interesting voices. It feels like they're trying, but they're just not genuinely interesting. Maybe its because what they're saying isn't interesting...

They seemed more concerned with not pissing off the car manufacturer than giving the car a proper review. For example, in this episode, he was reviewing a "Sports" Toyota Hilux. The one problem he could find with it was a "whine". Which magically went away after 5 kms.

Secondly is the music. Your average Top Gear episode has around thirty tracks. And these are fully licensed tracks, that you've quite possibly heard before. "The car show" on the other hand, uses the same generic Australian music you hear on the "Ten HD Demonstration", or those cheap ads who don't want to pay huge music licensing fees. The soundtrack adds a lot to the feeling and professionalism of a film, and for this show, it's a deal breaker.

Another thing that adds to the professionalism is the camera work. Top gear's feels polished. From the way the cars are filmed driving, to the filters they use for the still shots. "The car show" on the other hand feels like they just pinched the cameraman off "Getaway" and told him to take some films of cars. Different audience, and different techniques need to be used.

It'll be interesting to see how Top Gear Australia turns out. Will SBS go all out and spend some money on music and getting a decent camera man? I wonder who they've selected to present the show...

1 Comments »

Jeff Atwood recently wrote an entry about the Fake User Interface (FUI), and how spammers use it to install spyware on unsuspecting user's PCs.

Trawling through the comments, you get various suggestions as to how to combat the problem. But they won't work. Things like disabling javascript, banning javascript alert(), having a random window chrome, even educating users about spyware; all of them are doomed to failure, because of the two invariants:

• Spammers will always innovate, and
• Users will do whatever is necessary to continue doing whatever they originally were doing.

Going off Jeff's original example: if a user is searching for information on lilies, and is presented with a warning page saying they have a virus, generally, they will download the program and run it, with the expectation they can eventually get back to their lilies.

The problem is that we expect the general user to manage their own PC, when in reality, they have no idea what they're doing. We don't expect everyone to be able to service their own car, so why do we expect everyone to be able to service their own PC?

The solution then is obvious -- and it's what corporations have been doing for a decade now: a managed PC solution.

You deliver the user a strictly locked down PC. No installing applications -- perhaps, even no running of applications not on a whitelist. They can download MP3s and videos fine, but that stray executable they download is effectively neutered. The important thing here is the user does not have administrator access to their PC. They don't even know the password. Want to install an application? File a support request.

I already do this for my dad; and his PCs generally run stably, virus- and spyware-free for years on end. And there's not even a virus scanner installed! Compare this to my sister's computer (where she has admin), and you see the stark contrast. Her PCs generally last 6-8 months before they contract something.

2 Comments »

So, you paid your $500-or-so to the union every year, expecting that they'll stand up for you, your working conditions, and your fellow union members, right?

Hate to break it to you, but all your hard-earned dollars are going towards is funding union propaganda.

The ACCC's certified agreement is due to expire at the end of November; and under the new workplace relations laws, is required to hold a ballot to decide whether employees wanted a union-negotiated agreement, or an employee-collective agreement. The union (the CPSU) lost, badly (313 to 151).

Now, an employee-collective agreement doesn't mean that the CPSU is cut out of the picture altogether. Quite the contrary. The CPSU were invited to attend every meeting that the nominated employees would have with management (the "Workplace Relations Consultative Committee", or WRCC). After all, there are a number of union members at the ACCC, and they deserved to be represented by the organisation they had paid to be a member of.

Licking their wounds, the CPSU crawled back into their cave, formally advising that the CPSU would not be attending any future meetings, would not provide any supporting material, would not be providing any assistance to the WRCC, and would not be providing any materials to union members.

Are you a union member? You really are throwing your money away. Your union won't even stand up for you during salary and conditions negotiations.

0 Comments »