What Is The World Coming To?

Can all the idiots out in the world who believe this propaganda shit that has been printed in the world's press, give your heads a shake and wake up! Not since the Nazis launched their terrorist attacks on Poland have I known so much racial hatred echoing around the world. I've sat back over this past year, reading the racial hatred that's been printed in the press to get everyone to pretty much hate and not trust anyone since 9/11. 

Most acts of terrorism has spawned from the propaganda they've either been told or read in papers and from our Governments interfering in their countries politics. So these individuals have gone a bloody rampage, killing those who don't share their views. But Governments are far from innocent in all this, as they've provoked the propaganda by censoring the truth that's out there. North Korea - Hello! Hell, even the Chinese have started with all this freedom of speech shit! I know a few Chinese people, who have visited this country and they're great, friendly people, who have had their eyes opened to the lies their Government have told them to believe is true. The same goes for the Muslim people, who, thanks to the bullshit you read in the papers to stir paranoia and racial hatred, are living in fear because of what people think of them thanks to terrorists, who are going against all their beliefs and killing people in their campaign to rid the world of non-followers of Islam. 

You've all probably seen images like those to the right, which shows hatred towards those who slander the Islamic faith. But what the press don't show you, are the true followers of Islam, protesting against people like this. Beheading, extermination and threats of a 'real holocaust' are not the views of Islam. In fact, Islam shares the same views of all true religions, in that they want peace and love for all mankind. Hundreds of Muslims proved this by marching in London earlier this month, showing their disgust at how terrorists are tainting their beloved religion. However, many of us didn't see this, as the media decided not to show it, proving that they rather you see propaganda hatred for this race, to help the Government's support to bomb Syria and other countries where these terrorists live. 

Copyright - Mirror Online

I'm sickened to see many being turned against those they truly don't know, thanks to Government lies and censorship in the media. Many people in the middle-east are brought up hating the west, and you know what? I don't blame them after what our Governments have done. Not the people of the west, but the Governments. Tony Blair and George W. Bush made us believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, telling us they were a major threat to the west and we needed to reign a war on terror. We were fed so much bullshit about this campaign, that both Governments believed they had the backing of their people and went on a bombing campaign, that killed thousands of innocent people. So, after years of bombing Iraq, did they find weapons of mass destruction? No. What we later found out, was that our Governments didn't like the attitude of Saddam Hussain and took him out of power. Yes, he wasn't the great leader that his people were made to believe, he did do questionable things which is frowned upon by many, but did we have a right to step in and take control? No. The same could be said against the uprising in Libya. 

Another reason why we went into these countries was oil. Its probably the main reason why the western Governments show so much interest in the middle-east as they don't want oil supplies to be disturbed, as if something happens, then millions of dollars would be lost. It also shows why nothing has been done about other countries leaders like in North Korea and Africa. The people of those countries are suffering because of their leaders selfishness and greed, but nothing is done because there is nothing of interest for our Governments to protect. 

So what has come of this reign on terror? Well, terrorism of course. All its done is create more hatred for the western world, so more groups have got together, established more terrorist cells and now, because of their tight laws being extinguished thanks to our meddling into how their countries are run. These idiots are now running amok killing those who don't believe in their cult ways and the only one's to blame for this uprising are our Governments. Job well done folks.

Photo: SWNS

Thanks to what happened in Paris in November this year, paranoia over the Muslim population is though the roof. On the 15th of December, Mohammad Tariq Mahmood and his family were refused authorisation to travel to the U.S., on a family trip to Disneyland, by officials from Homeland Security, who didn't tell them why they couldn't travel. Was it because they were Muslim, Homeland? Yeah probably, and its stories like this that pisses me off, which sees innocent people like Mr Mahmood and his family become victims of racial propaganda and paranoia, thanks to terrorism. 

So instead of giving these terrorists the publicity and fuelling racial hatred, which is what they want, because it just supports their bullshit more about how the west hates Islam. Show the people and believers of Islam that we, the people are not supporting the views of the few. That we can live in peace and as one, as it states in the bible and the Quran.

Peace :) 

Is Online Television The Way Forward?

Since the launch of television in the 1930's, broadcasting has come a long way in the past eighty years. From the UK going from four channels (BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV and Channel 4) in the eighties, to now having over a hundred channels available via satellite, cable and with over seventy channels on standard digital television. But what does the future hold for television as we know it? Well with internet speeds going from a crappy 28k dial-up to over 50mb broadband, we're seeing more online streaming services surfacing such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, which are beginning to dominate our television screens. Even Sky have jumped on the online bandwagon by launching Now TV, offering a handful of its entertainment channels such as Sky 1 and Fox, along with their movie and sports channels as a cheaper alternative to cable and satellite, which you receive by buying a rebranded Roku box for £9.99, or via their Now TV app available on Smart TV's, Pads and now mobile phones. With various alternatives to watch online TV and on-demand services being readily and cheaply available, could this spell the end for television as we know it?

Picture: BBC

Last year, the BBC announced that it was to close BBC Three and make it available online only due to cutting financial costs. This caused a bit of a stir amongst its loyal viewers, especially as this has grown to be a popular channel since its launch in 2003. However, since its announcement, they've been unable to secure the rights to shows such as Family Guy and American Dad, because of security issues with the BBC iPlayer, therefore the BBC had to move most of its popular programmes to their other channels BBC 1 and 2, losing some of its popular US imports like Family Guy to ITV. 

So what are the benefits of online broadcasting? Well, it can be a cheap alternative I suppose. There's no expensive broadcasting equipment required other than a decent streaming server and a reliable broadband connection. There's also alternative apps available which allow you to watch HD quality channels from the US and around the world without the need of satellite equipment being installed. Another benefit, especially to UK audiences is that on-demand television allows you to watch what you want, when you want, dismissing the watershed which is imposed on UK television stations so you can't watch anything other than PG rated material before 9pm. So unless you've got Sky or Now TV, who's movie channels are no longer required to operate under the watershed regulations because they use the pin protection software on its boxes. British television can be quite limited during the day with constant edited movies and crappy daytime programming, unlike our european neighbours who can watch programmes and movies like The Deer Hunter uncut in the afternoon on free television. Yeah, television should still be monitored so you don't get propaganda and sick images on our screens, but viewers should be given the freedom to make their own decisions on what they want to watch, like they do in most european countries. However in the UK, our government and OFCOM won't allow it, and we're still being told these are the programmes you're offered and that's it until 9pm, then you can watch what you want. Which coming from an adults perspective, takes the piss really as it shows these people don't trust you in being a responsible adult, especially if you've got kids. They're excuse is that the watershed is there to protect viewers from seeing inappropriate material. Hang on, we've got the internet, which at a click of a mouse, can give you hardcore pornography, more graphic than what is allowed on UK porn channels. There's also You Tube and Live Leak, which allow its viewers, again with a simple click can access thousands of graphic content videos. Yet in the UK, you're not trusted to either turn over the channel or turn off the television if something offends you or isn't appropriate to children. The main culprit is bad language in films and programmes. The UK was quite strict with this especially after the watershed, but in the last twenty years, broadcasters have become more relaxed, where we can watch a film or television programme uncut after 9pm which can contain strong language. More recently, milder language such as 'piss' and 'arse' is now heard in daytime television, mainly in US programmes, but words such as 'shit' and 'bastard' are still censored until after 7pm on some channels, despite OFCOM actually giving the broadcasters the choice to allow PG rated mild language to be broadcast before the 9pm watershed, but they still opt not to do so. 

Picture: Wired.com

So, from all that, online television could be an advantage in that it will give viewers more freedom to watch what they want, as the technology will be there to allow all broadcasters to use a pin protection system which Sky and Virgin Media are currently using. 

But before I go in to the advantages of online television, let's first look at the disadvantages. The first being the UK needs a stable broadband connection. At present, a good percentage of the country still can't receive broadband, and unless you're willing to pay a fortune to receive broadband via a satellite or if you're lucky enough to be in a 3G/4G signal area, you're still receiving the internet via dial up speeds. For some reason, Wii-Max hasn't taken off in the UK which would really help rural areas out and give customers high broadband speeds without the need to dig up your driveway for fibre optic cables to be installed, along with a £150 bill for the work. So for the BBC to say, that they're placing one of its channels online only, and the fact some folk are still unable to subscribe or receive on-demand television because of their poor internet connection is a further kick in the teeth for them. Plus, buffering is a major issue for some in busy broadband areas, because they're not receiving the speeds they pay for because of busy networks. So what is the use watching a channel, which keeps buffering every minute or so, because your internet is struggling. Another issue would be programming content as receiving online channels from other countries is easily done, because VPN can override geo-blocking which a lot of networks use to stop people from outside the UK or US receiving subscription or exclusive channels. So unless you can guarantee the copyright holders to a film or programme that your online channel can only be received by the country its intended for, then you've got no chance of bringing quality programming to your viewers unless you're making high quality material yourself. Finally, you can't record from online television unless you buy the expensive kit that will allow you to do so. But if you manage to pay for that, you're going back to the old VHS days, where you can only record and watch one channel. So until TiVo technology comes out for online television, or the channels place everything they show on a catch up basis, you're more likely to miss your favourite show. Finally, could online television lead to more people watching on-demand television over live television? Its possible as a good percentage of UK viewers are watching a lot of on-demand television these days. So unless broadcasters look at how on-demand television can keep them going financially, live TV could become a thing of the past as I've said previously in this thread, people would rather watch what they want, when they want. 

Picture: VHS Recorder from 1982

What about the advantages then? Well I mentioned earlier that it could open the door on television schedules being improved, especially in the UK where the watershed dominates what we can watch during the day, unless you've got the Sky Movie Channels, Amazon Prime or Netflix. It could also be used to reduce piracy by opening the geo-blockade and allow US channels and their on-demand counterparts to be made available in other countries allowing for programmes such as Game of Thrones to be shown at the same time everywhere, which could possibly reduce downloads by those who are having to wait a long time to see these programmes. Okay, this could have financial implications on the production companies or networks who rely on their rights being snapped up by foreign broadcasters, but would it really be a massive dent in their finances? Well, let's say if the US version of HBO was made available to the UK, via subscription, then they would see an increase in subscribers. Also, broadcasters such as Sky Atlantic, who like to model themselves on being the UK version of HBO, would still be able to purchase the rights to programmes like Game of Thrones, as people would use them as a second chance to catch their favourite HBO programmes. This would be the same for other channels who have purchased the rights to broadcast US imports on UK television, its actually a win-win situation. Reduce piracy, gain more subscribers! It could also help shows that are lacking in viewers and could avoid them in being cancelled after one or two seasons. If a programme doesn't do well in America, then its canned. The US networks don't care about whether or not its doing great anywhere else, but again, if their channel is freely available elsewhere, this could boost the survival of a programme as it would gain more viewers. As for scheduling, this isn't a problem. Yes there's a five to seven hour time difference between the UK and US, but if recording facilities were available for online television, then this wouldn't be a problem, unless your a die-hard fan then you'll stay up and watch the damn thing.

One more advantage would be that it could open the door to provider competition. At present in the UK, you've got Sky dominating the market, with Virgin a second best for subscription channels, with Netflix closing in on them, but other than that, its Freeview or Freesat for those not wanting subscription television. However, on Freeview HD, online television has begun to surface, with several choices from the likes of VuTV offering subscription channels such as Comedy Central and Cartoon Network via broadband if you're box or Smart TV is compatible. So what's not stopping new providers bringing out their own online boxes, offering a range of channels from around the world? Unless Sky fully jump on the online bandwagon, this could be a game changer for television viewers, being offered alternative channels without the need of a satellite dish or a cable box being installed.

Summing up then, if broadcasters actually took time out at looking into the possibilities of online television and the doors that it could open, not just for them, but to advertisers, sponsors and increase their subscription revenues. Online television in my opinion is certainly the way forward.

Am I Missing The Point Here?

Picture: Fanbase.com

Jeremy Clarkson has finally gone and done it. After a bust up with his producer over food in a hotel while on location, the BBC have suspended him after numerous warnings over his past behaviour. So what am I missing here? Why are hundred of thousands people supporting his actions? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if a member of staff within any company was violent towards another member of staff, then they would be disciplined, no? So why are people supporting his actions? Now I love watching Top Gear and I don't mind Clarkson, but if he's struck a work colleague, then he needs to face up to the consequences which yeah, could be the sack. So I ask the question again. Why are public, including David Cameron, showing their support for him? If this happened to you, would you like it if you're attacker took this piss of the situation on public television? Yeah, thought as much.