Why do you assume teams of writers do not work on non-American shows? For Kudos, the company which actually produces Spooks, the programme has been arguably their main product with scores of writers over nearly a decade. Here is a story (scroll about half way down) talking about the writing team, which has included several distinguished playwrights and novelists.
And you did not try to point out "the false claim that US shows offer no quality or standards", you specifically stated that British shows could not match American ones for quality in your original post.
If the assertion that US shows have higher budget is true then unless there is a significant gap in creative talent then it would follow that there will be genres where British shows could not match American ones for quality.
For example, the BBC could not afford to produce Rome alone once HBO dropped out. BBC contributed $15M where HBO spent $85M. The converse is not true. HBO could have continued with Rome (alone or in partnership) if they felt it was worth it. Therefore BBC or Sky could never produce a show with the same quality as The Pacific or Band of Brothers or Rome alone because the price tag is just too high at $150M for the Pacific and $125M for Band of Brothers. While Sky (and Seven) is involved with the Pacific it's still a US television show.
FX, music score, scales of the production (casts of thousands), costuming, period sets etc all enhance quality and require budget. While there are certainly genres where this matters far less and there british TV can match or exceed US TV there are simply genres where this is not true.
If the assertion that US shows have higher budget is true then unless there is a significant gap in creative talent then it would follow that there will be genres where British shows could not match American ones for quality.
Sounds as though you equate quality with budget. I can't argue that Band of Brothers (and The Pacific) weren't outstanding shows with budgets that allowed for immersive realism. That's not to say, however, that there aren't some outstanding low-budget programs out there. A few of us have already talked about Spooks/MI-5 which is clearly run on a much lower budget than a show such as 24. While I loved 24, I think Spooks beat it in terms of tension and drama, particularly with the first four seasons, even though there were certainly episodes that could've been enhanced with some better special effects...
If the assertion that US shows have higher budget is true then unless there is a significant gap in creative talent then it would follow that there will be genres where British shows could not match American ones for quality.
For example, the BBC could not afford to produce Rome alone once HBO dropped out. BBC contributed $15M where HBO spent $85M. The converse is not true. HBO could have continued with Rome (alone or in partnership) if they felt it was worth it. Therefore BBC or Sky could never produce a show with the same quality as The Pacific or Band of Brothers or Rome alone because the price tag is just too high at $150M for the Pacific and $125M for Band of Brothers. While Sky (and Seven) is involved with the Pacific it's still a US television show.
FX, music score, scales of the production (casts of thousands), costuming, period sets etc all enhance quality and require budget. While there are certainly genres where this matters far less and there british TV can match or exceed US TV there are simply genres where this is not true.
British actors do 'quality' in UK and come to america to do 'money'. no complaints here other than america seems to have given up on acting and gone with 'look good and read the rotten script'
I have an undergrad in math, a Master's in nuclear engineering, and a second Master's in management. I am a very critical thinker, and upon an independent review of the available data, have concluded there are significant anomalies for which current theories do not account. Ignoring these anomalies, as most in the media do, is extremely detrimental to developing an understanding of macro-climate trends. In other words, by so vehemently defending a "consensus" theory, the pursuit of understanding actual climate catalysts and causal trends is retarded ultimately extending the ignorance on the matter. It's understandable - those who depend on funding by proving a particular theory, will likely avoid evidence that refutes the theory. It's odd to me that conclusions from a smoking study funded by tobacco companies are usually ignored, but the same standard has largely not been applied to climate change.
The BBC supports climate change as "settled science," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion, but please don't be so presumptuous in your assessment of my thought patterns. There is no "far right" in true science.
A little off-topic Computer Science undergrad talk here: congratulations on achieving all those qualifications! Unfortunately, you didn't see the fatal flaw. Here's your qualifications in the order given:
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
Management (Masters)
The problem comes when we attempt to search the list for something to do with climate - the field in which you have identified flaws. Let's attempt to do this via a binary search. First we sort the items into alphabetical order.
Management (Masters)
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
We pick the middle item, and deduce that "Climatology" is likely to be lower in the list that "Mathematics (Undergraduate)", so the upper part of the list (including Mathematics) is eliminated. Let's look at the list now:
Management (Masters)
We now pick the middle item again - easy, only one item - and we see that "Climatology" is again, likely to be ranked lower. In keeping with the previous, we'll eliminate this middle item and all items higher. What are we left with?
[Empty list]
Hmmm, based on my precursory analysis, it seems that "Climatology" is not in the list.
I don't doubt that you're a very smart guy, but unfortunately it seems you're completely wasted in the fields of Mathematics, Nuclear Engineering and Management. If the flaws you've identified are as serious as suggested, then there are few individuals at the my university who'd love to hear from you (pm me for details). On submission of the flaws that you've identified, they may decide that you're so brilliant (as is evidently the case) that they decide to hand you a PhD straight away.
I'm certainly not advocating settled science as I agree science by definition is about hypotheses and moving targets as knowledge is gained. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists not aligned with fossil fuel interests that man is involved in CO2 level increases and the climate related cascading effects from that and he has been since the industrial revolution.
In the early days the studies on smoking funded by the tobacco companies did as I remember help convince generations of smokers that there was no link to cancer. The same scenario of denial seems to be true today. The scientists funded to conclude there is no connection to climate change by fossil fuel based companies sadly seem to have a disproportionate sway with the US general public than independent scientific thought. That view point is reinforced by the right and Fox news as you are no doubt aware. I apologize if I incorrectly lumped you into that category.
There are well respected scientists who question (1) the significance of man's contribution to global CO2 concentrations, and (2) the significance of CO2's contribution to warming or cooling. This is particularly true because the "consensus" theories fall apart when attempting to apply them to mid and upper atmosphere concentrations and temperatures. A bit simplistic, but illustrative of the fallacy of the consensus. Reputable scientists will not ignore data that doesn't support their theory.
I don't deny there is significant validity in the theory that the presence of certain gases can result in higher temperatures. Other gases can have the opposite effect. But the theory cannot be selectively applied to near earth concentrations and in certain areas of the world and denied elsewhere. So the denial you refer to is in mind to deny or ignore evidence counter to that theory.
Overwhelming consensus is a redundant phrase that serves only to stifle debate. It is the scientific equivalent of peer pressure. As long as there are exceptions to the overall theory, the consensus is meaningless. And I notice you selectively attempt to discredit scientists funded by energy producers while, by exception, elevating the credibility of scientists who coincidentally receive funding from global warming advocates or whose funding will only continue if their research supports a warming conclusion.
A little off-topic Computer Science undergrad talk here: congratulations on achieving all those qualifications! Unfortunately, you didn't see the fatal flaw. Here's your qualifications in the order given:
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
Management (Masters)
The problem comes when we attempt to search the list for something to do with climate - the field in which you have identified flaws. Let's attempt to do this via a binary search. First we sort the items into alphabetical order.
Management (Masters)
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
We pick the middle item, and deduce that "Climatology" is likely to be lower in the list that "Mathematics (Undergraduate)", so the upper part of the list (including Mathematics) is eliminated. Let's look at the list now:
Management (Masters)
We now pick the middle item again - easy, only one item - and we see that "Climatology" is again, likely to be ranked lower. In keeping with the previous, we'll eliminate this middle item and all items higher. What are we left with?
[Empty list]
Hmmm, based on my precursory analysis, it seems that "Climatology" is not in the list.
I don't doubt that you're a very smart guy, but unfortunately it seems you're completely wasted in the fields of Mathematics, Nuclear Engineering and Management. If the flaws you've identified are as serious as suggested, then there are few individuals at the my university who'd love to hear from you (pm me for details). On submission of the flaws that you've identified, they may decide that you're so brilliant (as is evidently the case) that they decide to hand you a PhD straight away.
no field of study becomes a 'science' without appealing to and incorporating mathematics.
your attempt at being clever is so flawed it isn't funny.
while appealing to ones 'learning' as some sort of backing for a 'proof' is of no value, your jealousy? gets you nowhere as well...
Hmmm, based on my precursory analysis, it seems that "Climatology" is not in the list.
I don't doubt that you're a very smart guy, but unfortunately it seems you're completely wasted in the fields of Mathematics, Nuclear Engineering and Management. If the flaws you've identified are as serious as suggested, then there are few individuals at the my university who'd love to hear from you (pm me for details). On submission of the flaws that you've identified, they may decide that you're so brilliant (as is evidently the case) that they decide to hand you a PhD straight away.
Pretty funny. I'm assuming you're joking that you have to be a climatologist to comment on the climate or to understand some pretty basic science when it comes to reflectivity, CO2 production, byproducts of combustion, CO2 removal, etc. So equivalently, a meteorologist to comment on the weather, a computer science major to post an opinion on Apple products?
I'm sure your team has the same data (mid and upper atmosphere temperature inconsistencies) - it's not that difficult to find. Your team has no doubt also explored each of the correction variances as to the raw data.
But if you want me to get back into my area of expertise, much of the analysis is statistical. I can recognize when a one temperature is higher than another in one part of the atmosphere and not in another. I can understand statistical corrections, as well, and when they are improperly applied to distributions. Some of the statistical flaws are indeed significant, and just as importantly, not difficult to identify. Given the recognition is easy, one has to wonder why such discrepancies are not properly accounted for. In almost every case, correcting the data in a statistically valid manner results in much less dramatic warming. Why would that be? That is or should be, to a scientist, particularly disturbing. Questions should naturally follow. Note I did not say all warming is eliminated, just that it is a much, much less less significant rise, and again, statistically speaking presents problems of correlation and causation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Sorry so long-winded, really didn't mean to go down this road in discussing the BBC.
I cited my qualifications only when they were questioned - not to impress anyone.
No, I equate quality to quality. That quality sometimes cost should not be a shocker on an Apple forum...
Quote:
I can't argue that Band of Brothers (and The Pacific) weren't outstanding shows with budgets that allowed for immersive realism. That's not to say, however, that there aren't some outstanding low-budget programs out there. A few of us have already talked about Spooks/MI-5 which is clearly run on a much lower budget than a show such as 24. While I loved 24, I think Spooks beat it in terms of tension and drama, particularly with the first four seasons, even though there were certainly episodes that could've been enhanced with some better special effects...
24 probably costs $2-3M per episode. Say Spooks is $1M/episode. That's a far cry from $12M per episode for something like Band of Brothers. In context Band of Brothers as a series was nearly twice as much as Saving Private Ryan ($125M vs $70M ignoring inflation yadda yadda).
I might argue if Spooks had the same budget as 24 that it would have ended up unquestionably better than 24. If you treat La Femme Nikita as what the producers of 24 could do with a low budget and compare that to Spooks...eh...I think Spooks probably has more budget than LFN did so that's not entirely fair either.
It's not a question of can you do low budget quality TV shows. You sure can and there are plenty of british TV examples. It's also not a question of whether you can do incredibly crappy high budget TV shows. You sure can and there are plenty of US examples. You can also have low budgets shows that are far better than their high budget equivalents.
But the best high budget high quality shows is just in a different league from the best low budget high quality shows. The us television show makers like HBO can afford these. The british TV show makers like BBC typically can't.
The exception(s) that (almost) proves the rule is something like the Planet Earth mini-series with low(er) budget (UK£16 million) but of huge scope and quality that it rivals any of the US$100M+ mini-series. But that's an apples to oranges kinda comparison...
There are well respected scientists who question (1) the significance of man's contribution to global CO2 concentrations, and (2) the significance of CO2's contribution to warming or cooling.
Sorry for the partial quote but no more is really required, these statements are quite staggering to me. No doubt there are scientists who question these two points. Many well respected scientists of the day sided with he Pope against Galileo over the Earth's position in the solar system. It will be yet again a matter for history to determine if the respect was deserved for the dissenters in the current two issues you raise. I know where I stand and I will leave it at that.
People are not used to paying for access to a single network. Is this the wave of the future? Paying for a subscription app for every TV channel that you might ever want to watch?
I'm pretty sure I don't want that sort of thing.
I do. I would much rather pay for those channels I want, especially if it comes with being able to watch repeats of shows, when I want. I probably wouldn't do it for everything. But right now I paid $10 a month for he basic broadcast channels and don't want to have to add another $40 for the 3-4 other channels I watch and 40 I won't, not to mention things like hbo or Shoshone. I love the idea of individual channels or channel sets (ex NBC, syfy, bravo and USA network as a set since they are owned by same peeps)
My only major concern is how this will play with the wretched but refuses to die ratings system. Will networks finally give shows credit for non OTA etc. I would hope so but I fear not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
FX, music score, scales of the production (casts of thousands), costuming, period sets etc all enhance quality and require budget. While there are certainly genres where this matters far less and there british TV can match or exceed US TV there are simply genres where this is not true.
Part of the reason why BritTV lacks in the fx etc could be funding. It is possible that legally there are limits on ad money, placement money etc. Also, since the BBC is tax funded, there are likely limits on content as well.
That said there are two things I very much thing that the Beeb has on their pro column. One, their shows tend to be more character focused. Two, their shows rarely overstay their welcome. This latter point is something US v could stand to learn. Some stories just are not made for a 100 episode run. One 24 hour season, or even 12 hours is enough for ome tales. So tap it to the fullest and move on. Stop trying to drag things out not the realm of the ridiculous
Pretty funny. I'm assuming you're joking that you have to be a climatologist to comment on the climate or to understand some pretty basic science when it comes to reflectivity, CO2 production, byproducts of combustion, CO2 removal, etc. So equivalently, a meteorologist to comment on the weather, a computer science major to post an opinion on Apple products?
I'm sure your team has the same data (mid and upper atmosphere temperature inconsistencies) - it's not that difficult to find. Your team has no doubt also explored each of the correction variances as to the raw data.
But if you want me to get back into my area of expertise, much of the analysis is statistical. I can recognize when a one temperature is higher than another in one part of the atmosphere and not in another. I can understand statistical corrections, as well, and when they are improperly applied to distributions. Some of the statistical flaws are indeed significant, and just as importantly, not difficult to identify. Given the recognition is easy, one has to wonder why such discrepancies are not properly accounted for. In almost every case, correcting the data in a statistically valid manner results in much less dramatic warming. Why would that be? That is or should be, to a scientist, particularly disturbing. Questions should naturally follow. Note I did not say all warming is eliminated, just that it is a much, much less less significant rise, and again, statistically speaking presents problems of correlation and causation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Sorry so long-winded, really didn't mean to go down this road in discussing the BBC.
I cited my qualifications only when they were questioned - not to impress anyone.
I think you're missing the point. If I make a statement about how the G5 was superior to even the chips being used now because of its superior branching system or something, I couldn't fall back on my Mathematics degree. This is because despite the fact that Mathematics underpins computer science (and hence, by extension, mathematics also underpins microprocessor design), understanding an underlying field doesn't lead to an understanding in fields that build on it. Similarly, it's unlikely that a good understanding of statistics gives you good understanding of the flaws in climate science.
Comments
Why do you assume teams of writers do not work on non-American shows? For Kudos, the company which actually produces Spooks, the programme has been arguably their main product with scores of writers over nearly a decade. Here is a story (scroll about half way down) talking about the writing team, which has included several distinguished playwrights and novelists.
And you did not try to point out "the false claim that US shows offer no quality or standards", you specifically stated that British shows could not match American ones for quality in your original post.
If the assertion that US shows have higher budget is true then unless there is a significant gap in creative talent then it would follow that there will be genres where British shows could not match American ones for quality.
For example, the BBC could not afford to produce Rome alone once HBO dropped out. BBC contributed $15M where HBO spent $85M. The converse is not true. HBO could have continued with Rome (alone or in partnership) if they felt it was worth it. Therefore BBC or Sky could never produce a show with the same quality as The Pacific or Band of Brothers or Rome alone because the price tag is just too high at $150M for the Pacific and $125M for Band of Brothers. While Sky (and Seven) is involved with the Pacific it's still a US television show.
FX, music score, scales of the production (casts of thousands), costuming, period sets etc all enhance quality and require budget. While there are certainly genres where this matters far less and there british TV can match or exceed US TV there are simply genres where this is not true.
If the assertion that US shows have higher budget is true then unless there is a significant gap in creative talent then it would follow that there will be genres where British shows could not match American ones for quality.
Sounds as though you equate quality with budget. I can't argue that Band of Brothers (and The Pacific) weren't outstanding shows with budgets that allowed for immersive realism. That's not to say, however, that there aren't some outstanding low-budget programs out there. A few of us have already talked about Spooks/MI-5 which is clearly run on a much lower budget than a show such as 24. While I loved 24, I think Spooks beat it in terms of tension and drama, particularly with the first four seasons, even though there were certainly episodes that could've been enhanced with some better special effects...
If the assertion that US shows have higher budget is true then unless there is a significant gap in creative talent then it would follow that there will be genres where British shows could not match American ones for quality.
For example, the BBC could not afford to produce Rome alone once HBO dropped out. BBC contributed $15M where HBO spent $85M. The converse is not true. HBO could have continued with Rome (alone or in partnership) if they felt it was worth it. Therefore BBC or Sky could never produce a show with the same quality as The Pacific or Band of Brothers or Rome alone because the price tag is just too high at $150M for the Pacific and $125M for Band of Brothers. While Sky (and Seven) is involved with the Pacific it's still a US television show.
FX, music score, scales of the production (casts of thousands), costuming, period sets etc all enhance quality and require budget. While there are certainly genres where this matters far less and there british TV can match or exceed US TV there are simply genres where this is not true.
British actors do 'quality' in UK and come to america to do 'money'. no complaints here other than america seems to have given up on acting and gone with 'look good and read the rotten script'
I have an undergrad in math, a Master's in nuclear engineering, and a second Master's in management. I am a very critical thinker, and upon an independent review of the available data, have concluded there are significant anomalies for which current theories do not account. Ignoring these anomalies, as most in the media do, is extremely detrimental to developing an understanding of macro-climate trends. In other words, by so vehemently defending a "consensus" theory, the pursuit of understanding actual climate catalysts and causal trends is retarded ultimately extending the ignorance on the matter. It's understandable - those who depend on funding by proving a particular theory, will likely avoid evidence that refutes the theory. It's odd to me that conclusions from a smoking study funded by tobacco companies are usually ignored, but the same standard has largely not been applied to climate change.
The BBC supports climate change as "settled science," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion, but please don't be so presumptuous in your assessment of my thought patterns. There is no "far right" in true science.
A little off-topic Computer Science undergrad talk here: congratulations on achieving all those qualifications! Unfortunately, you didn't see the fatal flaw. Here's your qualifications in the order given:
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
Management (Masters)
The problem comes when we attempt to search the list for something to do with climate - the field in which you have identified flaws. Let's attempt to do this via a binary search. First we sort the items into alphabetical order.
Management (Masters)
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
We pick the middle item, and deduce that "Climatology" is likely to be lower in the list that "Mathematics (Undergraduate)", so the upper part of the list (including Mathematics) is eliminated. Let's look at the list now:
Management (Masters)
We now pick the middle item again - easy, only one item - and we see that "Climatology" is again, likely to be ranked lower. In keeping with the previous, we'll eliminate this middle item and all items higher. What are we left with?
[Empty list]
Hmmm, based on my precursory analysis, it seems that "Climatology" is not in the list.
I don't doubt that you're a very smart guy, but unfortunately it seems you're completely wasted in the fields of Mathematics, Nuclear Engineering and Management. If the flaws you've identified are as serious as suggested, then there are few individuals at the my university who'd love to hear from you (pm me for details). On submission of the flaws that you've identified, they may decide that you're so brilliant (as is evidently the case) that they decide to hand you a PhD straight away.
I'm certainly not advocating settled science as I agree science by definition is about hypotheses and moving targets as knowledge is gained. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists not aligned with fossil fuel interests that man is involved in CO2 level increases and the climate related cascading effects from that and he has been since the industrial revolution.
In the early days the studies on smoking funded by the tobacco companies did as I remember help convince generations of smokers that there was no link to cancer. The same scenario of denial seems to be true today. The scientists funded to conclude there is no connection to climate change by fossil fuel based companies sadly seem to have a disproportionate sway with the US general public than independent scientific thought. That view point is reinforced by the right and Fox news as you are no doubt aware. I apologize if I incorrectly lumped you into that category.
There are well respected scientists who question (1) the significance of man's contribution to global CO2 concentrations, and (2) the significance of CO2's contribution to warming or cooling. This is particularly true because the "consensus" theories fall apart when attempting to apply them to mid and upper atmosphere concentrations and temperatures. A bit simplistic, but illustrative of the fallacy of the consensus. Reputable scientists will not ignore data that doesn't support their theory.
I don't deny there is significant validity in the theory that the presence of certain gases can result in higher temperatures. Other gases can have the opposite effect. But the theory cannot be selectively applied to near earth concentrations and in certain areas of the world and denied elsewhere. So the denial you refer to is in mind to deny or ignore evidence counter to that theory.
Overwhelming consensus is a redundant phrase that serves only to stifle debate. It is the scientific equivalent of peer pressure. As long as there are exceptions to the overall theory, the consensus is meaningless. And I notice you selectively attempt to discredit scientists funded by energy producers while, by exception, elevating the credibility of scientists who coincidentally receive funding from global warming advocates or whose funding will only continue if their research supports a warming conclusion.
A little off-topic Computer Science undergrad talk here: congratulations on achieving all those qualifications! Unfortunately, you didn't see the fatal flaw. Here's your qualifications in the order given:
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
Management (Masters)
The problem comes when we attempt to search the list for something to do with climate - the field in which you have identified flaws. Let's attempt to do this via a binary search. First we sort the items into alphabetical order.
Management (Masters)
Mathematics (Undergraduate)
Nuclear Engineering (Masters)
We pick the middle item, and deduce that "Climatology" is likely to be lower in the list that "Mathematics (Undergraduate)", so the upper part of the list (including Mathematics) is eliminated. Let's look at the list now:
Management (Masters)
We now pick the middle item again - easy, only one item - and we see that "Climatology" is again, likely to be ranked lower. In keeping with the previous, we'll eliminate this middle item and all items higher. What are we left with?
[Empty list]
Hmmm, based on my precursory analysis, it seems that "Climatology" is not in the list.
I don't doubt that you're a very smart guy, but unfortunately it seems you're completely wasted in the fields of Mathematics, Nuclear Engineering and Management. If the flaws you've identified are as serious as suggested, then there are few individuals at the my university who'd love to hear from you (pm me for details). On submission of the flaws that you've identified, they may decide that you're so brilliant (as is evidently the case) that they decide to hand you a PhD straight away.
no field of study becomes a 'science' without appealing to and incorporating mathematics.
your attempt at being clever is so flawed it isn't funny.
while appealing to ones 'learning' as some sort of backing for a 'proof' is of no value, your jealousy? gets you nowhere as well...
Hmmm, based on my precursory analysis, it seems that "Climatology" is not in the list.
I don't doubt that you're a very smart guy, but unfortunately it seems you're completely wasted in the fields of Mathematics, Nuclear Engineering and Management. If the flaws you've identified are as serious as suggested, then there are few individuals at the my university who'd love to hear from you (pm me for details). On submission of the flaws that you've identified, they may decide that you're so brilliant (as is evidently the case) that they decide to hand you a PhD straight away.
Pretty funny. I'm assuming you're joking that you have to be a climatologist to comment on the climate or to understand some pretty basic science when it comes to reflectivity, CO2 production, byproducts of combustion, CO2 removal, etc. So equivalently, a meteorologist to comment on the weather, a computer science major to post an opinion on Apple products?
I'm sure your team has the same data (mid and upper atmosphere temperature inconsistencies) - it's not that difficult to find. Your team has no doubt also explored each of the correction variances as to the raw data.
But if you want me to get back into my area of expertise, much of the analysis is statistical. I can recognize when a one temperature is higher than another in one part of the atmosphere and not in another. I can understand statistical corrections, as well, and when they are improperly applied to distributions. Some of the statistical flaws are indeed significant, and just as importantly, not difficult to identify. Given the recognition is easy, one has to wonder why such discrepancies are not properly accounted for. In almost every case, correcting the data in a statistically valid manner results in much less dramatic warming. Why would that be? That is or should be, to a scientist, particularly disturbing. Questions should naturally follow. Note I did not say all warming is eliminated, just that it is a much, much less less significant rise, and again, statistically speaking presents problems of correlation and causation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Sorry so long-winded, really didn't mean to go down this road in discussing the BBC.
I cited my qualifications only when they were questioned - not to impress anyone.
Sounds as though you equate quality with budget.
No, I equate quality to quality. That quality sometimes cost should not be a shocker on an Apple forum...
I can't argue that Band of Brothers (and The Pacific) weren't outstanding shows with budgets that allowed for immersive realism. That's not to say, however, that there aren't some outstanding low-budget programs out there. A few of us have already talked about Spooks/MI-5 which is clearly run on a much lower budget than a show such as 24. While I loved 24, I think Spooks beat it in terms of tension and drama, particularly with the first four seasons, even though there were certainly episodes that could've been enhanced with some better special effects...
24 probably costs $2-3M per episode. Say Spooks is $1M/episode. That's a far cry from $12M per episode for something like Band of Brothers. In context Band of Brothers as a series was nearly twice as much as Saving Private Ryan ($125M vs $70M ignoring inflation yadda yadda).
I might argue if Spooks had the same budget as 24 that it would have ended up unquestionably better than 24. If you treat La Femme Nikita as what the producers of 24 could do with a low budget and compare that to Spooks...eh...I think Spooks probably has more budget than LFN did so that's not entirely fair either.
It's not a question of can you do low budget quality TV shows. You sure can and there are plenty of british TV examples. It's also not a question of whether you can do incredibly crappy high budget TV shows. You sure can and there are plenty of US examples. You can also have low budgets shows that are far better than their high budget equivalents.
But the best high budget high quality shows is just in a different league from the best low budget high quality shows. The us television show makers like HBO can afford these. The british TV show makers like BBC typically can't.
The exception(s) that (almost) proves the rule is something like the Planet Earth mini-series with low(er) budget (UK£16 million) but of huge scope and quality that it rivals any of the US$100M+ mini-series. But that's an apples to oranges kinda comparison...
There are well respected scientists who question (1) the significance of man's contribution to global CO2 concentrations, and (2) the significance of CO2's contribution to warming or cooling.
Sorry for the partial quote but no more is really required, these statements are quite staggering to me. No doubt there are scientists who question these two points. Many well respected scientists of the day sided with he Pope against Galileo over the Earth's position in the solar system. It will be yet again a matter for history to determine if the respect was deserved for the dissenters in the current two issues you raise. I know where I stand and I will leave it at that.
People are not used to paying for access to a single network. Is this the wave of the future? Paying for a subscription app for every TV channel that you might ever want to watch?
I'm pretty sure I don't want that sort of thing.
I do. I would much rather pay for those channels I want, especially if it comes with being able to watch repeats of shows, when I want. I probably wouldn't do it for everything. But right now I paid $10 a month for he basic broadcast channels and don't want to have to add another $40 for the 3-4 other channels I watch and 40 I won't, not to mention things like hbo or Shoshone. I love the idea of individual channels or channel sets (ex NBC, syfy, bravo and USA network as a set since they are owned by same peeps)
My only major concern is how this will play with the wretched but refuses to die ratings system. Will networks finally give shows credit for non OTA etc. I would hope so but I fear not.
FX, music score, scales of the production (casts of thousands), costuming, period sets etc all enhance quality and require budget. While there are certainly genres where this matters far less and there british TV can match or exceed US TV there are simply genres where this is not true.
Part of the reason why BritTV lacks in the fx etc could be funding. It is possible that legally there are limits on ad money, placement money etc. Also, since the BBC is tax funded, there are likely limits on content as well.
That said there are two things I very much thing that the Beeb has on their pro column. One, their shows tend to be more character focused. Two, their shows rarely overstay their welcome. This latter point is something US v could stand to learn. Some stories just are not made for a 100 episode run. One 24 hour season, or even 12 hours is enough for ome tales. So tap it to the fullest and move on. Stop trying to drag things out not the realm of the ridiculous
Pretty funny. I'm assuming you're joking that you have to be a climatologist to comment on the climate or to understand some pretty basic science when it comes to reflectivity, CO2 production, byproducts of combustion, CO2 removal, etc. So equivalently, a meteorologist to comment on the weather, a computer science major to post an opinion on Apple products?
I'm sure your team has the same data (mid and upper atmosphere temperature inconsistencies) - it's not that difficult to find. Your team has no doubt also explored each of the correction variances as to the raw data.
But if you want me to get back into my area of expertise, much of the analysis is statistical. I can recognize when a one temperature is higher than another in one part of the atmosphere and not in another. I can understand statistical corrections, as well, and when they are improperly applied to distributions. Some of the statistical flaws are indeed significant, and just as importantly, not difficult to identify. Given the recognition is easy, one has to wonder why such discrepancies are not properly accounted for. In almost every case, correcting the data in a statistically valid manner results in much less dramatic warming. Why would that be? That is or should be, to a scientist, particularly disturbing. Questions should naturally follow. Note I did not say all warming is eliminated, just that it is a much, much less less significant rise, and again, statistically speaking presents problems of correlation and causation between CO2 concentration and temperature. Sorry so long-winded, really didn't mean to go down this road in discussing the BBC.
I cited my qualifications only when they were questioned - not to impress anyone.
I think you're missing the point. If I make a statement about how the G5 was superior to even the chips being used now because of its superior branching system or something, I couldn't fall back on my Mathematics degree. This is because despite the fact that Mathematics underpins computer science (and hence, by extension, mathematics also underpins microprocessor design), understanding an underlying field doesn't lead to an understanding in fields that build on it. Similarly, it's unlikely that a good understanding of statistics gives you good understanding of the flaws in climate science.