* On Thu Aug-04-2005 at 02:28:21 AM +0000, Luke-Jr said:
> On Tuesday 02 August 2005 23:27, Sami Samhuri wrote:
> > * On Tue Aug-02-2005 at 03:41:42 PM -0400, Matt Randolph said:
> > > You may be missing out on those few shows that are actually well
> > > written.  On the other hand, it is probably better for your health to
> > > simply do without TV altogether.
> > >
> > > I find it extremely entertaining that you (apparently) have Cox cable
> > > internet, and yet you have no TV to speak of.  More power to you.
> >
> > I haven't had cable TV in years. I too despise advertisements. Most of
> > them are insulting at best. My ISP is the local cable provider, Shaw,
> > and they called me up to offer me $10/month cable television service.
> > The lady was shocked I didn't have cable, and even more shocked when I
> > asked why I would want to pay for commercials. (radio is free is it
> > not? greedy cable companies!) If I had the money for a nice HTPC and
> > a fine selection of channels then I would probably get cable. However, I
> > have no desire to sit and channel surf through piles of ads. As you
> > said, we are missing out on the _few_ shows that are well written. Not
> > to mention movies.
> 
> Can always download them... (assuming they're legally downloadable, if you 
> prefer the assumption ;)

I've never looked into legally downloadable content. Do many producers
do that yet?

I have to say, as soon as they start mass-producing 5TB disks and I can
put 6 of those in a slick HTPC, I'm going to archive my movie collection
as well (music is archived, CD's are just for the discman now). If they
started selling downloadable DVDs I would buy those and burn the backup
discs myself.

I think this is getting a little too OT. Sorry list. :)

-- 
Sami Samhuri