Metropol

Not to mention the fact that if you want to watch it twice, that's twice as much bandwidth with streaming.

Alexia wrote:My question is - doesn't streaming use up the same amount of data as if you physically downloaded the file? A video file is a video file whether you download it or stream it, isn't it? Or does streaming take up less?

Assuming the file is streamed at the same quality that it would be available as a download, there should be no substantial difference between the two.
My brother in law was telling me, however, that when their son hits the download limit on their internet connection, streaming seems to be less affected by the speed cap that is then enforced than other downloads.

The suggestion was that ISPs have woken up to the fact that people generally won't accept a substandard service when it comes to streaming as that is where speed caps will be noticed more, so some ISPs may be raising the speed caps for streaming in order to attempt to keep customers.

All of that was, of course, conjecture though.

I would have thought that a stream of a file would use up a bit more data due to error correction and statistics being sent back about the performance of the connection

And even when you died
Oh the press still hounded you
All the papers had to say
Was that Elizabeth [sic] had been found in the nude...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... -time.html

The Mail with a spectacular return to form:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ntree.html

Just LOOK at those pictures, are you outraged yet? Have a look at some more, look at them. We're outraged so you don't have to be. Isn't it dispicable, how can the BBC do this? Just LOOK in close detail at what you need to be outraged about.

FFS.

It's not the BBC commentator's jobs to wax lyrical about the (at that time) potential deaths of horses during the race, when they've got x-million people and x-billion pounds of bets relying on them to deliver the race places and running in the 5-odd minutes the race is on for. At that time there was only one fairly confirmed fatality, Ornais (he was the one just covered up by a tarpaulin at the 4th fence), while vets were still treating Doorney's Gate. In the context of the race itself, yes, they were obstacles.

In the meantime, I continue to be frequently astonished by the Express' approach to news values and priorities. Just a glance at their homepage shows how stilted their mindset is. There's a million and one more important things in the world than a "row" (newspaper talk for a (usually invented) mild disagreement) over a Spitfire sculpture.

I am increasingly amazed at their ability to show ONLY the falls. Presumably they've got a separate article devoted to racegoers with fat thighs?

Also, I think the BBC broadly got it right, but there was a VERY awkward silence on the replay commentary when the first tarp came into view.

OK, I've listened back to the commentary, and this is what was said by the BBC post-race summarisers:

-"Right...now...Immediately they get over this fence this year they see men around them waving chequered flags saying you've got to go round ... this is the first time we've seen this in a Grand National...
- Yes, the thing is, you know there's an obstacle ahead.... those chequered flags tell you there's an obstacle ahead ... and normally the side that they're on, you bypass the obstacle on the other side..."

In this case, the obstacle was a dead horse. However, as I understand it, this warning would be used for ANY obstacle (such as a broken fence, vehicle or person on the course, or other abnormal eventuality) and I interpret the way that the second summariser related this fact as being merely an explicit, clear, unequivocal, unemotional explanation of the meaning of the chequered flags. This was the first time the National had experienced this necessity, and as the National is usually the one horse race watched per year by the majority of the population, his explanation was necessary for the audience.

The Daily Mail's shrieking and condemnation (which, coming from a paper which devoted millions of column inches to coverage, bookies' adverts, sweepstake kits and Ladies Day photographs is rather hypocritical) again fails to relate the reality of the situation.

It was pretty obvious that BBC commentators were refering to 'obstacles' and 'equine fatalities' in order not to upset younger viewers. To suggest that they were intentionally trivialising the situation is just absurd.

The Tabloid-Watch website wrote about this today too: http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/04/cover-up.html

More highly sensitive and appropriate reporting from the Richard Desmond Stable :

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/18 ... lost-plot/

This story is headlined in the print edition as "The Night Zeta Went All Loopy"