They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!

On 1/22/16 10:44 PM, wrote:
They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!


Read this article. You won't believe the amount of money they take in
from just 2.3% of the millions of players.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...yers-855m-2014

On 1/22/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:
They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!


Game itself is free. The money stream is either from advertising or
in-app purchases. Some games allow you to buy extra lives, or extra
ammo for a buck or two. While you think that is trivial, the good games
can be installed on tens of millions of phones, notebooks, etc.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:12:12 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/22/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:
They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!


Game itself is free. The money stream is either from advertising or
in-app purchases. Some games allow you to buy extra lives, or extra
ammo for a buck or two.

That is what Candy Crush is. You can run the game for free but you
have to buy extra candy (or whatever) when you lose. I think you get a
small ration every day for free but, evidently, some people are not
willing to stop when they run out.
I have never actually seen it but my wife knows some CC addicts,

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:12:12 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/22/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:
They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!


Game itself is free. The money stream is either from advertising or
in-app purchases. Some games allow you to buy extra lives, or extra
ammo for a buck or two.
That is what Candy Crush is. You can run the game for free but you
have to buy extra candy (or whatever) when you lose. I think you get a
small ration every day for free but, evidently, some people are not
willing to stop when they run out.
I have never actually seen it but my wife knows some CC addicts,

Some Muslim cleric should ban candy crush like they did chess in Saudi Arabia for being addictive.
I've never played CC but I don't have an addictive personality.

--
Usenet Reader for Android
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk

On 01/22/2016 10:04 PM, Retired wrote:
On 1/22/16 10:44 PM, wrote:
They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!


Read this article. You won't believe the amount of money they take in
from just 2.3% of the millions of players.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...yers-855m-2014




Wow


Though I of course have a computer and use Facebook to keep up with my
friends I absolutely do not play any of those games.


I have no TV or Smartphone so don't get bombarded with a whole load of
crap.

One weakness though:

If I feel the need to play some type of game I still have a 25 year old
(maybe older) version of Tetris. To this day I've never beaten my
daughter's high score and I feel as I get older my chances keep diminishing.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:04:10 -0500, Retired wrote:

On 1/22/16 10:44 PM, wrote:
They keep putting these extremely retarded commericals on TV for "Candy
Crush". Apparently they are some sort of game for smartphones. (That'
all I can make of them). I dont have (or want) a smartphone. Nor would I
want those retarded games. But I have to wonder how much money they
cost, because tv commercials are not cheap, and they are on very often.

Those games must cost a fortune!


Read this article. You won't believe the amount of money they take in
from just 2.3% of the millions of players.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...yers-855m-2014

That's amazing. Apparently there are a lot of kids with a lot of money
to blow. Who would think that amount of money could be made from a
stupid game.

During the very brief time I used Facebook, I was constantly bombarded
with invites to play some of their games, which are also free at first,
but you have to pay later for something... I've never liked any computer
games so I got real annoyed by those constant invites, even from people
I knew well. They said they were not sending them, but FB sends them
under thir name. That was part of the reason I removed my FB account
after about 2 months of having it.

Per :
That's amazing. Apparently there are a lot of kids with a lot of money
to blow.

That makes me think of another reason never to watch "Live" TV - only
recorded TV: if I had kids, I would not want them to see commercials -
period.

Viewing only recorded and either fast-forwarding commercials or telling
the software to not record then; I don't think I have seen more than 15
seconds of any commercial for at least the past five years - maybe more
- and I do not understand why more people do not use their TVs in that
manner.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 08:40:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per :
That's amazing. Apparently there are a lot of kids with a lot of money
to blow.

That makes me think of another reason never to watch "Live" TV - only
recorded TV: if I had kids, I would not want them to see commercials -
period.

Viewing only recorded and either fast-forwarding commercials or telling
the software to not record then; I don't think I have seen more than 15
seconds of any commercial for at least the past five years - maybe more
- and I do not understand why more people do not use their TVs in that
manner.

Most commercial skip algorithms work by analysing "fade to black"
intervals but those 3 minute drug commercials trick that and some
shows use short black outs you miss,
I use the manual skip.

The owners/makers of those apps:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(company)

writes:

The owners/makers of those apps:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(company)

Nope.

King is just one company among many.

I guess the OP (you?) are just too cool to play a match 3.
Your loss. Some of us appreciate the mindless distraction
and frankly, amazing graphics, sound, artwork, cleverness.

--
Dan Espen

Per :
Most commercial skip algorithms work by analysing "fade to black"
intervals but those 3 minute drug commercials trick that and some
shows use short black outs you miss,
I use the manual skip.

Same here.... SageTV.

But when I was in the early days of this I fooled around with a Linux
app called "MythTV" and was amazed at how accurate it's automagic
skipping was. No clue how it worked, but it sure did work.

The functionality is available in Sage as an add-on, but I find that
fast forwarding becomes trivial once I get a feel for the break lengths
and program two lengths of skip: 60 seconds and 10 seconds.
--
Pete Cresswell

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Per :
That's amazing. Apparently there are a lot of kids with a lot of money
to blow.

That makes me think of another reason never to watch "Live" TV - only
recorded TV: if I had kids, I would not want them to see commercials -
period.

Viewing only recorded and either fast-forwarding commercials or telling
the software to not record then; I don't think I have seen more than 15
seconds of any commercial for at least the past five years - maybe more
- and I do not understand why more people do not use their TVs in that
manner.

I wish my Comcast box would pass commercials. I just fast forward. There is
one for a credit card which I loath and have trouble pushing the button fast
enough. Also Comcast has this special feature of latency. It starts
recording the program about 30 seconds early and consequently ends the
recording 30 seconds early. The last few seconds where the narrator gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?

--
Tekkie

On 1/23/2016 3:27 PM, Tekkie® wrote:

I wish my Comcast box would pass commercials. I just fast forward. There is
one for a credit card which I loath and have trouble pushing the button fast
enough. Also Comcast has this special feature of latency. It starts
recording the program about 30 seconds early and consequently ends the
recording 30 seconds early. The last few seconds where the narrator gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?


Maybe a new box?

I have DirecTv and there is usually a few seconds before and after. If
I record two shows in a row, the first one still has a few seconds at
the end and the next one starts a few seconds early. I can record four
shows at once. Never misses unless there is a late start because of a
football game. On Sunday night I have 60 Minutes record 2 hours just in
case.

On 1/23/2016 3:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/23/2016 3:27 PM, Tekkie® wrote:

I wish my Comcast box would pass commercials. I just fast forward.
There is
one for a credit card which I loath and have trouble pushing the
button fast
enough. Also Comcast has this special feature of latency. It starts
recording the program about 30 seconds early and consequently ends the
recording 30 seconds early. The last few seconds where the narrator
gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time
then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one.
If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?


Maybe a new box?

I have DirecTv and there is usually a few seconds before and after. If
I record two shows in a row, the first one still has a few seconds at
the end and the next one starts a few seconds early. I can record four
shows at once. Never misses unless there is a late start because of a
football game. On Sunday night I have 60 Minutes record 2 hours just in
case.


Suspect the reason (for not being able to skip commercials) with many
providers is legal or contractual rather than technical.

We have Dish and with our DVR there is a setting called PrimeTime
Anytime which records ALL the available (in our area) prime time network
programs. We can set it to automatically skip the commercials on
playback but, IIRC, only after 24 or more hours have passed since the
original airing.

Seem to recall seeing threads on other groups in this same vein and it
was a case of the networks refusing to give permission to rebroadcast
their material if the provider (cable/satellite) were going to provide a
means to skip the commercials.

My workaround, though hardly elegant, is to record our favorite programs
and then - assuming we want to watch them "right now" is to wait about
15 minutes and start watching as they are being recorded. Commercial
breaks vary but generally run 2:35 to 3:30 and a few quick presses of
the "Jump Forward 30 seconds" and maybe one or two of the "Jump Backward
10 seconds" pretty much kills the commercial in ten seconds or less.
Good enough for me.

Per Tekkie®:
The last few seconds where the narrator gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?

Unencumbered by any real knowledge, all I can think of is that the clock
in the offending box is 1-2 minutes slow relative to the program
provider's schedule.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:49:12 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Tekkie®:
The last few seconds where the narrator gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?

Unencumbered by any real knowledge, all I can think of is that the clock
in the offending box is 1-2 minutes slow relative to the program
provider's schedule.

It is the broadcasters. They don't have the old commercial block
between shows so the next show starts while they are still rolling
credits on the previous show and they play fast and loose about when
that happens. The commercial break is after the starting teaser.\
That is mostly a prime time thing since daytime programming is locally
placed and they need to stay on schedule so they are not screwing up
the affiliates.
I usually set up an extra minute or two on the worst offender shows.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 08:40:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per :
That's amazing. Apparently there are a lot of kids with a lot of money
to blow.

That makes me think of another reason never to watch "Live" TV - only
recorded TV: if I had kids, I would not want them to see commercials -
period.

Viewing only recorded and either fast-forwarding commercials or telling
the software to not record then; I don't think I have seen more than 15
seconds of any commercial for at least the past five years - maybe more
- and I do not understand why more people do not use their TVs in that
manner.

I have over the air tv (antenna). So I cant do that!
I'm not much of a tv watcher anyhow, but it still would be nice to block
commercials.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:32:48 -0600, wrote:

I have over the air tv (antenna). So I cant do that!

I just plugged a DVR card in an old PC for just that problem but I
haven't had time to actually try it.
I really want to ditch cable/satellite. With a few steaming services
and my local OTA I don't think I will miss them.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:41:50 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:32:48 -0600, wrote:

I have over the air tv (antenna). So I cant do that!

I just plugged a DVR card in an old PC for just that problem but I
haven't had time to actually try it.
I really want to ditch cable/satellite. With a few steaming services
and my local OTA I don't think I will miss them.

I didn't know that was possible. You must need software for it, right?
What would you use, and is it made for Windows (probably XP)?
What format is the card? (the plug in slot needed)?

THanks

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:49:12 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Tekkie®:
The last few seconds where the narrator gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?

Unencumbered by any real knowledge, all I can think of is that the clock
in the offending box is 1-2 minutes slow relative to the program
provider's schedule.

One issue here is, in this digital age, there is a significant delay
in network show making to the local station, then the cable company,
then to my box, and then to the TV. I'm not how much delay is in each
of those segments, but the total delay is about 12 seconds. I.e.,
network shows always start about 12 seconds after the hour as
determined by WWV or WWVB. Remember when you used to be able to set
clocks by when shows started?

Per :
I have over the air tv (antenna). So I cant do that!
I'm not much of a tv watcher anyhow, but it still would be nice to block
commercials.

You can.

We have only OTA... In fact, it's more straightforward with OTA because
the tuners used do not have to be cable-specific.

Couple these bad boyz: http://tinyurl.com/jtrx8ao plus a device to
record TV (probably your PC running SageTV) and another to play back
(preferably one of the SageTV little black boxes bought used), and you
are in business.

I don't mean to imply that it is trivial - definitely some learning
curve hours there.... but, in the end, very worthwhile IMHO.

--
Pete Cresswell

Per :
What format is the card? (the plug in slot needed)?

If you use the SiliconDust device referred to in my earlier post, you
don't need anything in your PC.... AND you can put a little app on your
Android devices that lets you watch TV (albeit live, not recorded) on
them.
--
Pete Cresswell

"Pat" wrote in message
...
One issue here is, in this digital age, there is a significant delay
in network show making to the local station, then the cable company,
then to my box, and then to the TV. I'm not how much delay is in each
of those segments, but the total delay is about 12 seconds. I.e.,
network shows always start about 12 seconds after the hour as
determined by WWV or WWVB. Remember when you used to be able to set
clocks by when shows started?

I have Direct TV and the main tv hooked to the converter box (digital
recorder) is almost a full sentence ahead or behind a tv in the other room
that is just hooked to one of the smaller boxes.

Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...


[quoted text muted]
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?


Maybe a new box?


Nope, on third box and they all do the same thing. All the same quirks on
all of them. Trouble is when changing boxes one loses all recordings and all
recording lists. Gotta go from ground zero.

--
Tekkie

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Per Tekkie®:
The last few seconds where the narrator gives a
resolution gets cut off. If you add a minute to the recording time then that
bleeps up a subsequent recording because it only records two at one. If I
could get a better system I would, why should this be a problem with
computers doing all the work? Any ideas?

Unencumbered by any real knowledge, all I can think of is that the clock
in the offending box is 1-2 minutes slow relative to the program
provider's schedule.

I haven't checked against a standard but all 3 boxes I had do it. I don't
know why Comblast can't sync it with the turn on & turn off time for the
DVR.

--
Tekkie