Facebook

SoMs Eagle · #1

Facebook was just suggested to be one of the best stocks for 2018 based on, get ready for it, sports.
Question is how will this impact the soon to be renegotiated tv deals? Will the ESPNs of the world pay more for content and to keep the best content off of FB? Could be one more disaster headed our way. TTT.

Ford Prefect · #2

SoMs Eagle wrote:

Facebook was just suggested to be one of the best stocks for 2018 based on, get ready for it, sports.
Question is how will this impact the soon to be renegotiated tv deals? Will the ESPNs of the world pay more for content and to keep the best content off of FB? Could be one more disaster headed our way. TTT.

the bottom is falling out of tv deals, man. if you aren't the sec (and maybe even if you are) you're getting a haircut soon. everyone will be streaming in 5 years. tv is yesterday's medium.

Eaglebird Humperdink · #3

Ford Prefect wrote:

the bottom is falling out of tv deals, man. everyone will be streaming in 5 years. tv is yesterday's medium.

That's it. C-USA is ahead of the curve, finger on the pulse, cutting edge, etc. We had moved on to social media streaming while those big guys were still doing it the old fashioned way, receiving those big, cumbersome television dollars.

Ford Prefect · #4

Eaglebird Humperdink wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:
the bottom is falling out of tv deals, man. everyone will be streaming in 5 years. tv is yesterday's medium.
That's it. C-USA is ahead of the curve, finger on the pulse, cutting edge, etc. We had moved on to social media streaming while those big guys were still doing it the old fashioned way, receiving those big, cumbersome television dollars.

not even close to what I said. you know, it's possible to make an astute observation about the world without it necessarily implying anything at all about cusa.

seriously. it's totally possible.

AndreWhere · #5

Web video is something I've been slow to warm up to. It just seems like such a waste of bandwidth, when you can send hundreds of channels simultaneously and without lag over a coaxial cable.

I did watch a football game on my Roku yesterday, and it worked pretty well.

stinkfist · #6

Ford Prefect wrote:

SoMs Eagle wrote:
Facebook was just suggested to be one of the best stocks for 2018 based on, get ready for it, sports.
Question is how will this impact the soon to be renegotiated tv deals? Will the ESPNs of the world pay more for content and to keep the best content off of FB? Could be one more disaster headed our way. TTT.
the bottom is falling out of tv deals, man. if you aren't the sec (and maybe even if you are) you're getting a haircut soon. everyone will be streaming in 5 years. tv is yesterday's medium.

and some on this board (and on the nazi board) called me crazy when I proposed the next phase of realignment will be due to this once those tv contracts begin to expire starting in '20 and why the ackk doesn't mean dick right now......how's the espenis doing these days........lmfao....

I still don't have a tv......unfortunately, I don't have my 'always hot' modem anymore (their dipshite engineers finally figured that one out) which I 'acquired' while doing some contract work for comshite transitioning from corpshite 'murica to what I current do as a small biz owner......

regardless, I've been streaming media/multitasking for over a decade now......IMO, it's the only way to fly first class....

I can pop open a shiteload of tabs and ping pong back and forth from music, sports, news, bbs, etc......all on a laptop and ze fingers....it beats the living shite out of watching what is now 30% fuckbag commercialized 'entertainment'.......fuck that!

Last edited by stinkfist (2017-12-23 12:00:59)

AndreWhere · #7

stinkfist wrote:

I don't have my 'always hot' modem anymore

What was that? Some sort of thing for Comcast employees that just grabs as much bandwidth as possible?

Ford Prefect · #8

AndreWhere wrote:

Web video is something I've been slow to warm up to. It just seems like such a waste of bandwidth, when you can send hundreds of channels simultaneously and without lag over a coaxial cable.

tenor.gif?itemid=4900446

AndreWhere · #9

Ford Prefect wrote:

AndreWhere wrote:
Web video is something I've been slow to warm up to. It just seems like such a waste of bandwidth, when you can send hundreds of channels simultaneously and without lag over a coaxial cable.

I'm serious. Even if you're getting every flavor of HBO and all the sports channels, your cable TV uses only a fraction of the capacity of a coaxial cable. I don't know exactly how it works, but it does.

Web video, on the other hand, is in fact something I consider a bit of a scourge. You open up some webpage, to read the news or whatever, and suddenly a laggy, bandwidth-hogging video ad ruins your morning.

Not everything needs to be digital. Again, I don't completely understand the science. I'm not a communications engineer.

stinkfist · #10

AndreWhere wrote:

stinkfist wrote:
I don't have my 'always hot' modem anymore
What was that? Some sort of thing for Comcast employees that just grabs as much bandwidth as possible?

it was 'hot' w/o having comcast to provision....it never showed up on their grid.....free internet for 5+ yrs....

they finally figured out how to automate the connection on their side......I was always amazed how inefficient their system setup was by design....

Last edited by stinkfist (2017-12-23 16:09:49)

stinkfist · #11

AndreWhere wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:
AndreWhere wrote:
Web video is something I've been slow to warm up to. It just seems like such a waste of bandwidth, when you can send hundreds of channels simultaneously and without lag over a coaxial cable.

I'm serious. Even if you're getting every flavor of HBO and all the sports channels, your cable TV uses only a fraction of the capacity of a coaxial cable. I don't know exactly how it works, but it does.
Web video, on the other hand, is in fact something I consider a bit of a scourge. You open up some webpage, to read the news or whatever, and suddenly a laggy, bandwidth-hogging video ad ruins your morning.
Not everything needs to be digital. Again, I don't completely understand the science. I'm not a communications engineer.

their is no question how some sites embed and load inefficiently.....I'm certain you know the nuts and bolts on your side why that is...that's outside of my scope.....as a user, I either 'X' out when the text appears before all the bullshite loads or simply exit the site 'stat' and move on....

like I mentioned when you added video functionality to your site, you knocked it out of the park relative to being a cpu resource hog....

AndreWhere · #12

stinkfist wrote:

like I mentioned when you added video functionality to your site, you knocked it out of the park relative to being a cpu resource hog....

Thanks, Stinkfist. That's as big a compliment as you can pay in my book. I decided very early on that whatever features I added, they would all run like a Swiss watch or they wouldn't be features here.

The site will run my way, and it will run right. Specification one is "it can't be an annoying piece of crap." The rest is secondary.

I can't take all the credit for the video logic here, though. What you're getting is a modified version of some European dude's code.

That said, I had to fix a few bugs in it. Some of them were obvious things he probably broke just to keep "noobs" from using his shit. Others were more subtle.

USMstang · #13

AndreWhere wrote:

stinkfist wrote:
like I mentioned when you added video functionality to your site, you knocked it out of the park relative to being a cpu resource hog....
Thanks, Stinkfist. That's as big a compliment as you can pay in my book. I decided very early on that whatever features I added, they would all run like a Swiss watch or they wouldn't be features here.
The site will run my way, and it will run right. Specification one is "it can't be an annoying piece of crap." The rest is secondary.
I can't take all the credit for the video logic here, though. What you're getting is a modified version of some European dude's code.
That said, I had to fix a few bugs in it. Some of them were obvious things he probably broke just to keep "noobs" from using his shit. Others were more subtle.

Did you just say Swiss watch sir? Hmmm...

admin · #14

USMstang wrote:

Did you just say Swiss watch sir? Hmmm...

If you have complaints about how the site functions, share them. There's a thread for that. My take is that the site works better than at least 90% of sites that I use.

USMstang · #15

No, you've misunderstood me. No complaints. Go see the "request new thread" section

admin · #16

USMstang wrote:

No, you've misunderstood me. No complaints. Go see the "request new thread" section

OK, I'm an ass. LMAO.

I have a watch collection but it's pretty down-market. I'll share nevertheless.

USMstang

stinkfist · #17

USMstang wrote:

AndreWhere wrote:
stinkfist wrote:
like I mentioned when you added video functionality to your site, you knocked it out of the park relative to being a cpu resource hog....
Thanks, Stinkfist. That's as big a compliment as you can pay in my book. I decided very early on that whatever features I added, they would all run like a Swiss watch or they wouldn't be features here.
The site will run my way, and it will run right. Specification one is "it can't be an annoying piece of crap." The rest is secondary.
I can't take all the credit for the video logic here, though. What you're getting is a modified version of some European dude's code.
That said, I had to fix a few bugs in it. Some of them were obvious things he probably broke just to keep "noobs" from using his shit. Others were more subtle.
Did you just say Swiss watch sir? Hmmm...

he definitely didn't come with swiss cheese like so many others.....

and Andre, there is nothing wrong with piggy-backing on someone else's creation......that's how humans have managed to stay alive over time.....trial/error/solution is the purest form of engineering.....

like Einstein once stated, "the best design is the simplest one that works" hence, E=MC2

USMstang · #18

Stink, I couldn't be happier with the site. I read all that shit y'all discuss but really have no clue what its all about. I do however know a little something of Swiss watches and that caught my eye immediately. I've requested a new board section for that. LOL

stinkfist

stinkfist · #19

USMstang wrote:

No, you've misunderstood me. No complaints. Go see the "request new thread" section

us 'enigmatic frankfurters' are sometimes misunderstood.....I knew XACLY! what you were driving at.....

reading between the lines for some (especially when a certain poster (that'd be many o' mine) has had a few toddies coupled with a little bit of 4:20 sprinkled on top)

Last edited by stinkfist (2017-12-23 18:01:27)

stinkfist · #20

USMstang wrote:

Stink, I couldn't be happier with the site. I read all that shit y'all discuss but really have no clue what its all about. I do however know a little something of Swiss watches and that caught my eye immediately. I've requested a new board section for that. LOL

I've lived many a chapter in my life....I'm simply dangerous enough to have a clue about things that require the ones that are competent to complete.....

kinda like DJT w/o the billions......

:cheers:

CollegeSportsUnfiltered.com

#1 2017-12-23 10:00:23 - Facebook

Facebook

#2 2017-12-23 10:56:38 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#3 2017-12-23 11:21:17 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#4 2017-12-23 11:25:38 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#5 2017-12-23 11:45:28 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#6 2017-12-23 11:59:47 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#7 2017-12-23 12:36:26 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#8 2017-12-23 14:20:38 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#9 2017-12-23 14:26:50 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#10 2017-12-23 16:07:35 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#11 2017-12-23 16:18:15 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#12 2017-12-23 17:04:54 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#13 2017-12-23 17:42:04 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#14 2017-12-23 17:43:56 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#15 2017-12-23 17:49:12 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#16 2017-12-23 17:50:59 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#17 2017-12-23 17:51:49 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#18 2017-12-23 17:54:02 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#19 2017-12-23 17:56:19 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

#20 2017-12-23 18:00:24 - Facebook

Re: Facebook

Board footer