h a l f b a k e r yNumber one on the no-fly list
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Ever had siblings or significant others squabble over the remote?
This is a bundled set of 2+ remotes. they have a built in chain of command. meaning the highest seniority remote can override channels and volumes of lower remotes, but not in reverse. Similar to the window lock button most cars
with electric windows have.
Therefore no one ever has to pass the remote, but if the high level user leaves or isn't paying attention, the other siblings or significant other can still change channels.
It could also be used as a child-lock function blocking access to channels considered indecent to the remote holding masses.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
OMG! I know! My significant others squabble over the remote all the time. The only thing that shuts them up is when I threaten to have another one of their Eunuchs disemboweled. |
|
| |
But I don't get how this would actually work. How does the highest-priority remote know whether or not its user agrees with an action that a lower-priority remote initiates? |
|
| |
This idea is implicitly a model of government. Problem is,
it
models an outdated form of government, with an absolute
monarch at the top. That's just *so* 18th century. We've
developed better (well, OK, more complex) systems since
then. |
|
| |
How about a parlimentary system which shows the channel
selected by the plurality of remotes? Or a fractional
representation system which overlays multiple channels,
with the brightness of each controlled by the number of
remotes selecting it? Or the prewar Polish system, where
any individual remote can turn off the TV? |
|
| |
Edit: This was written before the title change. |
|
| |
are you suggesting a socialist remote mouseposture? where each remote controls according to it's ability and watches according to it's needs? I don't think america is ready for a socialist tv experience. |
|
| |
This could work on a simple voting system, remote a selects chanel x, on the tv it asks the other remote holders if they agree with channel choice, if majority is reached channel changes, if no one votes then there was no disagreement and channel changes after a set time (10-20 seconds) |
|
| |
the chief remote would have veto power over lower decisions or the ability to "call a recess" on the remote parliment for say 30 minutes so that no one could initiate a channel change for the duration of your favourite show. |
|
| |
There would also be a vote of no confidence button if the remote in chief was missing and everyone wanted to change the channel. |
|
| |
//I don't think america is ready for a socialist tv
experience//
Which is why we need a disciplined cadre of revolutionaries
to lead the way. Once we're in power, the workers and
peasants will fall into line. If not immediatley, then I'm sure
they'll catch on when they see the trainloads of bourgeois
and kulaks headed for reeducation camps in North Dakota* |
|
| |
*or New Jersy. We haven't decided yet. |
|
| |
will the reducation camps feature television programming? and if so, how would one change the channel? |
|
| |
I for one am hoping for a channel change I can believe in. |
|
| |
But if, say, the Shopping Channel decided to form a minority Government with the support of the Extreme Wrestling channel, what would that look like? And would it matter that the channel that had got the most votes was the Pretentious Arts channel? |
|
| |
And in the event of there being no outright winner of the vote, would you find your television viewing experience being supplied by the Civil Service for a few days while everything sorts itself out?
(hey! why is Ian the only one to get to use em dashes and real quotes?) |
|
| |