TV Colorcasts - FAQ

Anybody who says time is linear is mistaken (probably repeatedly), because time is cyclical, just with different clothes... and sometimes not even that different.

Much like the general freak out over the digital TV transition a few years ago, there was a hubbub in the early fifties about the coming color TV transition. People were worried that they'd have to buy new TV sets just to continue getting the old black and white signal. People wanted to know if the new signal would work on their old sets. "Will I have to wear a special hat to see these colored signals?" There's nothing in the Bible about color TV. How do I know this isn't a trick of the Devil?" "What makes the TV work? Fairies?" Sound familiar?

Since people back then didn't have Comcast to lie to people ("The digital transition means we have to force you to switch to digital cable.") and generally use the opportunity to screw their own customers, people were worried, but not furious. Still, there was a need for explanation. Popular Science obliged with this handy article, or FAQicle, as they didn't come to be known, to clear up all the confusion. You could almost swap "color" for "digital" and use this article to explain HD to your mom. Not really, but you know.

You'll notice that they made up a new name for "program" because of the color signal: "colorcasts". This may seem silly, but it's no less ridiculous than making up the word "podcast" for a show you download from the web. It's still just a show, but people get all excited about new technology and feel they should make up new language to discuss it. This is because they are lame. Leo Laporte has tried to supplant "netcast" for "podcast", but replacing one superfluous word with another is an equally dorky solution. It's just a show.

Phil Are Go! now reproduces the entirety of the article so you can understand a technological transition you probably didn't live through, and consequently, shouldn't care too much about. You're welcome. Thank you for reading our "Web-O-Zine".


Phil said...

Congratulations. I just spewed chocolate milk through my nose when you dropped the Leo Laporte bomb. I was not aware that Mr. Laporte dabbled in neologism. That bit of tech-related trivia will go up on my mind-shelf next to the brain cells that remember 'neologism'.
Well played, Bizarro Phil. Let me try:
Take a drink of something and hold it in your mouth... have you got it?... ok, here goes nothing...


Phil Are Go! said...

Yes, Laporte is half techno-fanboy, half brainless talking head. I used to listen to This Week in Tech until Jason Calacanis drove me away. He is a self-absorbed prick that could render the most compelling round table discussion unlistenable with his constant mentions of how rich he is. But a close second was Laporte's general doofusness. The first shoe to drop was Laporte's voice on the show intro "Netcasts you love, from people you trust." Before the intro first aired, they discussed what to call the new medium they had birthed, and nobody said "why not just call it a show?" TWiT eventually devolved into "this week in Apple", and then Calacanis became a regular and I could take no more.

Re: MARTHA BARNETTE and GRANT BARRETT. I think I have a new podcast. I could use a few more 17th century insults, you shiftless jackanapes!

Phil said...

Jason Calicanis is a flouting milksop.

Phil Are Go! said...

He's an improvident tomfool who goes on and on about how much money he carries around in his "roll", and how that was a measure of status in the neighborhood where he grew up. Fascinating insight on the tech industry you atomic douchebag!

I hope his roll gets so big it gives him a scrotal abscess.

Phil said...

Scrotal Abscess is the name of my new band.

Post a Comment