I like the way you think Robert. But you missed two things.
1) You missed 57 channels and nothing on, so said bruce springstien 2) your model has a small problem. It can't continue on inifinitely. Doh! LOL But far from being broke is when there are as many channels as there are people... When everyone has a voice, wow, that'd be a crazy cool thing. Of course people could have more than one channel, but I'm going to ignore that possibility for now. The point is that the ineventuality is everyone will have a voice. A complete theoretical of course, impractical, but theoretically possible. Just like the prospect of world literacy. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 12/10/06, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > An interesting article from the online viewer perspective > > > > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/16154786.htm > > > > So that's why no one is watching....I'm not consistant or > > compelling.... > > > an old prediction stays true. > > In the 50s there were 3 channels to watch and nothing on. > In the 60s there were 5 channels to watch and nothing on. > In the 70s there were 21 channels to watch and nothing on. > In the 80s there were 368 channels to watch and nothing on. > In the 90s there were 2319 channels to watch and nothing on. > In the 00s there are 1,283,381 channels to watch and nothing on. > In the 10s there will be 17,281,217 channels to watch and nothing on. > > you are all new channels, remember to brand them. at least > when there's nothing on you'll remember where you're watching it. > > there's nothing on, yet the number of average hours people spend > watching a screen has increased steadily since 1920. what > are they watching? something. > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
