Pub Quiz Question

Yesterday I took part in a pub quiz where one of the questions (really it was the answer) did not seem believable.It maybe trivia but, I spent this this morning researching it and thought I's share the result

The question: What event in the UK was the first where the TV audience exceeded the Radio audience?

The answer: The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II

This "fact" is on several websites all with the same figures. Which makes me think there is a single source, which is always questionable.

The given wisdom is, that 20-million people watch it on TV and only 10-million listened on the radio (wireless).

The breakdown for the TV figure is 7.8-million watched it in their own home. 10.4-million watched it in other peoples homes and a further 1.5-million watched it in cinemas, halls and pubs. (19.7-million)

The case against

The BBC estimates that there were 2-million TV sets in the UK. Manufacturer figures show there were 2.957-million sets. By the end of 1935 BBC estimates there were 3.1-million set.

The population was 51-million so 21-million (40%) didn't watch or listen (according to the figures above) to this once in a lifetime national/patriotic event? It was a public holiday so what were they doing? 

An estimated 3-million lined the streets. so down to 18-million unaccounted for.

Some town halls and churches had TV sets with around 30 people watching. (from the photos I can find) . It would have been difficult to have more as the screen size was so small (around 14") plus you had to sit relatively close as the image lacked contrast and definition. As can be seen from the picture in the church below. The people at the back were effectively listening to radio, or am I biased. 

Apparently neighbours went into each others house to watch TV. 

I think this photo is not just posed but is a fake. The image on the screen is two contrasty, is at the wrong angle and given that this was taken with a flash and the curved nature of the screen there would have been at least one reflection. Finally the TV sets looks post WWII and maybe even American.

You also had to be relatively well off to own a TV. These people have even got books on a shelf! A TV would cost over £100 which was more than 12 time the average weekly wage and 40 times the most common weekly wage. So most working class people couldn't afford TV. 

In 1953 there were only 4 transmitters Alexander Palace (London), Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham), Holm Mose (Manchester), Kirk O'Shotts (Edinburgh and Glasgow) and Wenvo (Cardiff and Bristol) these had the potential for 11-million homes.

Many villages and even houses in large towns didn't have electricity. They couldn't power a TV. they would get batteries recharged regularly (usually a swap out of the discharged battery for a charged battery) regularly to power their radios.

The TV coverage was undoubtedly a great success as by the end of 1953 their were 3.2-million sets. I started out to disprove the TV audience size based on a lack of infrastructure but, all the other infrastructure was in place to make the TV audience the size claimed. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it might have been that 20-million watched the coronation on TV the other 31 million probably listened to it on the radio. My gut feel is this was hype at the time that has become fact and this wasn't when TV overtook Radio.

The fall of Christianity?

There have been a few comments on Christianity in relation to Muslim fundamentalism recently. How Christians need to be proud, speak up and not be intimidated. David Cameron, Tony Blair and now Dominic Grieve is chipping in. They see the threat from the Middle East and it spreading out around the world with an anti-Christian mantra.

What has put Christianity on the backfoot?

In one word the answer is, education!

While the elite of the world have received an education, for many centuries, (mainly in the classics; reading, writing, basic mathematics, history, Latin, military stratergy) formal education for the masses didn't arrive until the industrial revolution, when the populations of predominantly Christian nations needed to be educated to operate, build and maintain machines. This education became more science based. It wanted questioning, so that new hypothesis could be created. It wanted cause and effect evidenced proof of these hypotheses, to ensure they were real, repeatable and could improve industry's output with better products and better machines.

The trouble for Christianity and most religions in industrialised countries is the questioning/proof based education gives rise to knowledge and understanding which erodes belief in an all powerful being, which most religions are based on. This has been a slow process over 100+ years. It has resulted in an increasing number of agnostics and atheists in these societies. Even those that may say they are Christians, are at some other level. They were baptised or they. live by the morel code, rather than believe in the existence of Christ.

Industry has been driven by competition and business rules and goals that have become their own religion, with business gurus the new spiritual guids. Everyone for themselves and survival of the fittest have become the dominant faces of businesses. 

Science and research has become another religion, with maybe some morel code for benefitting humanity, but often with profit, or at least prestige and status, as the driver. 

These business and science drivers and goals have made education valuable as an output of industrial societies independent of the products they produce. Education leads to innovation, new products, new discoveries and can be summed up in the phrase "competitive advantage". This advantage is so great that manufacturing is done outside the original industrial societies, but education (especially higher education) and knowledge based industries  (research, banking) have been guarded.

The result, at this moment in time, is religion has lost its dominance in Developed countries, but is still dominant (and threatened) in Developing countries. Developed countries have rejected leadership by heritage and have becoming republics and/or democratic. Developing countries are still dominated by leaders that are there for life and often dynasties. 

During the recent wars in the Middle East there have been claims that The West wants to bring democracy to these countries. However, without education it is relatively easy for some charismatic leader, religious, political or military, to dominate democratically or otherwise. Today you could look at India and Pakistan with propaganda and corruption used to influence voters, educationally ill-equipped to challenge what they are told. Historically you could look at the French Revolution which gave way to several dictatorships, including Napoleon, before it became an educated democracy. Those deprived or repressed may revolt, but like the Arab Spring, wanting something else without ability to know what that something else is, leaves a vacuum that is quickly filled by those able and willing to exploit it. Maybe like the French Revolution this is their first step.

So if this is the end of Christianity then education is the cause. If Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to the West then, at least part of the cause, is a lack of education. With education people can make their own mind up, whether they want to be Christian, Muslim or Jew, or something else.

Samsung Galaxy S5 - reviews

This is not a review of the S5 but a summary of the reviews.

First the positive things they say:

1. Brighter screen
2. Sharper screen
3. Ultra power saving
4. Fast picture taking 0.3 seconds

Secondly the "yeah, but is it really important?"

1. Its got a bigger screen - 0.1inch, (that's diagonally) wow!
2. Faster processor - because I really have a problem waiting for it to process stuff. Maybe if you use it for a lot of photography or video. Editing  and on the fly posting to social media. Are your friends having fun while you're staring at you mobile phone manipulating the photo?
3. 16Mp camera (vice 13Mp camera). - A 13Mp camera sensor is 3.61 x 3.61Mp. a 16Mp has a sensor 4 x 4Mp - you wont notice the difference of a 10% increase in picture quality. 30% maybe, 50% probably, 100% definitely.
4. It has a plastic body that makes it look cheap compared to its rivals - It spend most of its time in your pocket or bag. Who gives a shit apart from the vaine posers.
5. Fingerprint sensor? - frustrating when you're in a rush (hands dirty or at the wrong angle) an the bloody this decides its not going to open until you get it juts right.
6. Fitness monitor? - get off the phone and do some exercise you will feel better. Do you really need a bit of technology to confirm it?

Thirdly what they don't say, but I think is important.

1. How does it work as a phone?
1. Can I get a signal in poor areas?
2. Can I hear the other person?
3. Can they hear me?
4. What about background noise?
2. How good is the Bluetooth?
3. How good is the WiFi?
1. Is it more sensitive to distant WiFi hot spots? My S2 barely works in my house but my iPad connects from a 20 meters down the road. WiFi is important to me as it is generally more bandwidth and therefore faster (nothing to do with processing power) and it avoids Mobile Network charges.
4. How good is the predictive text and can I turn the bugger off if its crap?

Personally I'm going to wait for the much rumored new iPhone before making a decision to upgrade my aging S2.