Well, yes, as it currently stands the largest number of people who see films see them in theaters. But that can easily change. Right now, the Internet is only really the place to go for small independent films, but I think that as more and more people start producing their own content and making it available that way, the focus may in fact shift, so that people will look to the Internet for all of their entertainment, rather than theaters and television. The only reason the Internet doesn't get you as much exposure is because fewer people look for it that way. But as the amount of quality content grows (and, importantly, becomes easy to find), more and more people will spend more and more time consuming Internet content. Like you said, it's also largely dependent on bandwidth. But we are certainly heading that direction, and that's definitely a good thing.
Of course, there's also the possibility of torrent-based distribution, which is primarily of benefit to the distributor rather than the consumer. It makes distribution even cheaper still, but has obvious draw-backs as far as streaming and charging for content go. And profitability on this independent work is a big deal.. I'm sure some bright young entrepreneurs are going to eventually solve all of these problems and more, though, so the future looks like a wonderful place for artists.
I would imagine that not ending until all sponges are accounted for is a matter of protocol, not some sort of unwaivable, career-ending requirement. Protocol can always be broken, given a compelling enough reason. But it seems highly unlikely that a sponge could be unaccounted for if it's not still inside the body. It's not like they pull the sponge out and throw it in a pile, and then scan them all at the end. The article states that when a sponge is removed, it is scanned. To me, that implies that it is immediately scanned, not scanned some time later. So unless they can manage to lose it between removing it from the patient and scanning it (a process which probably doesn't even require them to let go of it), there shouldn't be too many lost sponges. The idea here is to ensure that all sponges are removed and accounted for, not that all sponges are present at the end of surgery.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, as it currently stands the largest number of people who see films see them in theaters. But that can easily change. Right now, the Internet is only really the place to go for small independent films, but I think that as more and more people start producing their own content and making it available that way, the focus may in fact shift, so that people will look to the Internet for all of their entertainment, rather than theaters and television. The only reason the Internet doesn't get you as much exposure is because fewer people look for it that way. But as the amount of quality content grows (and, importantly, becomes easy to find), more and more people will spend more and more time consuming Internet content. Like you said, it's also largely dependent on bandwidth. But we are certainly heading that direction, and that's definitely a good thing.
Of course, there's also the possibility of torrent-based distribution, which is primarily of benefit to the distributor rather than the consumer. It makes distribution even cheaper still, but has obvious draw-backs as far as streaming and charging for content go. And profitability on this independent work is a big deal.. I'm sure some bright young entrepreneurs are going to eventually solve all of these problems and more, though, so the future looks like a wonderful place for artists.
I would imagine that not ending until all sponges are accounted for is a matter of protocol, not some sort of unwaivable, career-ending requirement. Protocol can always be broken, given a compelling enough reason. But it seems highly unlikely that a sponge could be unaccounted for if it's not still inside the body. It's not like they pull the sponge out and throw it in a pile, and then scan them all at the end. The article states that when a sponge is removed, it is scanned. To me, that implies that it is immediately scanned, not scanned some time later. So unless they can manage to lose it between removing it from the patient and scanning it (a process which probably doesn't even require them to let go of it), there shouldn't be too many lost sponges. The idea here is to ensure that all sponges are removed and accounted for, not that all sponges are present at the end of surgery.
You understand, of course, that I very well may have to kill you for so grossly misusing the word hack, right?
If someone stands on their porch and shouts, is it wrong to listen?