I dunno - £131/~US$200/~AU$325 p.a. sounds like an absolute bargain for 6 TV channels (plus news & parliament), 7 or more radio stations (plus regionals), and a web services portal that is the envy of the world's biggest new media players.
I know your Prime Minister is a prick, and is openly hostile to your BBC - but can we swap him for ours? Please?
The studio owners have a lot more money than theatre owners - chains or independents. They can outlast the theatre's monetary reserves, and either buy them out themselves, or wait until someone who will play the game buys them. Failing that, they have other options - direct to Pay-TV, direct to DVD, etc. There's enough money in DVD sales right now that it alone can make or break a movie, particularly with the studio's creative accounting practices.
Realistically, though, while the independents might care, the theatre chains don't. Hell, I know even the biggest "independent" in my city (who owns 3 theatre sites, with 2 sites - 6 screens - within walking distance of my home) doesn't care. All your plan would do is spell the death of the good independent theatre owners...
So yes, that's right, they're selling wax in a tube to rub on your forehead to relieve your headaches.
Around here, a product called Tiger Balm has long been used as a hangover cure. Rub a tiny bit on your forehead or temples, and you feel a lot better - or at least are up and moving, mostly to try and get away from the smell of the stuff...
Apart from the aromatics (clove oil, etc), it's basically menthol, camphor, and beeswax. So, yes, it's wax you rub on your head to relieve headaches...
In Australia, the average first-run 1 hr US show has an actual program run-time of 41 minutes and 5 seconds (including recap & opening / closing credits) - probably ~4% longer in the US (decimated down to 24FPS if necessary, then sped up to 25FPS for PAL). In itself, that's down slightly from just a few years ago (42:10).
In any given hour, that's nearly 20 minutes of ads! If you watch TV for 3 hours a night, that's 1 hr per night wasted on ads. That's 7 hours per week - nearly a whole work-day.
Or, if you choose, you can watch an additional 30% more televison if you skip the ads...
How else can the non-subscription networks get paid? I'm not refuting what you're saying, but what is the business model that's going to pay to produce programming?
Well, if you boil it down, their business model up 'til now has been "We'll spray stuff out there, and you pay us in the hope that some of it sticks to viewers".
That's it. It's not complicated, it's not subtle, and it has stayed essentially the same for 50 years. Whole industries have been born, thrived, and died in shorter timeframes. The only thing that's changed is now the viewer has access to some basic tools to help them to dodge the shit flying at them, without even having to get up from the chair to make coffee / crap / whatever.
Regardless of that, their business model is not my problem. They're paying for access to valuable spectrum on the basis that they can generate profit from it. If they reckon they can no longer generate enough revenue - without (a) pissing off their viewers, or (b) further government regulation or artificial technological restriction - to make it worthwhile, they should hand it back.
Oh, and if you think broadcast TV in the US has too many ads : here in Australia, the broadcasters have been known to edit scenes from first-run US shows to fit even more ads in!
Think about it. You work for an ad company, and you know that people using TiVos and other DVRs are skipping commercials. What would you do to get your message to them?
I'd patent the 31-second skip button so no other bastard could use it...
If many people want local news, many people will watch ads during local news segments or pay for local news channels, thus there'll be local news because there's a profit to be made.
No, what this leads to is "local" news - centralised news reported by talking heads in a central location, with just enough local content added as a veneer to fool you into thinking it's coming from the old abandoned studios on the other side of town.
Throw in a few "Brought to you by Chucks Riding School, Delicatessen, and Adhesives Supplies down on the Old Mill Road", and you'll never know the difference. Or so they think...
Your.sig says "I want a Social Security safety net. You are free to become a stain on life's floor if you don't.". Social Security was created by President Roosevelt, a Democrat, after his Republican predecessors presided over the creation and beginning of the Great Depression that made its necessity obvious.
You missed the bit where the poster said he wasn't an American. SS is not an American invention.
Government-sponsored disability / unemployment schemes predate Roosevelt by... well, lots! In the UK, social security arguably dates back to the reform of the Poor Laws in 1834. The first state-sponsored scheme dates back to Germany in 1883, under Otto von Bismark. France introduced one in 1906. The Brits introduced a national contributatory scheme in 1911.
As you say, Roosevelt introduced SS to the USA in the 1930s as part of his "new Deal" programs - which, initially, only protected unionised industrial workers. When social security really took off was after WWII - mostly as a sop to placate unemployed returned servicemen; you don't really want a few million trained, experienced, and armed militia getting upset with you...
Every Microsoft IPTV deployment has been buggy, overbudget, late, and required significantly higher requirements than Microsoft's initial stipulations.
Actually, is there even one deployment in progress or completed? Because, last I looked (18 months or so ago), there wasn't - sure, there were trials going on, but no deployment - because of pretty much the same problems Verizon have encountered.
In fact at that time, most players were dumping MS IPTV in favour of a solution from ?Nokia?
They haven't gained a sufficent level of cynicism at that age.
Exactly. Why do you thing campaigns like this one to encourage young voters are springing up?
It's because they don't have the cynicism/experience/critical thinking skills of older people. "Vote for me, because {insert age-significant institution} supports me!" is a much more powerful argument at age 18 than age 35.
Was reading an interesting report the other day comparing the relative 'maturity' of young adults in various Western countries. The upshot of which was, the higher the driving / voting / drinking age, the more you prolong adolescence (as measured by behaviour). Put simply, if you want people to behave as mature adults by the age of 20, you give them driving / voting / drinking rights at age 18. If you leave it until 21, they don't start behaving like adults until 23~25...
No, but Parkinson's sufferers have access to large-key keyboards, dampened wands, etc. Partially blind people have screen magnifiers. Wheelies have stair-climbing wheelchairs. Deaf & mute people have vocalisers & access to teletype relays.
All these things are technologies that serve to bypass the disability, to interface with the 'normal' world, and allow the disabled person to work within it.
Completely blind people have screen readers - but, in this case, the website is actively hostile to them. That is if it's anything like my local Target website, which consists almost entirely of Flash, text as graphics, and a 'catalogue' made up of PDF scans of their latest advertising flyer.
(I just had a look at target.com.au's website - the only text on the front page is the "disclaimer bar". We don't really have any accessability laws here...)
... (after all, this is slashdot!), but I had this line of thought today :
Video iPods exist. Apple is doing its downloadable "DVD" video thing with Disney. What are the odds of a video iPod with SD 720 x 540/576 TV output turning up in the next generation or two?
I mean, it's the perfect match. Apple want content, and know that people want to use that content anywhere - but studios want content locked to a device. Well, if you can't have portable content, how 'bout a portable device?
An iPod-sized pocket portable "DVD player" equivalent would be the next "if it does 80% of what I want, it's good enough" killer device - much like the original iPod / FairPlay mix.
Uh, without going into a dive into the morality of the death penalty, you do realize that it isn't just a few people in power who are enforcing it, but rather the democratically-established laws of the government?
Funny how it's "democratically-established laws" when one agrees with it, but a 'corrupt, rigged, anti-democratic assault on personal rights' when one doesn't, isn't it?
No, not trolling. I do find this sort of thing genuinely funny. The ability of the human mind to hold two contradictory points of view simultaneously without melting down is something to be celebrated and treated with an amused & wonderous reverence. It's this that truly separates us from the animals, not our inability to lick our own genitals...
Having said that, what I do have a real problem with is when individuals and society conflate punishment with retribution and/or vengeance...
Unfortunately for the buying public this is a major issue.
No, unfortunately, not is. It will be, but by that time it'll be all-pervasive - basically, too late to do anything about it.
I know the common thing to do is berate corporations for having no long-term vision - but the RIAA/MPAA/??AA do. They've perfected the technique of hovering around that fine line between "too fast, and people will notice" and "too slow, and we'll be obsoleted before we achieve our objectives".
You have to keep in mind that you only see negative things reported.
I agree with you - or, at least, I'd like to. Can you name a couple of good things to counter the bad examples of (a) unilateraly declaring war on an independent sovereign nation on the basis of falsified evidence, and (b) the unilateral creation of a whole new class of criminal because existing domestic and international law didn't allow you to hold people for indefinite periods without trial?
The rest of the world wouldn't care so much if you were just shitting in your own nest - but when the U.S. starts shitting all over the rest of the world, we start worrying...
Basically, this all comes back to [the U.S.]. If the RIAA/PATRIOT act/name your favourite anti-American act seemingly supported by the federal goverment here prevail in the US, international pressure appears for our countries to adopt similar ("compatible") measures.
Or worse - there's plenty of examples (particularly in the realm of copyright and IP) where a law has failed to get up, or has been struck down, in the U.S., only to appear in another country in the form of 'regulation' required by a treaty or trade agreement.
(Aside: The reason GWB likes John Howard so much is because he's a) just the right height, and b) has false teeth. If JH had a flat head for GWB to rest his [non-alcoholic] beer on, he'd be perfect...)
And, if people in the U.S. think "Ha! Serves you right for being our butt-monkeys!", just wait until your country adopts those same regulations in the name of 'synchronising laws with our major trading partners'...
Farscape also had Rygel, who was pretty much a floating sack of gross bodily functions. But I'm just glad you didn't pick me up on my 'Serenity' error;-)
Not to mention how rarely people in space go to the toilet. I mean, in almost every space sci-fi movie or series there's usually at least one or two scenes where everybody eats - well, the captain, senior crew, and important visitors at least (you never see redshirts eating, but they never seem to last long enough for the hunger pangs to set in anyway...)
But I digress. The crew of the 'Nostromo'? Fair enough, I would have shit myself when that squeaky thing jumped out of his chest. But Kirk, Spock, McCoy, & Scottie? Plenty of times we saw food go in, but never come out. (Actually, that may explain the bloated mess that is Shats today - but what about Nimoy?). We saw Yoda cook a couple of big meals, but never saw him dropping the kids off at the pool. Capt'n Mal & the crew had meals in almost every episode, but 'Serenity' doesn't seem to have a head?
And you can't tell me that, after a few drinks at the cantina, Han Solo didn't have to go and drain the main vein to make his bladder gladder...
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno - £131/~US$200/~AU$325 p.a. sounds like an absolute bargain for 6 TV channels (plus news & parliament), 7 or more radio stations (plus regionals), and a web services portal that is the envy of the world's biggest new media players.
I know your Prime Minister is a prick, and is openly hostile to your BBC - but can we swap him for ours? Please?
Ah, but if a 2 second ad can be so effective, imagine how effective a 30 second ad will be!
"Shaped to fit your lifestyle" - huh, so that's what the kids are calling it these days...
The studio owners have a lot more money than theatre owners - chains or independents. They can outlast the theatre's monetary reserves, and either buy them out themselves, or wait until someone who will play the game buys them. Failing that, they have other options - direct to Pay-TV, direct to DVD, etc. There's enough money in DVD sales right now that it alone can make or break a movie, particularly with the studio's creative accounting practices.
Realistically, though, while the independents might care, the theatre chains don't. Hell, I know even the biggest "independent" in my city (who owns 3 theatre sites, with 2 sites - 6 screens - within walking distance of my home) doesn't care. All your plan would do is spell the death of the good independent theatre owners...
Apart from the aromatics (clove oil, etc), it's basically menthol, camphor, and beeswax. So, yes, it's wax you rub on your head to relieve headaches...
In Australia, the average first-run 1 hr US show has an actual program run-time of 41 minutes and 5 seconds (including recap & opening / closing credits) - probably ~4% longer in the US (decimated down to 24FPS if necessary, then sped up to 25FPS for PAL). In itself, that's down slightly from just a few years ago (42:10).
In any given hour, that's nearly 20 minutes of ads! If you watch TV for 3 hours a night, that's 1 hr per night wasted on ads. That's 7 hours per week - nearly a whole work-day.
Or, if you choose, you can watch an additional 30% more televison if you skip the ads...
That's it. It's not complicated, it's not subtle, and it has stayed essentially the same for 50 years. Whole industries have been born, thrived, and died in shorter timeframes. The only thing that's changed is now the viewer has access to some basic tools to help them to dodge the shit flying at them, without even having to get up from the chair to make coffee / crap / whatever.
Regardless of that, their business model is not my problem. They're paying for access to valuable spectrum on the basis that they can generate profit from it. If they reckon they can no longer generate enough revenue - without (a) pissing off their viewers, or (b) further government regulation or artificial technological restriction - to make it worthwhile, they should hand it back.
Oh, and if you think broadcast TV in the US has too many ads : here in Australia, the broadcasters have been known to edit scenes from first-run US shows to fit even more ads in!
Throw in a few "Brought to you by Chucks Riding School, Delicatessen, and Adhesives Supplies down on the Old Mill Road", and you'll never know the difference. Or so they think...
(Sorry, I thought you were making a Monty Python reference...)
Government-sponsored disability / unemployment schemes predate Roosevelt by
As you say, Roosevelt introduced SS to the USA in the 1930s as part of his "new Deal" programs - which, initially, only protected unionised industrial workers. When social security really took off was after WWII - mostly as a sop to placate unemployed returned servicemen; you don't really want a few million trained, experienced, and armed militia getting upset with you...
Myself, I'm simpler than that - I just prefer the words I read to make some sort of sense...
In fact at that time, most players were dumping MS IPTV in favour of a solution from ?Nokia?
It's because they don't have the cynicism/experience/critical thinking skills of older people. "Vote for me, because {insert age-significant institution} supports me!" is a much more powerful argument at age 18 than age 35.
Was reading an interesting report the other day comparing the relative 'maturity' of young adults in various Western countries. The upshot of which was, the higher the driving / voting / drinking age, the more you prolong adolescence (as measured by behaviour). Put simply, if you want people to behave as mature adults by the age of 20, you give them driving / voting / drinking rights at age 18. If you leave it until 21, they don't start behaving like adults until 23~25...
No, but Parkinson's sufferers have access to large-key keyboards, dampened wands, etc. Partially blind people have screen magnifiers. Wheelies have stair-climbing wheelchairs. Deaf & mute people have vocalisers & access to teletype relays.
All these things are technologies that serve to bypass the disability, to interface with the 'normal' world, and allow the disabled person to work within it.
Completely blind people have screen readers - but, in this case, the website is actively hostile to them. That is if it's anything like my local Target website, which consists almost entirely of Flash, text as graphics, and a 'catalogue' made up of PDF scans of their latest advertising flyer.
(I just had a look at target.com.au's website - the only text on the front page is the "disclaimer bar". We don't really have any accessability laws here...)
(Oops, I meant 720x480/576 TV-out. Why does every other forum in the world have edit capabilities, but not /.?)
... (after all, this is slashdot!), but I had this line of thought today :
Video iPods exist. Apple is doing its downloadable "DVD" video thing with Disney. What are the odds of a video iPod with SD 720 x 540/576 TV output turning up in the next generation or two?
I mean, it's the perfect match. Apple want content, and know that people want to use that content anywhere - but studios want content locked to a device. Well, if you can't have portable content, how 'bout a portable device?
An iPod-sized pocket portable "DVD player" equivalent would be the next "if it does 80% of what I want, it's good enough" killer device - much like the original iPod / FairPlay mix.
No, not trolling. I do find this sort of thing genuinely funny. The ability of the human mind to hold two contradictory points of view simultaneously without melting down is something to be celebrated and treated with an amused & wonderous reverence. It's this that truly separates us from the animals, not our inability to lick our own genitals...
Having said that, what I do have a real problem with is when individuals and society conflate punishment with retribution and/or vengeance...
I know the common thing to do is berate corporations for having no long-term vision - but the RIAA/MPAA/??AA do. They've perfected the technique of hovering around that fine line between "too fast, and people will notice" and "too slow, and we'll be obsoleted before we achieve our objectives".
The rest of the world wouldn't care so much if you were just shitting in your own nest - but when the U.S. starts shitting all over the rest of the world, we start worrying...
(Aside: The reason GWB likes John Howard so much is because he's a) just the right height, and b) has false teeth. If JH had a flat head for GWB to rest his [non-alcoholic] beer on, he'd be perfect...)
And, if people in the U.S. think "Ha! Serves you right for being our butt-monkeys!", just wait until your country adopts those same regulations in the name of 'synchronising laws with our major trading partners'...
Farscape also had Rygel, who was pretty much a floating sack of gross bodily functions. But I'm just glad you didn't pick me up on my 'Serenity' error ;-)
Not to mention how rarely people in space go to the toilet. I mean, in almost every space sci-fi movie or series there's usually at least one or two scenes where everybody eats - well, the captain, senior crew, and important visitors at least (you never see redshirts eating, but they never seem to last long enough for the hunger pangs to set in anyway...)
But I digress. The crew of the 'Nostromo'? Fair enough, I would have shit myself when that squeaky thing jumped out of his chest. But Kirk, Spock, McCoy, & Scottie? Plenty of times we saw food go in, but never come out. (Actually, that may explain the bloated mess that is Shats today - but what about Nimoy?). We saw Yoda cook a couple of big meals, but never saw him dropping the kids off at the pool. Capt'n Mal & the crew had meals in almost every episode, but 'Serenity' doesn't seem to have a head?
And you can't tell me that, after a few drinks at the cantina, Han Solo didn't have to go and drain the main vein to make his bladder gladder...