As I said in another post, episodes cost about 2 million each. An online 30-second ad goes for ~$100,000. That's not enough to fund the episode. His suggested model will merely send NBC/Syfy to bankruptcy as they spend more money (2 million) then they are taking in (0.1-0.2 million).
And like you I don't buy merchandise. I did when I was a kid, but then I got tired of tripping over models and other crap, so I converted it to cash on ebay. Now I only buy DVDs.
Episodes offered via online websites should display no interstitial advertising. Ads should only appear just prior to and just after an episode plays. Interstitial advertising will only drive people to piracy, which shows no interstitial ads.
How dumb can one person be? First off nobody ever watches the ads at the end of an episode. They click "stop". Therefore no (or few) advertisers will be willing to buy the end spot.
Second, episodes cost about 2 million each. An online 30-second ad goes from about $100,000. That's not enough to fund the episode, so you need more than just one or two "ads prior to the episode". While his conclusion that people will not need to pirate if they can get episode without ad-breaks, his financial model will merely send NBC/Syfy to bankruptcy as they spend more money (2 million) then they are taking in (0.1-0.2 million).
I'm also wondering why he thinks the "cable model is bad".
FOX and NBC Broadcast just recently said the cable model is BETTER than broadcast, because even when the economy is bad, cable channels have a guaranteed income. (About 50 cents per home.) That's why they are trying to shift their channels over to the cable model, and rely less on advertising.
Running old episodes of U-FO, Dark Shadows, Voyagers, and so on worked great in the early 90s, but not now. It's cheaper to just buy the DVDs, rather than pay to access the expensive Sci-Fi Channel.
>>>Smallville and Supernatural would have kicked their butt in ratings if they'd kept SciFi Fridays,
Hardly. The ratings of both these shows *plummeted* after they were moved from Thursday to Friday. In fact Smallville has already been canceled, and unfortunately it looks like Supernatural is headed the same place.
In contrast SciFi Friday (Farscape, Lexx, SG1, SGA, DSG) has done extremely well this last decade, even when going against Firefly and Ghost Whisperer. Turning to Scifi on Fridays became "appointment viewing" for the young male contingent that likes those types of shows.
I'm not sure how wrestling fits into the "imagine greater" tagline. Also there's really not enough wrestling to fill 7 days a week, so I think Syfy will remain scifi but will gradually mutate into a fantasy/horror channel.
Did anybody read the article?
It says, "Episodes offered via online websites should display no interstitial advertising. Ads should only appear just prior to and just after an episode plays. Interstitial advertising will only drive people to piracy, which shows no interstitial ads." How dumb can one person be? First off nobody ever watches the ads at the end of an episode. They click "stop". Therefore no (or few) advertisers will be willing to buy the end spot.
Second, episodes cost about 2 million each. An online 30-second ad goes from about $100,000. That's not enough to fund the episode, so you need more than just one or two "ads prior to the episode". While his conclusion that people will not need to pirate if they can get episode without ad-breaks, his financial model will merely send NBC/Syfy to bankruptcy as they spend more money (2 million) then they are taking in (0.1-0.2 million).
That's what TNT thought in 1998 when they acquired Babylon 5. "Well we have lots of wrestling fans, who are male, so they'll probably like a male-oreinted sci-fi show."
What they forgot to take into account is IQ. While the demos are the same (males 35 or younger), the IQ is not. Wrestling fans tend to be less educated while Scifi fans are college educated, or college-destined. The two have some overlap but not much. Result: B5 fans did not watch the wrestling that immediately followed it, and Wrestling fans did not watch the scifi show that preceded.
>>>the last minute renewal meant that all of Season 5 was crammed into two mind-blowing episodes at the end of Season 4
FALSE.
I really wish people would stop repeating this urban legend, especially since most of them (like you) are just guessing. According to J.Michael Straczynski (you know, the guy who created the thing) here was his original plan for the storyline:
Season 4 Finale: Garibaldi betrays Sheridan & he is captured (the cliffhanger) Episode 501-503: Sheridan tortured, rescued, and then planet earth is defeated. Episode 504-522: Identical to what we got - a story about telepaths, psi cops, the Centauri War, and Sleeping in Light.
So as you can see, all he did was move 503 back to 421. That's all. Your claim that season 5 was crammed into 420-421. 5 was what he originally planned all along w/ just a slight shift.
That's why most TV is crap - the writers meander randomly, and then come-up with some half-cocked ending (or else bore the audience to tears with filler episodes in order to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the show). They'd all be better off to plot the overall story in advance, so they can see their destination and work towards it.
BSG's Ron Moore could have done what Babylon 5 did with Crusade..... fast-forward ten years, and then insert a new mystery within the existing universe. It's a shame that series was canceled before it even aired, because Crusade's first thirteen episodes are more entertaining than the first 13 episodes that Star Trek Voyager or Enterprise produced.
BTW for those that don't know, the cure to the virus would have been discovered midway through season 3, but the show was planned to last 5 years, so it would have been interesting to see where JMS would have taken Crusade. He's mentioned it related to Shadows and the origins of the Technomages but not much else.
It doesn't help that Syfy is putting these shows on the worst night (Tuesday). They are trying to compete again "real" shows that people actually want to watch like Glee, CSI, and so on.
Syfy should have kept the original Sci-Fi Friday they've had the last decade. They had built a recognizable brand, and people were willing to turn to Syfy on Friday because none of the other networks were showing anything worthwhile.
The problem is that Caprica didn't have just a mid-season hiatus... it went almost a full year between season 1 and 1.5. Few shows can survive that.
Also the other poster is correct: The story simply wasn't that good. Other than the cute girl(s), I could find little reason to continue watching. I suspect "Haven" is also destined for the chopping block, for the same reason.
"Conservatives more liberal givers" -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposal >>>>>
A similar study in 2000 reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately if science studies had slashdot moderation, it and the scientists that generated the report would probably be modded (-1 Troll). Or else have their funds removed by the government. Science only works if people are willing to accept the results of the studies, and most do not. They have preconceived notions and experience cognitive dissonance in their brains, so they lash out.
>>>Most political differences are a result of disagreement of premises, not conclusions.
What do you mean? It seems like logic would work. You create a program (say Amtrak), look at the results (near-bankruptcy), and then decide whether or not it worked (it didn't unfortunately - not enough customers).
>>>elect a lot of it and wait a few years for the electorate to "cure" themselves.
If you listen to people like Alex Jones, that's exactly what the "liberals" want - to setup the system for collapse so they can abolish the Constitution and create a new one (modeled after the EU's Lisbon Treaty). Is that the cure you were talking about? I'm a bit confused about your point, so a clarification would be appreciated. Thanks:-)
Excellent point. Polls shows that most americans are "liberal" when it comes to social ideas (like allowing gays to marry), but "conservative" when it comes to political ideas (government is best when it is small). At present neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent that view. Neither do simple labels.
For myself: I just want people to stay out of my damn wallet.
I sweat & labor to earn the wealth, and somebody takes it away for their OWN enrichment. I'm beginning to understand how an indentured servant must have felt (he worked but the wealth went to the landlord). - Yes I'm sorry you ran into a wall and broke your hip, but you've had a job for ~30 years. You have money and should pay the bill yourself out of your personal wages/savings - just like I pay my own bills out of my own account. AFTER you run out of money I'll gladly help you (via welfare, medicare) but nor prior to that.
A safety net should be exactly that - a net. Not an entitlement given to people who are still on the "highwire" of life and don't need it.
>>>should I remind you that until a few years ago, California was seen as the leading light in terms of state experiments?
Hahahahahaha. Say what? I've been hearing people laugh at California's problems (most self-inflicted) since the late 80s. Some have even called it Communist, but I wouldn't go that far. Definitely Socialist though.
>>>The constitution is ultimately just what a simple majority of what the founding fathers thought best.
False.
The constitution required 9 out of 13 States to make it active, which is 70%... a super supermajority*. Eventually it was ratified by all 13, so it had 100% backing just the same as the Lisbon Treaty had 100% backing in the EU. The Founders made both adoption and amendment require such large numbers, in order to protect the 49% minority from being abused. The current system requires broad consensus, including with the minority interests, in order to adjust the Constitution. .
>>>Why should we have to keep their laws
We don't. You are free to amend the Constitution and change the law. Or call for a Constitutional convention and scrap the whole thing. Nothing is stopping you, except the other ~300 million Americans. (Damn; gotta cooperate with other people and get their permission first. Sucks, don't it?)
* 50% is regular majority * 60% is supermajority (what Democrats had in Congress) * 67% is a super-supermajority (aka constitutional majority)
>>>Oh, but both my question and yours are loaded with misleading and biasing rationales for granting the president authority, aren't they?
No shit Sherlock. That was my point. The original question was worded to predispose uninformed citizens to say "yes the president should be able to stop cyberattacks". The question is biased/misleading, and the results meaningless but they give those who desire to control the internet the data they need to justify it. "The majority americans say the net should have a killswitch." Like Noam Chomsy said, they are manufacturing consent via slanted questions that give them the answer they desire.
An ideal poll would simply ask, "Should the president have power to turn off the internet?" without biasing the question to give the answer desired. .
>>>just like the president can abuse many of the powers he has.
Yeah well, it's not the current president I fear. It's the future president that resembles somebody like Julius Caesar, or Nero, or Napoleon, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Mussolini, or Pol Pot. We've handed him exactly the tool he needs to silence dissent and strengthen his grip. We should not be giving so much power to just one man, or even one group of men. Such powers should be divided across multiple departments, and multiple levels of government, in order to dilute the damage any one person/group can cause. .
>>>plausible deniability
A leader doesn'tt need that when he (or his parliament) has been given near-absolute power. You can do your oppression out in the open, and nobody will be able to object (again see my list of former democracies that fell to dictators). To mangle a quote from a German Christian pastor: "First they came for our guns, but we did not object because we did not need guns. Then they came for our free speech, but we did not object because free speech is not absolute. Then they came for the protesters & reporters, but we did not object because we were not protesters or reporters. Then they came for me, and no one was left to object. Or allowed to speak-out for fear of being jailed like me."
Personally I prefer a nice 1982 tan color with black keys (hint: look at my name). Or a sleek off-white like the Commodore 128. Of course nothing says "I'm a disco duck" like a black VCR or stereo or Atari 2600/VCS with woodgrain accents.;-)
But seriously: I like black because you can "hide" it under the entertainment center, and it won't stand out in the middle of the living room like a sore thumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely.
As I said in another post, episodes cost about 2 million each. An online 30-second ad goes for ~$100,000. That's not enough to fund the episode. His suggested model will merely send NBC/Syfy to bankruptcy as they spend more money (2 million) then they are taking in (0.1-0.2 million).
And like you I don't buy merchandise. I did when I was a kid, but then I got tired of tripping over models and other crap, so I converted it to cash on ebay. Now I only buy DVDs.
Yeah I know: "You must be new here." Well I did:
Episodes offered via online websites should display no interstitial advertising. Ads should only appear just prior to and just after an episode plays. Interstitial advertising will only drive people to piracy, which shows no interstitial ads.
How dumb can one person be? First off nobody ever watches the ads at the end of an episode. They click "stop". Therefore no (or few) advertisers will be willing to buy the end spot.
Second, episodes cost about 2 million each. An online 30-second ad goes from about $100,000. That's not enough to fund the episode, so you need more than just one or two "ads prior to the episode". While his conclusion that people will not need to pirate if they can get episode without ad-breaks, his financial model will merely send NBC/Syfy to bankruptcy as they spend more money (2 million) then they are taking in (0.1-0.2 million).
I'm also wondering why he thinks the "cable model is bad".
FOX and NBC Broadcast just recently said the cable model is BETTER than broadcast, because even when the economy is bad, cable channels have a guaranteed income. (About 50 cents per home.) That's why they are trying to shift their channels over to the cable model, and rely less on advertising.
Reruns? Why?
Running old episodes of U-FO, Dark Shadows, Voyagers, and so on worked great in the early 90s, but not now. It's cheaper to just buy the DVDs, rather than pay to access the expensive Sci-Fi Channel.
>>>Smallville and Supernatural would have kicked their butt in ratings if they'd kept SciFi Fridays,
Hardly. The ratings of both these shows *plummeted* after they were moved from Thursday to Friday. In fact Smallville has already been canceled, and unfortunately it looks like Supernatural is headed the same place.
In contrast SciFi Friday (Farscape, Lexx, SG1, SGA, DSG) has done extremely well this last decade, even when going against Firefly and Ghost Whisperer. Turning to Scifi on Fridays became "appointment viewing" for the young male contingent that likes those types of shows.
I'm not sure how wrestling fits into the "imagine greater" tagline. Also there's really not enough wrestling to fill 7 days a week, so I think Syfy will remain scifi but will gradually mutate into a fantasy/horror channel.
Did anybody read the article?
It says, "Episodes offered via online websites should display no interstitial advertising. Ads should only appear just prior to and just after an episode plays. Interstitial advertising will only drive people to piracy, which shows no interstitial ads." How dumb can one person be? First off nobody ever watches the ads at the end of an episode. They click "stop". Therefore no (or few) advertisers will be willing to buy the end spot.
Second, episodes cost about 2 million each. An online 30-second ad goes from about $100,000. That's not enough to fund the episode, so you need more than just one or two "ads prior to the episode". While his conclusion that people will not need to pirate if they can get episode without ad-breaks, his financial model will merely send NBC/Syfy to bankruptcy as they spend more money (2 million) then they are taking in (0.1-0.2 million).
That's what TNT thought in 1998 when they acquired Babylon 5. "Well we have lots of wrestling fans, who are male, so they'll probably like a male-oreinted sci-fi show."
What they forgot to take into account is IQ. While the demos are the same (males 35 or younger), the IQ is not. Wrestling fans tend to be less educated while Scifi fans are college educated, or college-destined. The two have some overlap but not much. Result: B5 fans did not watch the wrestling that immediately followed it, and Wrestling fans did not watch the scifi show that preceded.
It appears NBC/Sci-Fi is making the same error.
>>>the last minute renewal meant that all of Season 5 was crammed into two mind-blowing episodes at the end of Season 4
FALSE.
I really wish people would stop repeating this urban legend, especially since most of them (like you) are just guessing. According to J.Michael Straczynski (you know, the guy who created the thing) here was his original plan for the storyline:
Season 4 Finale: Garibaldi betrays Sheridan & he is captured (the cliffhanger)
Episode 501-503: Sheridan tortured, rescued, and then planet earth is defeated.
Episode 504-522: Identical to what we got - a story about telepaths, psi cops, the Centauri War, and Sleeping in Light.
So as you can see, all he did was move 503 back to 421.
That's all. Your claim that season 5 was crammed into 420-421.
5 was what he originally planned all along w/ just a slight shift.
That's why most TV is crap - the writers meander randomly, and then come-up with some half-cocked ending (or else bore the audience to tears with filler episodes in order to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the show). They'd all be better off to plot the overall story in advance, so they can see their destination and work towards it.
BSG's Ron Moore could have done what Babylon 5 did with Crusade..... fast-forward ten years, and then insert a new mystery within the existing universe. It's a shame that series was canceled before it even aired, because Crusade's first thirteen episodes are more entertaining than the first 13 episodes that Star Trek Voyager or Enterprise produced.
BTW for those that don't know, the cure to the virus would have been discovered midway through season 3, but the show was planned to last 5 years, so it would have been interesting to see where JMS would have taken Crusade. He's mentioned it related to Shadows and the origins of the Technomages but not much else.
It doesn't help that Syfy is putting these shows on the worst night (Tuesday). They are trying to compete again "real" shows that people actually want to watch like Glee, CSI, and so on.
Syfy should have kept the original Sci-Fi Friday they've had the last decade. They had built a recognizable brand, and people were willing to turn to Syfy on Friday because none of the other networks were showing anything worthwhile.
The problem is that Caprica didn't have just a mid-season hiatus... it went almost a full year between season 1 and 1.5. Few shows can survive that.
Also the other poster is correct: The story simply wasn't that good. Other than the cute girl(s), I could find little reason to continue watching. I suspect "Haven" is also destined for the chopping block, for the same reason.
"Conservatives more liberal givers"
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposal
>>>>>
A similar study in 2000 reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately if science studies had slashdot moderation, it and the scientists that generated the report would probably be modded (-1 Troll). Or else have their funds removed by the government. Science only works if people are willing to accept the results of the studies, and most do not. They have preconceived notions and experience cognitive dissonance in their brains, so they lash out.
>>>Most political differences are a result of disagreement of premises, not conclusions.
What do you mean? It seems like logic would work. You create a program (say Amtrak), look at the results (near-bankruptcy), and then decide whether or not it worked (it didn't unfortunately - not enough customers).
>>>elect a lot of it and wait a few years for the electorate to "cure" themselves.
If you listen to people like Alex Jones, that's exactly what the "liberals" want - to setup the system for collapse so they can abolish the Constitution and create a new one (modeled after the EU's Lisbon Treaty). Is that the cure you were talking about? I'm a bit confused about your point, so a clarification would be appreciated. Thanks :-)
Excellent point. Polls shows that most americans are "liberal" when it comes to social ideas (like allowing gays to marry), but "conservative" when it comes to political ideas (government is best when it is small). At present neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent that view. Neither do simple labels.
For myself: I just want people to stay out of my damn wallet.
I sweat & labor to earn the wealth, and somebody takes it away for their OWN enrichment. I'm beginning to understand how an indentured servant must have felt (he worked but the wealth went to the landlord). - Yes I'm sorry you ran into a wall and broke your hip, but you've had a job for ~30 years. You have money and should pay the bill yourself out of your personal wages/savings - just like I pay my own bills out of my own account. AFTER you run out of money I'll gladly help you (via welfare, medicare) but nor prior to that.
A safety net should be exactly that - a net. Not an entitlement given to people who are still on the "highwire" of life and don't need it.
IMHO
>>>should I remind you that until a few years ago, California was seen as the leading light in terms of state experiments?
Hahahahahaha. Say what? I've been hearing people laugh at California's problems (most self-inflicted) since the late 80s. Some have even called it Communist, but I wouldn't go that far. Definitely Socialist though.
>>>The constitution is ultimately just what a simple majority of what the founding fathers thought best.
False.
The constitution required 9 out of 13 States to make it active, which is 70%... a super supermajority*. Eventually it was ratified by all 13, so it had 100% backing just the same as the Lisbon Treaty had 100% backing in the EU. The Founders made both adoption and amendment require such large numbers, in order to protect the 49% minority from being abused. The current system requires broad consensus, including with the minority interests, in order to adjust the Constitution.
.
>>>Why should we have to keep their laws
We don't. You are free to amend the Constitution and change the law. Or call for a Constitutional convention and scrap the whole thing. Nothing is stopping you, except the other ~300 million Americans. (Damn; gotta cooperate with other people and get their permission first. Sucks, don't it?)
* 50% is regular majority
* 60% is supermajority (what Democrats had in Congress)
* 67% is a super-supermajority (aka constitutional majority)
>>>Oh, but both my question and yours are loaded with misleading and biasing rationales for granting the president authority, aren't they?
No shit Sherlock. That was my point. The original question was worded to predispose uninformed citizens to say "yes the president should be able to stop cyberattacks". The question is biased/misleading, and the results meaningless but they give those who desire to control the internet the data they need to justify it. "The majority americans say the net should have a killswitch." Like Noam Chomsy said, they are manufacturing consent via slanted questions that give them the answer they desire.
An ideal poll would simply ask, "Should the president have power to turn off the internet?" without biasing the question to give the answer desired.
.
>>>just like the president can abuse many of the powers he has.
Yeah well, it's not the current president I fear. It's the future president that resembles somebody like Julius Caesar, or Nero, or Napoleon, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Mussolini, or Pol Pot. We've handed him exactly the tool he needs to silence dissent and strengthen his grip. We should not be giving so much power to just one man, or even one group of men. Such powers should be divided across multiple departments, and multiple levels of government, in order to dilute the damage any one person/group can cause.
.
>>>plausible deniability
A leader doesn'tt need that when he (or his parliament) has been given near-absolute power. You can do your oppression out in the open, and nobody will be able to object (again see my list of former democracies that fell to dictators). To mangle a quote from a German Christian pastor: "First they came for our guns, but we did not object because we did not need guns. Then they came for our free speech, but we did not object because free speech is not absolute. Then they came for the protesters & reporters, but we did not object because we were not protesters or reporters. Then they came for me, and no one was left to object. Or allowed to speak-out for fear of being jailed like me."
Personally I prefer a nice 1982 tan color with black keys (hint: look at my name). Or a sleek off-white like the Commodore 128. Of course nothing says "I'm a disco duck" like a black VCR or stereo or Atari 2600/VCS with woodgrain accents. ;-)
But seriously: I like black because you can "hide" it under the entertainment center, and it won't stand out in the middle of the living room like a sore thumb.
- DO NOT READ
"Ahhh shit."
Nazis police come-out and beat him up. Hilarious!
>>>I know the webmaster from there... Real asshat, I banned him a few times
Shocking. ;-)
An asshat?
Really?
Never would have guessed that someone who sues his readers would be an asshat.
This link still works:
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/center.html
>>>If you don't pay me, I'll sue.
"Kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
Gladly.
I just read about 100 articles.
Any letters I receive from lawyers will be used to keep warm this winter. Thanks in advance.
FORBIDDEN
You do not have permission to access http://www.northcountrygazette.org/ on this server.
Wow that was fast.