I can just picture some guy standing in line with a hiking backpack on, a big grin on his face, with a 50 inch plasma computer/TV screen sticking out of his backpack.
It's kinda remarkable how rarely Mythbusters bust a law-enforcement myth, or fail to bust an evasion myth.
I suppose if it were easy to evade tracking/drug dogs, or evade some law-enforcement tactic, the police would change their ways to make it not so easy:) And I assume that police and dog training programs communicate quickly with each other if a flaw is found. Criminals are less likely to instantly know of an exploit that another criminal found, so the police are probably a step ahead of most things you can think of at any given moment.
They tried submerging it in peanut butter, coffee, air tight jars, etc.. The dog found it each time.
Mythbusters also did a couple shows about trying to evade a bloodhound tracking dog. Crossing creeks and rivers didn't work, pouring chili pepper on the trail didn't work, trying to cover your scent by scrubbing yourself and putting on a hazmat type didn't work.
The one thing that did seem to work was dumping lots of tins of smelly sardines and other super tasty stuff on the trail. The dog got distracted by the good smelling food, and then basically lost the human's scent for a time. That would by you some time if you were on the run, but the dog would eventually get you unless you could outpace it by getting in a car/train/bus, etc..
I doubt there is anything you can do to defeat a trained dog's noise. Heck, even my untrained coonhound is amazing at finding treats I hide in my backyard. I've tried to fool her, it just doesn't work.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.
Creationists might describe The Theory of Evolution as "just a theory", implying it is just one of many competing (equal) views of how life evolved. Scientists of course would understand that once something is called "Theory X", it is well validated by experiments over time, and has little competition from other theories.
Of course no scientists would say "X is settled", because they understand the nature of how the scientific method works, and how nothing is every proven, etc.. but I think we should start using the word "settled" when describing AGW because the average layperson not going to be aware of distinctions like I mentioned above.
I wish more scientists and/or science promoters/writers would stop trying to be literally accurate with wording (when talking to the public) and just use terms that are convincing at this point. Correct terminology be damned.
Nobody but Americans talk about religion in science. The rest of the planet doesn't care about old men in the sky.
Tell that to the Taliban, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, etc.
Please come back when you actually have a clue about the subject to which you're speaking and not simply sounding off from your nether orifice.
So you are saying that Americans and Muslim extremists allow religion to influence their society to a similar degree.....
Many polls have shown that Americans, when compared to other developed, western-style countries, are far more likely to disbelieve things like evolution, man-made climate change, etc.. and all due to religion.
In the 80's it was well known that the CIA was monitoring the USENET. Apparently there was a list of keywords that they searched for that became well known, so we used them all the time. We had it on good authority that the CIA had become amused by our antics. It probably relieved the boredom.
-Matt
I have this sense that US people, on average, would be scared to pull something like that nowadays. I occasionally see a slashdotter type a line of words like 'bomb bomb bomb nuclear suitcase etc.." in a post to be funny when something about monitoring comes up. But other than that, I can't picture 'messing with intelligence services' on a wider scale in a particular medium just for fun anymore.
Without any evidence whatsoever.. I get this feeling that CIA/FBI would not be amused in this day and age. Well..I guess some evidence may be found in the overreactions to kids bring pocket knifes to schools and stuff like that.
We have a similar crosswalk, but it is only 2 lanes in either direction, with an island in the middle. No flashing lights though, just big crosswalk signs.
Very few people use that crosswalk. However, lots of people in the right hand land turn right just past the crosswalk (by 10 feet or so). So the amount of times you see the right hand lane backed up due to people turning, happens 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time it is someone crossing.
I have to admit I've been caught off guard and had to break harder than I normally would when that 1% situation happens and the person crossing is hidden by all the cars in the right lane, and just suddenly steps out into your left lane.
Flashing lights though... I'm not sure how you could miss those.
Medical insurance provided as compensation was essentially a dodge against wage controls - so yeah, ideally, we'd end the practice of employer-based insurance, and let people buy on the open market, or pay fee for service. COBRA portability was an attempt to deal with the problem, but the *real* issue is that employers shouldn't be in the business of providing insurance.
Or even getting 'more real'... we shouldn't need insurance at all, and instead follow what the rest of the modern world does: single-payer, government owned, or some mix of public option and private. "For profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare.
Part of taxi regulation is to make taxis extend and enhance public transportation. Like requiring them to answer calls in 'bad neighborhoods'.
Uber drivers can just ignore requests to 'bad neighborhoods'. (Although I'm not sure why a city couldn't require that of Uber...odd).
Cities can allow for-profit companies in on the transportation game and regulate them to serve the public fairly. This assumes you want people all over your city to be able to get a ride some place equally at all times. That is one (of many good and some bad) reasons that taxi companies became for-profit monopolies in cities. Kind of like cable companies.
The other option, would be if the city took over all paid transport as part of the public infrastructure. No private taxis, no uber. 100% owned by the city taxis, buses, etc.. The more profitable areas of transport that uber and the taxi companies were profiting from, would then go to the city, which could use it to further enhance public transport.
Imagine Uber is the number 1 'taxi-like' service in every city in the world. It could happen. It's already in 39 countries and has raised over 20 billion in investment revenue last time I checked.
1) Ubers can avoid poor neighborhoods at will, and there's really nothing the city can do about it. I live in LA, and if you live in, say, Watts, you must call a cab if you want a car, no Uber will find you there, because it's "the ghetto" and there's never an Uber within 20 minutes. Taxis can be and are required to pick up from all parts of the city, and their statistics are closely monitored by regulators to make sure they do.
1. Why can't a city require Uber to solve this issue if they want to work in the city? Uber could ban drivers for a month if they refuse 3 'bad neighborhood' trips per month.. or whatever works. It would be up to Uber to make itself compliant.
All of this is totally fine as long as e-hail livery is a "premium" service, but some cities rely on taxis as a critical part of the transport infrastructure
Like other things considered infrastructure in a city, couldn't the city just take over ownership of that aspect of the economy? All 'for pay' transit would be owned by the city. I would assume that would be a net positive for revenue and the city could invest the profits in even better public transit.
I'm unsure why people feel that cities have less options regulating Uber than they do regulating electrical lines attached to houses, water lines, etc..
I couldn't help but notice that the wind map used by Watts Up was from some random day and not representative of prevailing winds AT ALL!
I was under the assumption that the Watts Up guy was considered a biased, misleading, source of climate science information. It surprised me to see a link to that site in a summary.
people who don't pay taxes while taking advantages of social programs
You've got that in reverse if you are referring to illegal immigrant workers. Their boss certainly does take the full state/federal taxes out of their pay check, and they do pay sales tax. However, very few of them take advantage of social programs because of 1) lacking all the necessary documentation required to enter into the program and 2) and/or fear of being caught due to the increased scrutiny of their paperwork.
Fact: Immigrant farmworkers pay the same sales, real estate, and consumer taxes as all United States residents. The US Social Security Administration has estimated that three out of four undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute six to seven billion dollars in Social Security funds that they are not able to claim.9 During their lifetime, immigrants will pay an average of $80,000 more per capita in taxes than they will use in government services.
More info: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States#Immigrants_come_here_to_get_.22welfare.22 http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
Why do you think we limited direct contributions? Because way back in our past we were closer to a fascist dictatorship?
This idea that I see brewing in conservative circles, that it should be alright to just flat out cut a check to a politician in any amount is baffling. If it keeps going the way its been going, you'll see, literally, the head of Walmart or some organization walk into the Chamber of Congress before a vote and hand people money.
And if you disagree with flat out cutting a check to a politician, I can't see how you can be in favor of unlimited spending on issue ads or to bolster a campaign. The net effect is exactly the same.
Your article is doing what so many "outraged" articles have done about this subject. Show a problem that is probably foreign to someone out of school, and then say "Well obviously this is crazy, right?"
Learn the theory behind why the problem is set up that way before deciding if it is bad or not.
The one time I decided to learn the theory behind add/subtract style, it made sense to me. I am making the assumption that if I learned the theory behind the other "bad" problems listed in your nationareview article, they would also make sense.
I like that show. I'm surprised so few people, especially cable-cutters, do not know about it.
Any other good new'ish shows you'd care to share? I feel like I've run out.
Penny Dreadful, Hannibal, True Detective, Orange is the new Black is basically all I've got on most nights. Defiance started back up, but I'm becoming less and less impressed by it. Odd acting, story isn't that compelling.
Charging, probably a lot of which will be passive (under surface wireless charging) will eventually get us the long range we want without stops. But I'm more excited about battery swaps in the short term. http://www.teslamotors.com/batteryswap .
I'd love to see battery swap stations being installed in existing gas stations. But like most of electric car tech, it faces the chicken/egg situation.
I have found that many Greens focus on feel good actions instead of focusing on the cold hard results.
I basically stop reading a post when it has a term like 'Greens'.
Maybe 'Greens' need a term for anti-Greens. Hmm... lets think..
"I have found that many ARLs (acid rain lovers)...." No, not short enough. "I have found that many Browns..." Too similar.
Oh well, slashdot can help me out.
If we get our derogatory terms consistent, then these discussions can be much more easily parsed for good content. Anytime you see a paragraph that has things like "Those Greens" or "Those Browns", skip over both and move on.
HECO’s Peter Rosegg said that the utility’s grid was never designed to convey power in two directions, and too much PV on a circuit would cause overvoltage and reliability issues.
That is why we need to start modernizing the grid to handle more energy storage, more two way traffic, smart meters than can 'turn off' home production when the grid doesn't need it, etc..
I don't know the fastest way to get that done, but I suspect it would mean either nationalizing a lot of the grid, or forcing electric companies to meet more objectives of a smart grid by X time.
People keep talking about how far off we are from powering a country 100% with renewables. Well.... they are absolutely right, and they will continue to be right as long as the government and the power companies are moving so slowly on the subject.
I wish renewables became an Apollo-like project for the Country. A source of pride for leading the world, inspiring a new generation of scientists and engineers, a common goal for the country. But I don't have any hopes of that happening with the current gerrymandered conservative makeup of Congress.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the assumption that one of the major reasons why OTA companies have always fought any VCR/DVR/Time Shifting technology, is that it diminishes their ad revenue, which they do still depend on.
This is especially true for local broadcasters. The car dealership having the weekend sale. They want the advertising done Wed.Thu.Friday. If someone time shifts and watches on Monday, that ad is worthless.
And also, the big live shows, like American Idol, have huge ad revenues (I thought). Most of America still watches that show live. So time and location specific advertising is very much worth it to big companies, and the OTA broadcasters make $$$ during those seasons.
I've never found a specific breakdown of Ads vs Rebroadcaster fees for total revenue.
Or more like, over the air broadcast coverage is already everywhere. And Aereo was only adding people that were already in that same over the air broadcast area. People in state X where not able to watch over the air tv coming from state Y using Aereo.
So Aereo wasn't adding eyeballs. Except if you count cable cutters who were not receiving OTA signals, which are a small number. Given that, I think the OTA people felt that even if the viewership went up a small percent, it was not enough to offset TV advertising that was dependent on time slots. DVR's/VCR's in general are always fought be the OTA people, because time sensitive, and location specific advertising is much more effective.. meaning they can charge more for it.
Simple example: a local car dealership will pay for advertising during the local news time slot on abc/cbs/nbc, for Wed., Thu, and Friday night, because they have a sale going on that weekend. They won't pay if they know that 99% of the OTA customers time shift and are not likely to see their advertising until their sale is over with already.
I think we will eventually have 100% on-demand, time shifted, internet TV someday. But you'll likely have ads popping up right in the middle of shows, injected at runtime, and the ads will be different depending on when you play the show (so local sales and/or time specific ads count again).
Slashdot Mirror
I can just picture some guy standing in line with a hiking backpack on, a big grin on his face, with a 50 inch plasma computer/TV screen sticking out of his backpack.
It's kinda remarkable how rarely Mythbusters bust a law-enforcement myth, or fail to bust an evasion myth.
I suppose if it were easy to evade tracking/drug dogs, or evade some law-enforcement tactic, the police would change their ways to make it not so easy:) And I assume that police and dog training programs communicate quickly with each other if a flaw is found. Criminals are less likely to instantly know of an exploit that another criminal found, so the police are probably a step ahead of most things you can think of at any given moment.
They tried submerging it in peanut butter, coffee, air tight jars, etc.. The dog found it each time.
Mythbusters also did a couple shows about trying to evade a bloodhound tracking dog. Crossing creeks and rivers didn't work, pouring chili pepper on the trail didn't work, trying to cover your scent by scrubbing yourself and putting on a hazmat type didn't work.
The one thing that did seem to work was dumping lots of tins of smelly sardines and other super tasty stuff on the trail. The dog got distracted by the good smelling food, and then basically lost the human's scent for a time. That would by you some time if you were on the run, but the dog would eventually get you unless you could outpace it by getting in a car/train/bus, etc..
I doubt there is anything you can do to defeat a trained dog's noise. Heck, even my untrained coonhound is amazing at finding treats I hide in my backyard. I've tried to fool her, it just doesn't work.
Nuclear power, and also quite of few Anti-Vaccine folks unfortunately.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.
Creationists might describe The Theory of Evolution as "just a theory", implying it is just one of many competing (equal) views of how life evolved.
Scientists of course would understand that once something is called "Theory X", it is well validated by experiments over time, and has little competition from other theories.
Of course no scientists would say "X is settled", because they understand the nature of how the scientific method works, and how nothing is every proven, etc.. but I think we should start using the word "settled" when describing AGW because the average layperson not going to be aware of distinctions like I mentioned above.
I wish more scientists and/or science promoters/writers would stop trying to be literally accurate with wording (when talking to the public) and just use terms that are convincing at this point. Correct terminology be damned.
Nobody but Americans talk about religion in science.
The rest of the planet doesn't care about old men in the sky.
Tell that to the Taliban, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, etc.
Please come back when you actually have a clue about the subject to which you're speaking and not simply sounding off from your nether orifice.
So you are saying that Americans and Muslim extremists allow religion to influence their society to a similar degree.....
Many polls have shown that Americans, when compared to other developed, western-style countries, are far more likely to disbelieve things like evolution, man-made climate change, etc.. and all due to religion.
In the 80's it was well known that the CIA was monitoring the USENET. Apparently there was a list of keywords that they searched for that became well known, so we used them all the time. We had it on good authority that the CIA had become amused by our antics. It probably relieved the boredom.
-Matt
I have this sense that US people, on average, would be scared to pull something like that nowadays. I occasionally see a slashdotter type a line of words like 'bomb bomb bomb nuclear suitcase etc.." in a post to be funny when something about monitoring comes up. But other than that, I can't picture 'messing with intelligence services' on a wider scale in a particular medium just for fun anymore.
Without any evidence whatsoever.. I get this feeling that CIA/FBI would not be amused in this day and age. Well..I guess some evidence may be found in the overreactions to kids bring pocket knifes to schools and stuff like that.
We have a similar crosswalk, but it is only 2 lanes in either direction, with an island in the middle. No flashing lights though, just big crosswalk signs.
Very few people use that crosswalk. However, lots of people in the right hand land turn right just past the crosswalk (by 10 feet or so). So the amount of times you see the right hand lane backed up due to people turning, happens 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time it is someone crossing.
I have to admit I've been caught off guard and had to break harder than I normally would when that 1% situation happens and the person crossing is hidden by all the cars in the right lane, and just suddenly steps out into your left lane.
Flashing lights though... I'm not sure how you could miss those.
Medical insurance provided as compensation was essentially a dodge against wage controls - so yeah, ideally, we'd end the practice of employer-based insurance, and let people buy on the open market, or pay fee for service. COBRA portability was an attempt to deal with the problem, but the *real* issue is that employers shouldn't be in the business of providing insurance.
Or even getting 'more real'... we shouldn't need insurance at all, and instead follow what the rest of the modern world does: single-payer, government owned, or some mix of public option and private. "For profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare.
Part of taxi regulation is to make taxis extend and enhance public transportation. Like requiring them to answer calls in 'bad neighborhoods'.
Uber drivers can just ignore requests to 'bad neighborhoods'. (Although I'm not sure why a city couldn't require that of Uber...odd).
Cities can allow for-profit companies in on the transportation game and regulate them to serve the public fairly. This assumes you want people all over your city to be able to get a ride some place equally at all times. That is one (of many good and some bad) reasons that taxi companies became for-profit monopolies in cities. Kind of like cable companies.
The other option, would be if the city took over all paid transport as part of the public infrastructure. No private taxis, no uber. 100% owned by the city taxis, buses, etc.. The more profitable areas of transport that uber and the taxi companies were profiting from, would then go to the city, which could use it to further enhance public transport.
Uber is worth more than Sony?
Imagine Uber is the number 1 'taxi-like' service in every city in the world. It could happen. It's already in 39 countries and has raised over 20 billion in investment revenue last time I checked.
1) Ubers can avoid poor neighborhoods at will, and there's really nothing the city can do about it. I live in LA, and if you live in, say, Watts, you must call a cab if you want a car, no Uber will find you there, because it's "the ghetto" and there's never an Uber within 20 minutes. Taxis can be and are required to pick up from all parts of the city, and their statistics are closely monitored by regulators to make sure they do.
1. Why can't a city require Uber to solve this issue if they want to work in the city? Uber could ban drivers for a month if they refuse 3 'bad neighborhood' trips per month.. or whatever works. It would be up to Uber to make itself compliant.
All of this is totally fine as long as e-hail livery is a "premium" service, but some cities rely on taxis as a critical part of the transport infrastructure
Like other things considered infrastructure in a city, couldn't the city just take over ownership of that aspect of the economy? All 'for pay' transit would be owned by the city. I would assume that would be a net positive for revenue and the city could invest the profits in even better public transit.
I'm unsure why people feel that cities have less options regulating Uber than they do regulating electrical lines attached to houses, water lines, etc..
Why can't a city force Uber to follow the same rules as taxis (serving all areas)?
Does it matter what the source is, so long as it presents a testable claim?
It is a waste of time evaluating a claim from a source that has proven bias over a large sampling of claims.
I couldn't help but notice that the wind map used by Watts Up was from some random day and not representative of prevailing winds AT ALL!
I was under the assumption that the Watts Up guy was considered a biased, misleading, source of climate science information. It surprised me to see a link to that site in a summary.
You are implying that the cause of the higher prices is due to the de-coupling of distribution from generation. I'm not sure it is that clear cut.
people who don't pay taxes while taking advantages of social programs
You've got that in reverse if you are referring to illegal immigrant workers. Their boss certainly does take the full state/federal taxes out of their pay check, and they do pay sales tax. However, very few of them take advantage of social programs because of 1) lacking all the necessary documentation required to enter into the program and 2) and/or fear of being caught due to the increased scrutiny of their paperwork.
Fact: Immigrant farmworkers pay the same sales, real estate, and consumer taxes as all United States residents. The US Social Security Administration has estimated that three out of four undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute six to seven billion dollars in Social Security funds that they are not able to claim.9 During their lifetime, immigrants will pay an average of $80,000 more per capita in taxes than they will use in government services.
http://saf-unite.org/content/farmworkers-and-immigration
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html
Undocumented immigrants are not, and never have been, eligible for food stamps.
http://www.nilc.org/foodstamps.html
If you do not have documented immigration status, you will not be able to apply for yourself
http://www.gettingfoodstamps.org/faqsaboutsnap.html
More info:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States#Immigrants_come_here_to_get_.22welfare.22
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
Why do you think we limited direct contributions? Because way back in our past we were closer to a fascist dictatorship?
This idea that I see brewing in conservative circles, that it should be alright to just flat out cut a check to a politician in any amount is baffling. If it keeps going the way its been going, you'll see, literally, the head of Walmart or some organization walk into the Chamber of Congress before a vote and hand people money.
And if you disagree with flat out cutting a check to a politician, I can't see how you can be in favor of unlimited spending on issue ads or to bolster a campaign. The net effect is exactly the same.
Your article is doing what so many "outraged" articles have done about this subject. Show a problem that is probably foreign to someone out of school, and then say "Well obviously this is crazy, right?"
Learn the theory behind why the problem is set up that way before deciding if it is bad or not.
The one time I decided to learn the theory behind add/subtract style, it made sense to me. I am making the assumption that if I learned the theory behind the other "bad" problems listed in your nationareview article, they would also make sense.
I like that show. I'm surprised so few people, especially cable-cutters, do not know about it.
Any other good new'ish shows you'd care to share? I feel like I've run out.
Penny Dreadful, Hannibal, True Detective, Orange is the new Black is basically all I've got on most nights. Defiance started back up, but I'm becoming less and less impressed by it. Odd acting, story isn't that compelling.
Charging, probably a lot of which will be passive (under surface wireless charging) will eventually get us the long range we want without stops. But I'm more excited about battery swaps in the short term. http://www.teslamotors.com/batteryswap .
I'd love to see battery swap stations being installed in existing gas stations. But like most of electric car tech, it faces the chicken/egg situation.
I have found that many Greens focus on feel good actions instead of focusing on the cold hard results.
I basically stop reading a post when it has a term like 'Greens'.
Maybe 'Greens' need a term for anti-Greens. Hmm... lets think..
"I have found that many ARLs (acid rain lovers)...." No, not short enough.
"I have found that many Browns..." Too similar.
Oh well, slashdot can help me out.
If we get our derogatory terms consistent, then these discussions can be much more easily parsed for good content. Anytime you see a paragraph that has things like "Those Greens" or "Those Browns", skip over both and move on.
HECO’s Peter Rosegg said that the utility’s grid was never designed to convey power in two directions, and too much PV on a circuit would cause overvoltage and reliability issues.
That is why we need to start modernizing the grid to handle more energy storage, more two way traffic, smart meters than can 'turn off' home production when the grid doesn't need it, etc..
I don't know the fastest way to get that done, but I suspect it would mean either nationalizing a lot of the grid, or forcing electric companies to meet more objectives of a smart grid by X time.
People keep talking about how far off we are from powering a country 100% with renewables. Well.... they are absolutely right, and they will continue to be right as long as the government and the power companies are moving so slowly on the subject.
I wish renewables became an Apollo-like project for the Country. A source of pride for leading the world, inspiring a new generation of scientists and engineers, a common goal for the country. But I don't have any hopes of that happening with the current gerrymandered conservative makeup of Congress.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the assumption that one of the major reasons why OTA companies have always fought any VCR/DVR/Time Shifting technology, is that it diminishes their ad revenue, which they do still depend on.
This is especially true for local broadcasters. The car dealership having the weekend sale. They want the advertising done Wed.Thu.Friday. If someone time shifts and watches on Monday, that ad is worthless.
And also, the big live shows, like American Idol, have huge ad revenues (I thought). Most of America still watches that show live. So time and location specific advertising is very much worth it to big companies, and the OTA broadcasters make $$$ during those seasons.
I've never found a specific breakdown of Ads vs Rebroadcaster fees for total revenue.
Or more like, over the air broadcast coverage is already everywhere. And Aereo was only adding people that were already in that same over the air broadcast area. People in state X where not able to watch over the air tv coming from state Y using Aereo.
So Aereo wasn't adding eyeballs. Except if you count cable cutters who were not receiving OTA signals, which are a small number. Given that, I think the OTA people felt that even if the viewership went up a small percent, it was not enough to offset TV advertising that was dependent on time slots. DVR's/VCR's in general are always fought be the OTA people, because time sensitive, and location specific advertising is much more effective.. meaning they can charge more for it.
Simple example: a local car dealership will pay for advertising during the local news time slot on abc/cbs/nbc, for Wed., Thu, and Friday night, because they have a sale going on that weekend. They won't pay if they know that 99% of the OTA customers time shift and are not likely to see their advertising until their sale is over with already.
I think we will eventually have 100% on-demand, time shifted, internet TV someday. But you'll likely have ads popping up right in the middle of shows, injected at runtime, and the ads will be different depending on when you play the show (so local sales and/or time specific ads count again).