investment is attracted to business opportunities that promise a return. monopolies fight that tooth and nail. always have.
the approach i've outlined clearly provides for a revenue source _independent_ of monopoly power.
as to this mysterious "technological hurdle" you speak of, maybe a startup will buy copper from verizon. maybe they lay down their own alternative last mile delivery (copper or fiber or maybe wireless). thousands of small ISPs could emerge this way and then over time (but relatively quickly) consolidate into a real competitor to comcast, not AT ALL unprecedented. maybe they figure out a wireless technology, there are already WISPs out there. entrepreneurs are smart, they will figure it out.
to fix the situation between the government and entrepreneurs i'll bet on entrepreneurs every time.
my only wish is people stop fear monger and think rationally about the situation in the long term.
if ISPs could charge content providers the following things would happen:
a) start ups would get incentivized to go into the business of ISP
b) ISPs will be able to create very cheap basic service that will exclude few hight traffic services such as netflix, youtube, pr0n
c) obviously upon subscription to a service such as netflix the contents would become available, creating revenue for the ISP
d) youtube (and similar sites) would pay out of ad revenues, so no subscription is necessary; alternatively there might be tiered plans for the client that open access to free content sites like youtube. these models aren't incompatible.
e) ancle leo's fears are unfounded, indie shows would not be censored, ISPs aren't idiots they need to keep the basic service attractive
and, most importantly, this model accomplishes two important goals:
1) steady source of revenue that correlates to usage, which will fund infrastructure improvements
2) healthy competition, which is the ONLY way to keep comcasts of the worlds at bay without risk of stifling innovation
this is a classic sustainable win win. i don't understand why this isn't obvious to more people.
the alternative is playing straight into the hands of big monopolies. they'd MUCH rather deal with a government bureaucrat than competition. ask verizon of new jersey.
1. beats is a decent popular brand 2. 100k streaming subscribers in one go 3. two highly capable execs to handle day to day dealings with music industry 4. eddie the stuff cue gets to go back to figuring out the cloud 5. beats makes healthy profit, nothing to sneeze at
i'm no fan of google but for once i'm going to stand on their side, they're doing it right, they had an idea, they are TESTING it, and if it doesnt pan out, it'll find its way to Sto'Vo'Kor. thats how it SHOULD be.
PS. i really wish microsoft had tested the ribbon the same way.. oh well, its too late now..
i'll grant you, there is a toxic undertone to public discourse in russia.
however you are going to have to concede as well that decades of "no matter what you do you end up in gulag" might have had something to do with creating that toxicity.
how often does one need to shoot distance or cares about DOF yet won't invest in a set of olloclip?
my point (as i believe the reviewer's) is that the advantages of dslr are irrelevant in vast majority of real life situations. not in all situations, mind you, but in most, for most people.
i'm an amateur photographer and i do own a 5dm2 with a few L-lenses. and let me tell you from experience, if you want family-album-worthy photos you better figure out the lighting whether its with flash or other means, like choosing the time of day for taking the pics.
dslr gives you much more options in that regard, for sure. and you can probably pull off decent pics from a wider range of lighting conditions.
that doesnt change the fact that in most (most, not all!) real life situations phone camera is usually more than enough. and its probably going to be what you'll have in your pocket anyways:)
"blown away" is a major over exaggeration in vast majority of cases. quality of the photograph is in the photographer's skill first, equipment is distant second. someone who'll take a crappy picture on the phone, will take a picture thats about as crappy on an slr.
i didn't say poor lighting conditions don't exist, just that situations when lighting is poor _and_ you want to take a picture aren't as frequent as you seem to think.
quite frankly if your solution to poor lighting is dslr instead of finding a way to bring in more light, you're on the wrong idea trail buddy.
good lighting conditions aren't all that rare for most people. we usually don't hang around in poorly lit situations. we're talking about civilians, not pro photographers here, i hope that goes without saying.
Slashdot Mirror
completely missing the point.
unless companies help the parents out the only sane option for the parents is to shut off access to paid content completely, as it yank CC info.
who lost? exactly.
this is not about responsibility, this is business in the free market, pure and simple.
disclaimer, i'm apple all the way, and don't particularly like google, but i can't hold my sarcasm back on this one..
iphone is a keyboard and a tv-set away from being a full-fledged computer for 99% of the population.
clever and funny but i'm afraid that type thinking creates a smokescreen for malice to hide behind. we don't want that.
i think when it comes to government there's very constructive and healthy benefit to treating stupidity same as malice.
thats been tried at full scale in USSR and Mao's China. lets not try that again.
whats wrong with [public] transport carrying a single person (or a small group) from exactly where they are to exactly where they want to be?
investment is attracted to business opportunities that promise a return. monopolies fight that tooth and nail. always have.
the approach i've outlined clearly provides for a revenue source _independent_ of monopoly power.
as to this mysterious "technological hurdle" you speak of, maybe a startup will buy copper from verizon. maybe they lay down their own alternative last mile delivery (copper or fiber or maybe wireless). thousands of small ISPs could emerge this way and then over time (but relatively quickly) consolidate into a real competitor to comcast, not AT ALL unprecedented. maybe they figure out a wireless technology, there are already WISPs out there. entrepreneurs are smart, they will figure it out.
to fix the situation between the government and entrepreneurs i'll bet on entrepreneurs every time.
my only wish is people stop fear monger and think rationally about the situation in the long term.
if ISPs could charge content providers the following things would happen:
a) start ups would get incentivized to go into the business of ISP
b) ISPs will be able to create very cheap basic service that will exclude few hight traffic services such as netflix, youtube, pr0n
c) obviously upon subscription to a service such as netflix the contents would become available, creating revenue for the ISP
d) youtube (and similar sites) would pay out of ad revenues, so no subscription is necessary; alternatively there might be tiered plans for the client that open access to free content sites like youtube. these models aren't incompatible.
e) ancle leo's fears are unfounded, indie shows would not be censored, ISPs aren't idiots they need to keep the basic service attractive
and, most importantly, this model accomplishes two important goals:
1) steady source of revenue that correlates to usage, which will fund infrastructure improvements
2) healthy competition, which is the ONLY way to keep comcasts of the worlds at bay without risk of stifling innovation
this is a classic sustainable win win. i don't understand why this isn't obvious to more people.
the alternative is playing straight into the hands of big monopolies. they'd MUCH rather deal with a government bureaucrat than competition. ask verizon of new jersey.
1. beats is a decent popular brand
2. 100k streaming subscribers in one go
3. two highly capable execs to handle day to day dealings with music industry
4. eddie the stuff cue gets to go back to figuring out the cloud
5. beats makes healthy profit, nothing to sneeze at
looks like a very well calculated tactical move
(eom)
shh.. thats in the next episode!
money isn't a solution, its a tool like any other.
Zuck, keep your money to yourself, keep honing your skills, mature _then_ follow Gates' example and contribute.
i'm no fan of google but for once i'm going to stand on their side, they're doing it right, they had an idea, they are TESTING it, and if it doesnt pan out, it'll find its way to Sto'Vo'Kor. thats how it SHOULD be.
PS. i really wish microsoft had tested the ribbon the same way.. oh well, its too late now..
i'll grant you, there is a toxic undertone to public discourse in russia.
however you are going to have to concede as well that decades of "no matter what you do you end up in gulag" might have had something to do with creating that toxicity.
enjoy the ride!
i'm afraid i have to insist, it _is_ vast majority _for majority of people_.
for some people, like yourself perhaps, its not. and thats fine.
you will notice that most people don't all show up with dslr at parties.
which is plenty enough for most situations for most people.
indeed. yours is an excellent case to use a pro camera.
but for most people in most real life situations phone is more than enough and most importantly its readily available.
about as effective as sunshine and puppies.
how often does one need to shoot distance or cares about DOF yet won't invest in a set of olloclip?
my point (as i believe the reviewer's) is that the advantages of dslr are irrelevant in vast majority of real life situations. not in all situations, mind you, but in most, for most people.
i'm an amateur photographer and i do own a 5dm2 with a few L-lenses. and let me tell you from experience, if you want family-album-worthy photos you better figure out the lighting whether its with flash or other means, like choosing the time of day for taking the pics.
dslr gives you much more options in that regard, for sure. and you can probably pull off decent pics from a wider range of lighting conditions.
that doesnt change the fact that in most (most, not all!) real life situations phone camera is usually more than enough. and its probably going to be what you'll have in your pocket anyways :)
"blown away" is a major over exaggeration in vast majority of cases. quality of the photograph is in the photographer's skill first, equipment is distant second. someone who'll take a crappy picture on the phone, will take a picture thats about as crappy on an slr.
i didn't say poor lighting conditions don't exist, just that situations when lighting is poor _and_ you want to take a picture aren't as frequent as you seem to think.
quite frankly if your solution to poor lighting is dslr instead of finding a way to bring in more light, you're on the wrong idea trail buddy.
good lighting conditions aren't all that rare for most people. we usually don't hang around in poorly lit situations. we're talking about civilians, not pro photographers here, i hope that goes without saying.
direct youtube link to the comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...