Most likely, yes. Conventional sat or cable television is going to go by the wayside.
I first realized this a few weeks ago, after I took an S-video cable and ran it from my video card to my widescreen television. Combine that with an audio cable from the sound card to the home theatre audio system, and you get a television viewing experience virtually indistinguishable from traditional cable or satellite.
I always felt the biggest hurdle the Internet faced in terms of being a viable method for media distribution was found in the relative isolation of the desktop PC to the rest of the home theatre setup; sure it's neat that you can watch a TV show on your computer, but people aren't going to want to sit in their desk chairs watching movies and TV shows on their computer's monitor.
Thankfully, the home PC is a pretty versatile tool, and methods already exist to integrate the PC with the more traditional TV/Home theatre setup. I knew the hardware and software existed already to play media obtained from the Internet on one's TV setup nearly as easily as it is to turn on a cable box or put in a DVD, but it wasn't until I saw it for myself that the potential became obivious.
http://www.adultswim.com/">Adult Swim's Friday Night Fix, which provides streaming videos of programs which will be played on broadcast the following Sunday was quite telling for me: I couldn't tell the difference between the streaming video off the Internet and the normal satellite broadcast in terms of picture and sound quality.
So as long as content providers don't muck it up with difficult to operate clients (hey, how hard is it to just run stuff through a standard media player?) or convoluted downloading schemes (AOL can just as easily use the standard and accepted Bittorrent if they want safe downloading), the days of the traditional TV network are numbered.
I haven't heard the "mystery medicine", but it seems as if the laxitive gum in the MREs is true. I recently spent six days out in the field, and was all sotpped up until I started chewing the gum in the MREs. BLAMO!!! No more stoppage.
Unless, could gum have a plecebo effect in terms of pooping?
It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer.
It might be a slight overreaction, but I'm so happy to see somebody of importance say that.
Now if somebody would say "It's your IP, but it's not your DVD player" and got rid of those 'Pirating movies over Internet is akin to car theft or gang rape' that you can't bypass unless, of course, you pirated the movie.
The sad part is, it takes legislative action to get media distributors to stop them activly pissing off their paying customers.
One thing to consider: It techinically *is* intended to be a truck, but just like regular sized trucks in Texas it's really just there for folks to look at (hey, check out my truck!) They have no intention of actually using it to haul something around.
Curious. I also haven't seen any problems. I've updated as soon as every new patch comes out, and havn't seen any issues. Then again, I don't use tabs or any other fancy features. I wonder if there's some feature you're using that's causing the problem that most other people don't.
I just look at it like the old McDonald's signs (for those of you old enough to remeber) that used to have a giant counter on them saying some "[some obscenly large number] Served!". The number was somewhat bogus; there was no way of counting the number of individual people McDonalds has served food to. I'm sure some people came in, ate once, and never came back while others refrequented to the place often. The thing is, the number itself didn't really matter. All that mattered to McDonald's and the message they wanted to send to the customers was that it was really, really big.
Eventually, I suppose they got tired of climbing up all the time to physically change the numbers, and now the signs all just read 'Billions and Billions Served'.
(note: I'm simply comparing McDonalds to Firefox in terms of getting excited about numbers. No other comparison is implied (yeah, some people will read it that way))
This is not something that happens by accident. They are ACTIVELY dissuading linux users from watching the teaser.
Whoever is in charge of marketing has no clue.
Which one is it: a carefully designed conspiracy against Linux users, or the end result of a naive marketing department that doesn't understand that a large chunk of their target audience uses something other then Windows?
If I had to make a bet, I'd put my money on the latter. I highly doubt there's someone sitting around saying 'Yarr! Let's get those Linux users! That'll teach 'em for being different!". I'd guess the company providing the streaming video brought the claim of 'being able to provide high-quality on-demand streaming video to broadband Internet users using a unique process which makes unauthorized duplication near impossible' to the marketing department for the film. The 'Vividas' company most likely neglected the fact that they wouldn't be able to reliably accommodate users of alternative OSes, and it never occurred to the folks marketing the film to ask.
We have? I thought the allure of the "war on terror" was that it was a "war" that could never end. Well then.. um.. Mission Acomplished!
we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.
Funny. I was under the impression that the "war on terror" and "the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties" were one in the same. After all, the terrorists might be sneaking communications imbeded into the background of jpg pictures of 90 year old women getting pooped on by robots.
I really have to wonder how they define "sci-fi". The Prisoner was a unique and very neat show, and calling it "sci-fi" is far less a stretch then applying that label to "Wild Wild West" or "The Avengers" (perhaps the writers were confusing the television programs with the movies?)
Also, the list seems to confuse "fantasy" with sci-fi. Xena??!!?? Come on now.
I always thought the term "science fiction" was used exclusively to describe stories which involved, you know, science. Things like space exploration, robots, time travel and the like. On the other hand, stories which deal with magic, ghosts or mythology would have the descriptor of "fantasy" attached to them.
Granted, sci-fi and fantasy are often linked together (for example, in the video shop you'll regularly find sci-fi/fantasy movies share the same shelf space) because in general people who enjoy one will enjoy the other.
I love movies. My home DVD collection is sitting at 190+ titles and keeps growing. I'm one of those people with an amazing home theatre system. While the screen is much, much smaller then the movie theatre, the sound system I have blows away anything I've seen (well, heard) in the multiplex.
But I still go to movies because I enjoy the experience. Sometimes I'll even go to the movies by myself. No matter how much money you pour into a home theatre, barring building a room in your home 40 feet tall, 70 feet wide and 90 feet long to accommodate a theatre sized screen, you'll never be able to approach the satisfaction derived from the theatre.
Inviting a few good friends over to the house to watch movies is not the same as going out. It's akin to drinking; it's cheaper to buy booze and hang out with friends at home, but it's far more fun to go out to a bar. Even if you set one up in your basement, including a long wooden bar, a stereo loaded with your favorite music, and a CO2 system to have a few of your favorite beers on tap, it's still generally going to be more enjoyable to get out of the house.
What's upsetting is that so few theatres seem to capitalize on their advantages. This last week I was in Los Angeles and paid to visit the Arclight theatre complex surrounding the old Cinerama dome. These guys had the best setup I've seen so far: Reserved seating (like you'd find at a sporting event or music concert), special 21+ showings guaranteeing no loud screaming babies or obnoxious teenagers, the ability to enjoy a drink while watching the movie, and bigger seats with more legroom, including (and this is something I really, really like) "double wide" armrests so you don't have to fight the person next to you for space to rest your arm. The only real downside is the price ($14, which is a bit too steep for a movie)
If more theatres followed the example of the Arclight, I think the industry wouldn't have to worry about much.
In addition, I wish more theatres would show older movies. Since movie making has become mainstream (less then a century ago), there have been hundreds, if not thousands of really good films made that I (and I would presume others) would pay to see on the big screen. As it stands, very few movie houses outside of small single screen independent theatres will show anything other then new releases. For example, I've always wanted to see 2001 in a theatre. I can only imagine that the experience would be worth it. The Arclight, which as I said seems to be quite adept at getting things right, was showing--in addition to the slew of fresh film releases--the movie "The French Connection". I was amazed.
Knowing this, all the theatre industry has to do is find out what it is the public likes about going to the movies and give them more of it.
I don't think you need to read "Atlas Shrugged" to get the point; I'm pretty sure there are more concise and more entertaining options out there which can explain the same thing (and if there isn't, there should be).
Nonetheless, I agree with you. There is an unsettling theme in modern business where those behind the curve will criticize the winners, crying "foul" whenever somebody does something better and with more success then they do. The obvious answer is to change the way you do things in order to compete, but too many businesses seem unwilling to do that, instead opting to stick their fingers in their ears chanting "no fair!" instead.
I could understand being upset if the front-runner is cheating, using practices of questionable morality to achieve their goals (Personally, I'd put Microsoft in that category). But when you're losing to a company that finds success by producing a superior product which, all things being equal, customers would prefer to purchase and use then they would yours, then you really have no room to complain.
The best current example I can think of deals with all the hub-bub surrounding Google. Now at the top, Google is geting criticism from all sides. But from what I can see their only crimes have been producing products and services which are superior to their competitors while simultaneously developing a revenue stream which doesn't insult or annoy their users.
Of all the complaints I've read about Google, the one that irks me the most is "It's not fair! They have all the best software engineers!" Since when has it been wrong to spend more money on salaries or create an attractive working environment in order to get better employees?
I can't say exactly what the root cause of this dislike for industry leaders is, but I think it goes a little beyond simple jealousy. Modern business, especially the entertainment industry heavily relies on preexisting formulas for direction, knowing that deviation from that formula is likely to lead to failure.
A video game developer, for example, knows that a success of a title is going to rest a great deal on following the rules. The formula says a title has to have graphics which will yield good looking screen shots for game magazines and webpages. While not an absolute necessity, the formula highly encourages a new title be a part of a popular pre-existing game franchise or linked to a successful movie or television show. The formula demands that a game belongs to one of a small number of game genres (like being a first person shooter or a "platform" game, among others). The formula might recommend "dumbing down" a game that is a little too cerebral for their target market; it will never reccomend "smartening it up".
Other attributes, like "entertainment value" or "game play" are incidental. A game's initial success rarely, if ever, relies on these things. A game might be loads of fun but unless it follows the formula it just won't fly. I'm not a game developer, but I can only guess how much the needless frustration gets to them. An exceedingly entertaining game which doesn't follow the formula won't just find it hard to be featured in the gaming press (which seems exclusively concerned with graphics), it will find it difficult to be picked up by a distributer or see the light of day on a store's shelves.
The trick to developing a highly successful game is in finding fun and entertainment within the confines of a deeply restrictive formula. World of Warcraft appears to have done just that. The graphics are pretty good. It's part of the popular Warcraft franchise (In this case, Warcraft is just a name to attract people. You could have the exact same game but call it 'Ogre Fight 1000', and it's likely it wouldn't have had enough early adopters to get the title off the ground.) Finally, it's a part of the increasingly popular MMORPG genre.
Moreover, in addition to having all those necessary attributes, the game is actually fun. Not for me, mind you. I played it for a
The RIAA's greatest fear is that if they turn a blind eye to the pirates then the practise of copying music will be legitimised in the eyes of the vast majority of their customers, aka normal people, and that the majority of customers will stop buying music.
I'd have to disagree. It's not about profits or legality, it's about control. The RIAA is trying to demonize file sharing because it stands as the only major process which circumvents major label's tight control over every aspect of purchasing music. The traditional business model the RIAA members have been clinging to for some time allows them to decide which bands are signed, which bands are promoted, which bands are played on the radio, and which bands get premium space on record store shelves.
It comes as no surprise that file sharers are more apt to purchase music, but the study doesn't indicate which music they purchase. I can only speak from personal experience, but I'd guess that the bulk of the music file sharers purchase isn't the heavily hyped assembly line ilk that RIAA members want people to buy.
File sharing services give consumers access to a near unlimited catalog of music to try out. It doesn't rely on a band's image (how many ugly bands do the major labels sign these days?) and it doesn't rely on heavy air play on the radio. Instead it lets the consumer discover music that her or she actually likes.
This has to drive the RIAA nuts. If the process of discovering new bands on the Internet-where things like word of mouth are far more powerful then hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into promotion-is legitimized, it means that the traditional methods major labels have been employing for decades become moot. In other words, with the wealth of options and exposure to obscure bands the Internet brings, consumers are likely to purchase CDs with content they actually like, as opposed to what the labels want them to like.
If (and really, it's not a question of if these days, but when) this takes off in the mainstream, record companies can't simply sign a band that sounds like other popular bands and apply a formulaic model for promotion which yields a predictable economic return. In order to stay profitable they'll actually have to sign "good" bands with "talent". Recognizing talent and quality is a skill major record labels lost some time ago.
What good is it for major record labels if file sharing leads consumers to purchase music they want to own, when it's more likely the artists who produce that music lie outside their sphere of influence?
Re:What if Apple has peaked?
on
Has Google Peaked?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. What a lot of people fail to understand--the author of the article included--is that the tech world is not just going through another shift, but that the nature of the tech world is change. It's unlikely to ever become stagnant.
I honestly can't understand the latest popular mantra: "Google has peaked". It seems that those espousing that view or so deeply rooted in traditional ideas of what or how a business should perform that they fail to see that the real beauty of a company like Google is that it doesn't set its sights on any one particular market or business because it understands the fluid nature of the tech world.
From the article: It will take the company another five years just to mature the businesses they already have
That statement is screaming ignorance of the tech business world and a devotion to old fashioned thinking. Specifically: "Find a product or service, slowly develop it over a period of years, fight competitors for market share, and comfortably become one of the leaders in the industry". That way of thinking might work great if your in the business of selling bird feeders, but it's folly to suggest it should be an acceptable business plan in the tech world.
In another five years, the "businesses they already have" may be irrelevant. Remember, Windows 95 was released only 10 years ago last Wednesday. In August of '95, very few companies even had web pages. IT was exclusively a productivity focus, and had next to nothing to do with marketing. Assuming a geometric increase in change (which isn't all that unreasonable), we can only speculate in dim generalities what the tech world will be like in 5 years.
A company that's going enjoy long term success in the ever changing tech world is one that doesn't spend too much time developing any one product line, because something else can come along which literarily overnight renders that product or service moot.
Google seems to understand this. While their roots are in the search engine, they've proven to be quite adept at entering new avenues and in a very short period of time offering a service which is significantly better then their competitors.
While no one other then those who are the inside can say for sure, it appears that their path to success is pretty simple:
1. Find out what people want, and give it to them. While Google was working on making their search engine faster and further reaching, Yahoo was trying to turn their search engine into an "Internet Portal". The thing is, people wanted a better search engine. Nobody wanted, or even asked for a portal. Google says "We're going to provide for people what they say they want" while Yahoo was saying "We're going to provide something for people that we think they want". While Yahoo's search page was becoming more and more cluttered with useless widgets, Google's page was simple and to the point. (to see what I mean, go to http://www.yahoo.com/ and then http://www.google.com./ If all you want to do is search for a webpage, the simple design of Google's search engine suggests a greater utility).
2. Don't fill customer's heads with marketing hype about how you think your product should be used. Instead, make your product versatile and flexible enough so that others can discover a way to use it to its fullest potential. Google maps (maps.google.com) is a great example of this. Take a look first at one of Google's competitors in this field: Mapquest. At the top of the page is a claim of what Mapquest can do. "You can find it!". There's another blurb at the bottom about how great they are because you can use Mapquest to link maps from your website. A full quarter of the page is devoted to an advertisement. There are links for finding everything from Hotel rooms to fishing trips. Yet, despite all of these fancy, in your face claims of how great Mapquest is, it's still little more t
The sooner record companies get back to producing real music from artists with talent instead of manufacturing pap on the cheap the better for everybody.
The thing is, I don't think that's going to happen. The large record companies lost the ability to recognize "talent" years ago. So as long as the record companies have been able to control all facets of the industry, from production to promotion to distribution, they haven't had to actually sign "good" artists.
Under the traditional business model championed by the RIAA, the consumer is only offered a limited glimpse of available artists via outlets such as MTV or commercial radio. In these distribution channels, the major labels can tightly control what is played via a system of legal, or "loophole" payola. A radio station, in being a business, is more likely to play a crummy track in heavy rotation when a promotions company offers them bags of money, but a "good" track from a band signed to a label without a massive promotion budget is going to be ignored.
Compound that with the consumer's choices in the brick-and-mortar chain record shop due to RIAA influence; product availability is largely limited to heavily hyped (promoted) artists. A customer wishing to purchase a new release from a band he or she perceives as "good", but which lacks major label promotion is going to have a difficult time. They'll have to dig through the shelves to look for the title, which more often then not won't actually be there. On the other hand, the new release from a crummy band backed by the major label's promotion machine will be prominently displayed at the front of the store, accompanied by giant posters promoting the band plastered to the walls, and a guarantee that hundreds of copies of the title will be available.
Under this environment, which until recently worked quite well for the big RIAA member labels, the talent of an artist or the quality of their recordings is incidental. Things like image and aesthetics, which can easily be objectively evaluated by the record label, are far more important. A band that manages to look "cool" on posters, t-shirts and rock videos is always going to outsell an ugly group in a tightly controlled market, especially when every offering largely sounds the same.
While there's a compelling argument to think of the major record labels as "evil" for setting up and vigorously defending this business model, we have to remember that its success is largely due to the overall laziness of the (especially American) consumer. We've allowed ourselves to accept the limited choices and poor artistic quality the RIAA members have given us, simply because it's easier.
The good news is, this is slowly changing. Terrestrial commercial FM radio is becoming more and more irrelevant with the onslaught of Internet and satellite music broadcasts. These new mediums are able to make programming decisions exclusively based on the desires of the listener, as opposed to traditional broadcasts which only worry about pleasing advertisers and recording labels.
Online distribution of music means the customer is no longer limited (through perceived convenience or otherwise) to just the offerings of overly hyped and promoted artists; the latest release from an obscure band is just as easily obtained as the latest manufactured pop.
I think the major labels know this, but are unwilling or unable to publicly acknowledge it. The Internet is a massive threat to their traditional business model. The recent decline in record sales for major label titles is likely due to the various alternatives provided by the Internet. But rather then adapt to this new medium, they're fighting it in every way possible.
They've demonized file traders (even the ones who legally trade music from non major-label affiliated bands), because file trading opens the consumer's options to a much broader selection of music choice. They support movements towards highly restrictive DRM because they don't want the consumer to eas
Or, you really DO need one. It sounds like your lack of a social life is an incredibly lonely existance.
Perhaps a robot can become that friend. Imagine sitting at school all alone, and your robot calls you up just to chat (about someone breaking into your hoe). Life could suddenly become more fullfilling.
You could even get one of those Roombas to keep your sercurity robot company. I bet the three of you could have some great times!
Apart from the loss of physical books (which I think can be better then a text presented i data form), I'm sad that the library is going to lose some of it's strong points.
When I wss an undergrad, the library was the one place I could go to do serious studying. Unlike the dorms which could be loud and filled with destractions, the library was quiet, detached. I loved having a place to hide from the world like that.
It seems to me that the students could be better served by taking all of their recently digitized resources and make it availble from anywhere on campus. If students want to hang out in a social envrionment while doing research, fine. I'm sure this particular Texas university has a great Student Union. With computers, there's no need to be physically in the library.
But leave the books as they are, and let the library remain a quiet and detached institution it is.
As far as a simulation goes, I don't know of any off hand, but I'm sure at some point they've existed. The mathematical models put together in "The Theory of Blackjack" do a pretty darned good job showing it (which, incidentally, are not that simple). If you're looking for a real world example, you only need to take a look at the MIT Blackjack team who was able to win quite a bit in a multi-deck environment.
I just don't think that frequency of variations that are large enough to matter is high enough to make a decent profit at it especially given limited budgets relative to the casino and limits on the bet sizes.
Perfect play is only going to give you a tiny statistical advantage, sometimes in the 1 to 2% range. If you expect to win a large amount of money, you're going to have to spend a lot of time in casinos and start with a massive bankroll. When you do that, you attract attention, and chances are the casino is going to kick you out before you have the chance to do any real damage. Thorpe's book briefly mentions that even in the old days, when casinos all still had single decks, a $200 bankroll at a low limit table would only net you a few bucks an hour, assuming you were playing perfectly. But increase that starting bankroll to $60,000, and the payoff seems more worthwhile.
But I also find it hard to believe that the billion dollar casinos are stupid enough not to do the (very easy) math and implement easy solutions (bigger deck - slightly modified odds) if it really did cost them money.
They have, with mixed results. Pretty much all the casinos now use multiple decks. I've seen a number of rule variations in different casinos, everything from only an even money payout on blackjacks, changes on when the dealer can hit, and even the "infinite shuffle", which is constantly shuffling cards while not in play, so deriving any statistical "memory" of the cards is truly impossible.
The problem is, when casinos try to do this they loose business. You'll have to remember that for every "good" card counter, there are dozens of bad ones; players who understand how to count cards, but either lose track (which is easy to do), start drinking (which is really easy to do), or simply don't play right. The bad counter, or even the person who doesn't know how to count cards but has received advice from others on what to look for in a table, will generally only sit down at tables with favorable odds. That's why you'll often see a casino with two tables right next to each other, one with rules that crush the odds, and one normal. Remember, a casino can make money off somebody who only thinks he knows what he's doing just like they can take money away from someone who doesn't know any better.
Finally, if card counting can't be banned in Canada - then why do those casinos keep having BJ tables and where are all the Canadian BJ millionaires
I have no idea what the rules are in Canada, but it's likely similar to what they've got in New Jersey. In Atlantic City, they can't bar a player for counting cards, due to screwy wording of the gambling laws (casinos can only offer games of chance, not games of skill. If they kicked people out for card counting, they'd be admitting black jack was a skill game). But that doesn't mean they don't kick out counters, they just use another reason, or no reason at all.
I was thinking back to the old days when hole cards were dealt face down. To discourage cheating - I forgot that a lot of casinos deal all cards face up now.
In conventional blackjack, the dealer always shows one card up, and his hole card is face down. Some tables deal all players cards up (to speed up play), while others deal them face down. For the purpose of card counting, it doesn't matter: At the end of the hand the dealer always turns his hole card over, and all players' cards are exposed. The advantages of card counting are felt at the start of the next hand,
Back in '99-00 I was spending a lot of time at Las Vegas casinos. At the peak, I was visiting every other weekend, and I was card counting. Unlike the sensational stories popularized in the media, I was not a "big time" gambler. I was not doing this for a living, and I wasn't do it to strike it rich; I was doing it for fun.
Typically, I'd go out there with $500, find a place with 2 deck blackjack (single deck in true form doesn't exist... the places that advertise it typically cut the deck so deep that you'll only get two hands out of each shuffle), and spend 40-50 hours over the weekend playing. At lower limit tables, even playing perfectly, that doesn't amount to much. On average, with that $500 stake, I'd live with about $700 in my pocket, up $200 for the weekend. This works out to about $5 an hour, less then minimum wage.
Sometimes, if I was lucky, I'd come out with more, but I didn't always win. There were times where I'd leave with 5 crisp $100 in my pocket and return home with nothing but a few good stories.
My favorite experience was at the Excalibur. One night, while playing low limit blackjack an older man sat down at my table. He was flanked on both sides by attractive women nearly half his age, and he was really, really drunk. He pulled a giant wad from his pocket of tightly rolled $100 bills, peeled off a few of them and laid them on the table. The dealer picked them up and said "Changing 300", to which this man yelled "no, damnit I don't want any chips that's my bet!" "money plays".
He lost. He did it again. He lost. When he would win, he'd throw his winnings back on the table and give them back to the casino. Chips, he explained loudly, were "unlucky". His play was horrible; he'd hit a 16 with a 5 showing, double down on an 8 against an Ace. Meanwhile, I just sat there quietly plunking down my $5 bets, occasionally raising them to $10 or $15 when the count was good. This guy was attracting so much attention from the casino staff that my small potato attempt at card counting (which wasn't on that night anyway) went by unnoticed.
At one point, he put $800 down on the table. This was a min $5, max bet $500. "I'm sorry sir, but the maximum bet here is $500". Almost instantly, the pit boss swooped down said "This man can bet as much money as he likes". Of course; this man was a drunken idiot trying to impress the those two woman (I don't know if they were prostitutes or what) by loosing as much money as he could. During the 45 minutes or so he was there, he lost about $20 grand. After that fat roll of $100s were gone, he got up with the help of his lady friends and stumbled out of the casino with a big grin on his face.
I pretty much stopped playing seriously after three losing trips in a row. Now when I get to Nevada I might spend a few hours at the tables, but the all night sessions are a thing of the past. To this day, I still don't consider myself a "cheater"
This unethical practice of baring players merely for winning should be illegal
I'd have to disagree. While being caught card-counting isn't fun, it's the casino's right to not let you play if they think you're going to take money from them. Just like it's your right not to go to a casino if you think the casino might take money from you.
But you're right about one thing: Card counting is NOT cheating. Blackjack is, at some levels, a skill game. Knowing when to bet high or low is no different from knowing when to hit or stay.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely, yes. Conventional sat or cable television is going to go by the wayside.
I first realized this a few weeks ago, after I took an S-video cable and ran it from my video card to my widescreen television. Combine that with an audio cable from the sound card to the home theatre audio system, and you get a television viewing experience virtually indistinguishable from traditional cable or satellite.
I always felt the biggest hurdle the Internet faced in terms of being a viable method for media distribution was found in the relative isolation of the desktop PC to the rest of the home theatre setup; sure it's neat that you can watch a TV show on your computer, but people aren't going to want to sit in their desk chairs watching movies and TV shows on their computer's monitor.
Thankfully, the home PC is a pretty versatile tool, and methods already exist to integrate the PC with the more traditional TV/Home theatre setup. I knew the hardware and software existed already to play media obtained from the Internet on one's TV setup nearly as easily as it is to turn on a cable box or put in a DVD, but it wasn't until I saw it for myself that the potential became obivious.
http://www.adultswim.com/">Adult Swim's Friday Night Fix, which provides streaming videos of programs which will be played on broadcast the following Sunday was quite telling for me: I couldn't tell the difference between the streaming video off the Internet and the normal satellite broadcast in terms of picture and sound quality.
So as long as content providers don't muck it up with difficult to operate clients (hey, how hard is it to just run stuff through a standard media player?) or convoluted downloading schemes (AOL can just as easily use the standard and accepted Bittorrent if they want safe downloading), the days of the traditional TV network are numbered.
I haven't heard the "mystery medicine", but it seems as if the laxitive gum in the MREs is true. I recently spent six days out in the field, and was all sotpped up until I started chewing the gum in the MREs. BLAMO!!! No more stoppage.
Unless, could gum have a plecebo effect in terms of pooping?
I'm going to file my own patent.
It'll be a patent for "something" that does "stuff".
I may have to file two seperate sub-patents. One for "Something that does cool stuff" and one for "Soemthing that does boring stuff."
I'll make millions!
It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer.
It might be a slight overreaction, but I'm so happy to see somebody of importance say that.
Now if somebody would say "It's your IP, but it's not your DVD player" and got rid of those 'Pirating movies over Internet is akin to car theft or gang rape' that you can't bypass unless, of course, you pirated the movie.
The sad part is, it takes legislative action to get media distributors to stop them activly pissing off their paying customers.
That's somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're equating manufacturing jobs to IT jobs, which are not the same thing.
One thing to consider: It techinically *is* intended to be a truck, but just like regular sized trucks in Texas it's really just there for folks to look at (hey, check out my truck!) They have no intention of actually using it to haul something around.
Curious. I also haven't seen any problems. I've updated as soon as every new patch comes out, and havn't seen any issues. Then again, I don't use tabs or any other fancy features. I wonder if there's some feature you're using that's causing the problem that most other people don't.
I just look at it like the old McDonald's signs (for those of you old enough to remeber) that used to have a giant counter on them saying some "[some obscenly large number] Served!". The number was somewhat bogus; there was no way of counting the number of individual people McDonalds has served food to. I'm sure some people came in, ate once, and never came back while others refrequented to the place often. The thing is, the number itself didn't really matter. All that mattered to McDonald's and the message they wanted to send to the customers was that it was really, really big.
Eventually, I suppose they got tired of climbing up all the time to physically change the numbers, and now the signs all just read 'Billions and Billions Served'.
(note: I'm simply comparing McDonalds to Firefox in terms of getting excited about numbers. No other comparison is implied (yeah, some people will read it that way))
This is not something that happens by accident. They are ACTIVELY dissuading linux users from watching the teaser.
Whoever is in charge of marketing has no clue.
Which one is it: a carefully designed conspiracy against Linux users, or the end result of a naive marketing department that doesn't understand that a large chunk of their target audience uses something other then Windows?
If I had to make a bet, I'd put my money on the latter. I highly doubt there's someone sitting around saying 'Yarr! Let's get those Linux users! That'll teach 'em for being different!". I'd guess the company providing the streaming video brought the claim of 'being able to provide high-quality on-demand streaming video to broadband Internet users using a unique process which makes unauthorized duplication near impossible' to the marketing department for the film. The 'Vividas' company most likely neglected the fact that they wouldn't be able to reliably accommodate users of alternative OSes, and it never occurred to the folks marketing the film to ask.
In what way are the members of the RIAA NOT like organised criminal and racketeers?
Despite being criminals, people tend to respect mobsters. Not so for RIAA members.
.. it's just all downhill and downwind, with the engine idling :)
In terms of a "sky car", wouldn't the technical description for that be "falling from the sky?"
Which, you know, makes sense. It can fall from the sky from one mile up and the idling engine only uses 1/28th of a gallon of gas.
I guess since we've won the "war on terror"
We have? I thought the allure of the "war on terror" was that it was a "war" that could never end. Well then.. um.. Mission Acomplished!
we can finally start to devote resources to fighting the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties.
Funny. I was under the impression that the "war on terror" and "the war on free speech, expression and personal liberties" were one in the same. After all, the terrorists might be sneaking communications imbeded into the background of jpg pictures of 90 year old women getting pooped on by robots.
and it sounds like a custom-made script, a soliloquy of unrequited geek passion.
Reading your post while imagining the Comicbook Guy's voice is even more fun.
I really have to wonder how they define "sci-fi". The Prisoner was a unique and very neat show, and calling it "sci-fi" is far less a stretch then applying that label to "Wild Wild West" or "The Avengers" (perhaps the writers were confusing the television programs with the movies?)
Also, the list seems to confuse "fantasy" with sci-fi. Xena??!!?? Come on now.
I always thought the term "science fiction" was used exclusively to describe stories which involved, you know, science. Things like space exploration, robots, time travel and the like. On the other hand, stories which deal with magic, ghosts or mythology would have the descriptor of "fantasy" attached to them.
Granted, sci-fi and fantasy are often linked together (for example, in the video shop you'll regularly find sci-fi/fantasy movies share the same shelf space) because in general people who enjoy one will enjoy the other.
You're absolutely right.
I love movies. My home DVD collection is sitting at 190+ titles and keeps growing. I'm one of those people with an amazing home theatre system. While the screen is much, much smaller then the movie theatre, the sound system I have blows away anything I've seen (well, heard) in the multiplex.
But I still go to movies because I enjoy the experience. Sometimes I'll even go to the movies by myself. No matter how much money you pour into a home theatre, barring building a room in your home 40 feet tall, 70 feet wide and 90 feet long to accommodate a theatre sized screen, you'll never be able to approach the satisfaction derived from the theatre.
Inviting a few good friends over to the house to watch movies is not the same as going out. It's akin to drinking; it's cheaper to buy booze and hang out with friends at home, but it's far more fun to go out to a bar. Even if you set one up in your basement, including a long wooden bar, a stereo loaded with your favorite music, and a CO2 system to have a few of your favorite beers on tap, it's still generally going to be more enjoyable to get out of the house.
What's upsetting is that so few theatres seem to capitalize on their advantages. This last week I was in Los Angeles and paid to visit the Arclight theatre complex surrounding the old Cinerama dome. These guys had the best setup I've seen so far: Reserved seating (like you'd find at a sporting event or music concert), special 21+ showings guaranteeing no loud screaming babies or obnoxious teenagers, the ability to enjoy a drink while watching the movie, and bigger seats with more legroom, including (and this is something I really, really like) "double wide" armrests so you don't have to fight the person next to you for space to rest your arm. The only real downside is the price ($14, which is a bit too steep for a movie)
If more theatres followed the example of the Arclight, I think the industry wouldn't have to worry about much.
In addition, I wish more theatres would show older movies. Since movie making has become mainstream (less then a century ago), there have been hundreds, if not thousands of really good films made that I (and I would presume others) would pay to see on the big screen. As it stands, very few movie houses outside of small single screen independent theatres will show anything other then new releases. For example, I've always wanted to see 2001 in a theatre. I can only imagine that the experience would be worth it. The Arclight, which as I said seems to be quite adept at getting things right, was showing--in addition to the slew of fresh film releases--the movie "The French Connection". I was amazed.
Knowing this, all the theatre industry has to do is find out what it is the public likes about going to the movies and give them more of it.
I don't think you need to read "Atlas Shrugged" to get the point; I'm pretty sure there are more concise and more entertaining options out there which can explain the same thing (and if there isn't, there should be).
Nonetheless, I agree with you. There is an unsettling theme in modern business where those behind the curve will criticize the winners, crying "foul" whenever somebody does something better and with more success then they do. The obvious answer is to change the way you do things in order to compete, but too many businesses seem unwilling to do that, instead opting to stick their fingers in their ears chanting "no fair!" instead.
I could understand being upset if the front-runner is cheating, using practices of questionable morality to achieve their goals (Personally, I'd put Microsoft in that category). But when you're losing to a company that finds success by producing a superior product which, all things being equal, customers would prefer to purchase and use then they would yours, then you really have no room to complain.
The best current example I can think of deals with all the hub-bub surrounding Google. Now at the top, Google is geting criticism from all sides. But from what I can see their only crimes have been producing products and services which are superior to their competitors while simultaneously developing a revenue stream which doesn't insult or annoy their users.
Of all the complaints I've read about Google, the one that irks me the most is "It's not fair! They have all the best software engineers!" Since when has it been wrong to spend more money on salaries or create an attractive working environment in order to get better employees?
I can't say exactly what the root cause of this dislike for industry leaders is, but I think it goes a little beyond simple jealousy. Modern business, especially the entertainment industry heavily relies on preexisting formulas for direction, knowing that deviation from that formula is likely to lead to failure.
A video game developer, for example, knows that a success of a title is going to rest a great deal on following the rules. The formula says a title has to have graphics which will yield good looking screen shots for game magazines and webpages. While not an absolute necessity, the formula highly encourages a new title be a part of a popular pre-existing game franchise or linked to a successful movie or television show. The formula demands that a game belongs to one of a small number of game genres (like being a first person shooter or a "platform" game, among others). The formula might recommend "dumbing down" a game that is a little too cerebral for their target market; it will never reccomend "smartening it up".
Other attributes, like "entertainment value" or "game play" are incidental. A game's initial success rarely, if ever, relies on these things. A game might be loads of fun but unless it follows the formula it just won't fly. I'm not a game developer, but I can only guess how much the needless frustration gets to them. An exceedingly entertaining game which doesn't follow the formula won't just find it hard to be featured in the gaming press (which seems exclusively concerned with graphics), it will find it difficult to be picked up by a distributer or see the light of day on a store's shelves.
The trick to developing a highly successful game is in finding fun and entertainment within the confines of a deeply restrictive formula. World of Warcraft appears to have done just that. The graphics are pretty good. It's part of the popular Warcraft franchise (In this case, Warcraft is just a name to attract people. You could have the exact same game but call it 'Ogre Fight 1000', and it's likely it wouldn't have had enough early adopters to get the title off the ground.) Finally, it's a part of the increasingly popular MMORPG genre.
Moreover, in addition to having all those necessary attributes, the game is actually fun. Not for me, mind you. I played it for a
The company's also changing its name from Marvel Enterprises to Marvel Entertainment.
The important thing is that the acronym, which spells out Marvel's primary focus, remains intact.
The RIAA's greatest fear is that if they turn a blind eye to the pirates then the practise of copying music will be legitimised in the eyes of the vast majority of their customers, aka normal people, and that the majority of customers will stop buying music.
I'd have to disagree. It's not about profits or legality, it's about control. The RIAA is trying to demonize file sharing because it stands as the only major process which circumvents major label's tight control over every aspect of purchasing music. The traditional business model the RIAA members have been clinging to for some time allows them to decide which bands are signed, which bands are promoted, which bands are played on the radio, and which bands get premium space on record store shelves.
It comes as no surprise that file sharers are more apt to purchase music, but the study doesn't indicate which music they purchase. I can only speak from personal experience, but I'd guess that the bulk of the music file sharers purchase isn't the heavily hyped assembly line ilk that RIAA members want people to buy.
File sharing services give consumers access to a near unlimited catalog of music to try out. It doesn't rely on a band's image (how many ugly bands do the major labels sign these days?) and it doesn't rely on heavy air play on the radio. Instead it lets the consumer discover music that her or she actually likes.
This has to drive the RIAA nuts. If the process of discovering new bands on the Internet-where things like word of mouth are far more powerful then hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into promotion-is legitimized, it means that the traditional methods major labels have been employing for decades become moot. In other words, with the wealth of options and exposure to obscure bands the Internet brings, consumers are likely to purchase CDs with content they actually like, as opposed to what the labels want them to like.
If (and really, it's not a question of if these days, but when) this takes off in the mainstream, record companies can't simply sign a band that sounds like other popular bands and apply a formulaic model for promotion which yields a predictable economic return. In order to stay profitable they'll actually have to sign "good" bands with "talent". Recognizing talent and quality is a skill major record labels lost some time ago.
What good is it for major record labels if file sharing leads consumers to purchase music they want to own, when it's more likely the artists who produce that music lie outside their sphere of influence?
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. What a lot of people fail to understand--the author of the article included--is that the tech world is not just going through another shift, but that the nature of the tech world is change. It's unlikely to ever become stagnant.
I honestly can't understand the latest popular mantra: "Google has peaked". It seems that those espousing that view or so deeply rooted in traditional ideas of what or how a business should perform that they fail to see that the real beauty of a company like Google is that it doesn't set its sights on any one particular market or business because it understands the fluid nature of the tech world.
From the article: It will take the company another five years just to mature the businesses they already have
That statement is screaming ignorance of the tech business world and a devotion to old fashioned thinking. Specifically: "Find a product or service, slowly develop it over a period of years, fight competitors for market share, and comfortably become one of the leaders in the industry". That way of thinking might work great if your in the business of selling bird feeders, but it's folly to suggest it should be an acceptable business plan in the tech world.
In another five years, the "businesses they already have" may be irrelevant. Remember, Windows 95 was released only 10 years ago last Wednesday. In August of '95, very few companies even had web pages. IT was exclusively a productivity focus, and had next to nothing to do with marketing. Assuming a geometric increase in change (which isn't all that unreasonable), we can only speculate in dim generalities what the tech world will be like in 5 years.
A company that's going enjoy long term success in the ever changing tech world is one that doesn't spend too much time developing any one product line, because something else can come along which literarily overnight renders that product or service moot.
Google seems to understand this. While their roots are in the search engine, they've proven to be quite adept at entering new avenues and in a very short period of time offering a service which is significantly better then their competitors.
While no one other then those who are the inside can say for sure, it appears that their path to success is pretty simple:
1. Find out what people want, and give it to them. While Google was working on making their search engine faster and further reaching, Yahoo was trying to turn their search engine into an "Internet Portal". The thing is, people wanted a better search engine. Nobody wanted, or even asked for a portal. Google says "We're going to provide for people what they say they want" while Yahoo was saying "We're going to provide something for people that we think they want". While Yahoo's search page was becoming more and more cluttered with useless widgets, Google's page was simple and to the point. (to see what I mean, go to http://www.yahoo.com/ and then http://www.google.com./ If all you want to do is search for a webpage, the simple design of Google's search engine suggests a greater utility).
2. Don't fill customer's heads with marketing hype about how you think your product should be used. Instead, make your product versatile and flexible enough so that others can discover a way to use it to its fullest potential. Google maps (maps.google.com) is a great example of this. Take a look first at one of Google's competitors in this field: Mapquest. At the top of the page is a claim of what Mapquest can do. "You can find it!". There's another blurb at the bottom about how great they are because you can use Mapquest to link maps from your website. A full quarter of the page is devoted to an advertisement. There are links for finding everything from Hotel rooms to fishing trips. Yet, despite all of these fancy, in your face claims of how great Mapquest is, it's still little more t
The sooner record companies get back to producing real music from artists with talent instead of manufacturing pap on the cheap the better for everybody.
The thing is, I don't think that's going to happen. The large record companies lost the ability to recognize "talent" years ago. So as long as the record companies have been able to control all facets of the industry, from production to promotion to distribution, they haven't had to actually sign "good" artists.
Under the traditional business model championed by the RIAA, the consumer is only offered a limited glimpse of available artists via outlets such as MTV or commercial radio. In these distribution channels, the major labels can tightly control what is played via a system of legal, or "loophole" payola. A radio station, in being a business, is more likely to play a crummy track in heavy rotation when a promotions company offers them bags of money, but a "good" track from a band signed to a label without a massive promotion budget is going to be ignored.
Compound that with the consumer's choices in the brick-and-mortar chain record shop due to RIAA influence; product availability is largely limited to heavily hyped (promoted) artists. A customer wishing to purchase a new release from a band he or she perceives as "good", but which lacks major label promotion is going to have a difficult time. They'll have to dig through the shelves to look for the title, which more often then not won't actually be there. On the other hand, the new release from a crummy band backed by the major label's promotion machine will be prominently displayed at the front of the store, accompanied by giant posters promoting the band plastered to the walls, and a guarantee that hundreds of copies of the title will be available.
Under this environment, which until recently worked quite well for the big RIAA member labels, the talent of an artist or the quality of their recordings is incidental. Things like image and aesthetics, which can easily be objectively evaluated by the record label, are far more important. A band that manages to look "cool" on posters, t-shirts and rock videos is always going to outsell an ugly group in a tightly controlled market, especially when every offering largely sounds the same.
While there's a compelling argument to think of the major record labels as "evil" for setting up and vigorously defending this business model, we have to remember that its success is largely due to the overall laziness of the (especially American) consumer. We've allowed ourselves to accept the limited choices and poor artistic quality the RIAA members have given us, simply because it's easier.
The good news is, this is slowly changing. Terrestrial commercial FM radio is becoming more and more irrelevant with the onslaught of Internet and satellite music broadcasts. These new mediums are able to make programming decisions exclusively based on the desires of the listener, as opposed to traditional broadcasts which only worry about pleasing advertisers and recording labels.
Online distribution of music means the customer is no longer limited (through perceived convenience or otherwise) to just the offerings of overly hyped and promoted artists; the latest release from an obscure band is just as easily obtained as the latest manufactured pop.
I think the major labels know this, but are unwilling or unable to publicly acknowledge it. The Internet is a massive threat to their traditional business model. The recent decline in record sales for major label titles is likely due to the various alternatives provided by the Internet. But rather then adapt to this new medium, they're fighting it in every way possible.
They've demonized file traders (even the ones who legally trade music from non major-label affiliated bands), because file trading opens the consumer's options to a much broader selection of music choice. They support movements towards highly restrictive DRM because they don't want the consumer to eas
Or, you really DO need one. It sounds like your lack of a social life is an incredibly lonely existance.
Perhaps a robot can become that friend. Imagine sitting at school all alone, and your robot calls you up just to chat (about someone breaking into your hoe). Life could suddenly become more fullfilling.
You could even get one of those Roombas to keep your sercurity robot company. I bet the three of you could have some great times!
Apart from the loss of physical books (which I think can be better then a text presented i data form), I'm sad that the library is going to lose some of it's strong points.
When I wss an undergrad, the library was the one place I could go to do serious studying. Unlike the dorms which could be loud and filled with destractions, the library was quiet, detached. I loved having a place to hide from the world like that.
It seems to me that the students could be better served by taking all of their recently digitized resources and make it availble from anywhere on campus. If students want to hang out in a social envrionment while doing research, fine. I'm sure this particular Texas university has a great Student Union. With computers, there's no need to be physically in the library.
But leave the books as they are, and let the library remain a quiet and detached institution it is.
As far as a simulation goes, I don't know of any off hand, but I'm sure at some point they've existed. The mathematical models put together in "The Theory of Blackjack" do a pretty darned good job showing it (which, incidentally, are not that simple). If you're looking for a real world example, you only need to take a look at the MIT Blackjack team who was able to win quite a bit in a multi-deck environment.
I just don't think that frequency of variations that are large enough to matter is high enough to make a decent profit at it especially given limited budgets relative to the casino and limits on the bet sizes.
Perfect play is only going to give you a tiny statistical advantage, sometimes in the 1 to 2% range. If you expect to win a large amount of money, you're going to have to spend a lot of time in casinos and start with a massive bankroll. When you do that, you attract attention, and chances are the casino is going to kick you out before you have the chance to do any real damage. Thorpe's book briefly mentions that even in the old days, when casinos all still had single decks, a $200 bankroll at a low limit table would only net you a few bucks an hour, assuming you were playing perfectly. But increase that starting bankroll to $60,000, and the payoff seems more worthwhile.
But I also find it hard to believe that the billion dollar casinos are stupid enough not to do the (very easy) math and implement easy solutions (bigger deck - slightly modified odds) if it really did cost them money.
They have, with mixed results. Pretty much all the casinos now use multiple decks. I've seen a number of rule variations in different casinos, everything from only an even money payout on blackjacks, changes on when the dealer can hit, and even the "infinite shuffle", which is constantly shuffling cards while not in play, so deriving any statistical "memory" of the cards is truly impossible.
The problem is, when casinos try to do this they loose business. You'll have to remember that for every "good" card counter, there are dozens of bad ones; players who understand how to count cards, but either lose track (which is easy to do), start drinking (which is really easy to do), or simply don't play right. The bad counter, or even the person who doesn't know how to count cards but has received advice from others on what to look for in a table, will generally only sit down at tables with favorable odds. That's why you'll often see a casino with two tables right next to each other, one with rules that crush the odds, and one normal. Remember, a casino can make money off somebody who only thinks he knows what he's doing just like they can take money away from someone who doesn't know any better.
Finally, if card counting can't be banned in Canada - then why do those casinos keep having BJ tables and where are all the Canadian BJ millionaires
I have no idea what the rules are in Canada, but it's likely similar to what they've got in New Jersey. In Atlantic City, they can't bar a player for counting cards, due to screwy wording of the gambling laws (casinos can only offer games of chance, not games of skill. If they kicked people out for card counting, they'd be admitting black jack was a skill game). But that doesn't mean they don't kick out counters, they just use another reason, or no reason at all.
I was thinking back to the old days when hole cards were dealt face down. To discourage cheating - I forgot that a lot of casinos deal all cards face up now.
In conventional blackjack, the dealer always shows one card up, and his hole card is face down. Some tables deal all players cards up (to speed up play), while others deal them face down. For the purpose of card counting, it doesn't matter: At the end of the hand the dealer always turns his hole card over, and all players' cards are exposed. The advantages of card counting are felt at the start of the next hand,
Back in '99-00 I was spending a lot of time at Las Vegas casinos. At the peak, I was visiting every other weekend, and I was card counting. Unlike the sensational stories popularized in the media, I was not a "big time" gambler. I was not doing this for a living, and I wasn't do it to strike it rich; I was doing it for fun.
Typically, I'd go out there with $500, find a place with 2 deck blackjack (single deck in true form doesn't exist... the places that advertise it typically cut the deck so deep that you'll only get two hands out of each shuffle), and spend 40-50 hours over the weekend playing. At lower limit tables, even playing perfectly, that doesn't amount to much. On average, with that $500 stake, I'd live with about $700 in my pocket, up $200 for the weekend. This works out to about $5 an hour, less then minimum wage.
Sometimes, if I was lucky, I'd come out with more, but I didn't always win. There were times where I'd leave with 5 crisp $100 in my pocket and return home with nothing but a few good stories.
My favorite experience was at the Excalibur. One night, while playing low limit blackjack an older man sat down at my table. He was flanked on both sides by attractive women nearly half his age, and he was really, really drunk. He pulled a giant wad from his pocket of tightly rolled $100 bills, peeled off a few of them and laid them on the table. The dealer picked them up and said "Changing 300", to which this man yelled "no, damnit I don't want any chips that's my bet!" "money plays".
He lost. He did it again. He lost. When he would win, he'd throw his winnings back on the table and give them back to the casino. Chips, he explained loudly, were "unlucky". His play was horrible; he'd hit a 16 with a 5 showing, double down on an 8 against an Ace. Meanwhile, I just sat there quietly plunking down my $5 bets, occasionally raising them to $10 or $15 when the count was good. This guy was attracting so much attention from the casino staff that my small potato attempt at card counting (which wasn't on that night anyway) went by unnoticed.
At one point, he put $800 down on the table. This was a min $5, max bet $500. "I'm sorry sir, but the maximum bet here is $500". Almost instantly, the pit boss swooped down said "This man can bet as much money as he likes". Of course; this man was a drunken idiot trying to impress the those two woman (I don't know if they were prostitutes or what) by loosing as much money as he could. During the 45 minutes or so he was there, he lost about $20 grand. After that fat roll of $100s were gone, he got up with the help of his lady friends and stumbled out of the casino with a big grin on his face.
I pretty much stopped playing seriously after three losing trips in a row. Now when I get to Nevada I might spend a few hours at the tables, but the all night sessions are a thing of the past. To this day, I still don't consider myself a "cheater"
This unethical practice of baring players merely for winning should be illegal
I'd have to disagree. While being caught card-counting isn't fun, it's the casino's right to not let you play if they think you're going to take money from them. Just like it's your right not to go to a casino if you think the casino might take money from you.
But you're right about one thing: Card counting is NOT cheating. Blackjack is, at some levels, a skill game. Knowing when to bet high or low is no different from knowing when to hit or stay.