I have to applaud RCA for providing this product. It will make everyone happy, if they would shut up and think for a minute..
Do you believe that Tom Hanks will be happy to have the atrocities of war stripped from Saving Private Ryan? Will Steven Spielberg be happy when Schindler's List is pared down so that Nazi's don't look like such bad guys? Would Stanley Kubrick, were he still alive, be glad that they are taking out the brutal, violent parts of Full Metal Jacket?
Some writers and directors consider their work to be art and not something to be trifled with by some right-wing Mormon zealot working for Clearplay in Salt Lake City, Utah. They don't want their movie to jarringly skip over important scenes. They don't want their movies stripped of all emotional impact, adult language, and human sexuality. They don't want the viewer being left confused as to the subtleties of the motivating factors (which were censored out) that drove the characters.
Uh hello, this is a win-win for everybody!
That is, everyone for whom artistic vision is unimportant.
Yes. The folks I hang out with refer to them as "racks" for short, as in 1U racks, 2U racks, etc., although that's probably a term better saved for waitresses at Hooters.
The problem with such power densitty is exactly that. Supplying a standard rack with enough juice and cooling to fill all the units, or even half of them, is a challange, and very few hosting centers were built to supply it.
It's a survival of the fittest world in the co-lo facilities. Dell, a company known for building civilized, quiet desktop PCs, puts fans that are so loud in servers that they would make the average fighter jock cringe. It's not that they need that in a normal world, but when they are breathing hot air exhausted by all of the other systems in the co-lo facility, they need every advantage that they can get.
I really wonder how long it will be before the PC manufacturers standardize fittings for liquid cooling so that each rack server has a liquid in and a liquid out line for cooling. They can't keep doing all of the cooling with air and high-speed fans. It's just not going to scale as processors get more power-hungry.
AMD fanboys listen up: Yeah, you guys are winning the strongarm race right now. You've got the faster middle-class processor (upper end desktop/lower- to medium-end server) and Intel knows this quite well. They could scale Prescott very quickly up, but so would come heat, and therefore energy prices.
AMD has the faster high-end processors, too. I just ordered a high-end workstation for modeling and simulation at work. I chose a 64-bit AMD CPU both for the speed it gives now as well as for the future growth potential. Server guys are demaning AMDs and you'll probably even see the Intel-only Dell start offering AMD-based servers.
Intel has no concern about energy prices and the only reason that they care about heat is because they would need liquid nitrogen cooling to draw off the heat if their CPUs ran much hotter. Their other big concern about heat is that manufacturers can't create reliable 1U racks with CPUs that pull 100+ watts. There is also the issue of building power supplies which have amperages that approach those of arc-welders (yes, I know the voltage is not the same). And there is the issue of carrying that much current through PCB traces.
Now, lets look at other moves Intel's made lately. They've announced they're going to a PR-rating for selling processors.
But when AMD did that, Intel screamed that it was deceptive (which was, itself, ironic coming from a company selling GHZ specs to ignorant consumers).
So, I'm very sure that this is one of the top priorities sitting on the desks of Intel Engineers, I applaud them for taking every step towards a cleaner environment while making my newest tech gadgets.
I'll believe that Intel has an interest in the environment when they stop trying to convince consumers to throw their existing PCs into landfills and to upgrade to light-dimming 3GHZ P4s for websurfing on their AOL dial-up connections. I'll believe that Intel has an interest in the environment when their desktop chipsets have built-in CPU speed throttling to save power (do you think that you need a 3GHZ CPU for word processing?). All that Intel is doing now is complying with upcoming EU regulations regarding lead.
I was completely unfamiliar with his work and assumed that, due to the simplicity, it was a fictitious name used to make your point. Sorry for my ignorance on the subject.
I'd guess your argument here is that you recognize quality programming as you flip past it on the way to other channels, which wouldn't be possible under the subscription model.
It's more to it than that. I know someone who enjoys the programs on A&E Biography. She's an extremely intelligent graduate from an Ivy League university and makes her living as a professional editor/writer. I trust her opinion.
That argues that one could hear of the occasional good program/channel even if not subscribed. I'll buy that, but I don't think that word-of-mouth is enough to sustain a niche channel.
I think you are making the assumption that people will somehow forget about the channels they used to consider quality programming once the change is made.
You make the assumption that people know what channel they are watching and that they are cognizant of what shows were on what channels. For many people, especially those with TiVo, it's normal to just come home and watch the programs without having to be aware of what channels they were on. Others "channel surf" looking for something that catches their eye. Do they know whether the show about fishing that they enjoyed was on TNN, ESPN, or some other channel? Probably not.
In the long term, you are probably correct that people will have no way to have a "test run" of a channel before they subscribe (there might be a marketable angle to this somehow, like the 'free sample' concept).
Analogy for brevity: You have an interest in jet fighters. Once every two weeks, Channel X has such a show on for 30 minutes. You get a "free sample" of Channel X for a month. What's the chance that you will stumble on their jet fighter show?
But again, if you're paying less for your cable, you can fulfill that need by contributing the difference to the channels that you want to survive.
The state of Virginia has, for quite some time, had a program where people can voluntarily pay more taxes if they want to contribute to the state budget. Five people have done so thus far (according to WTOP -- a news radio station). Relying on the generousity of people is a good way to starve.
I thought my interpretation of the Radio Shack example showed how bundling harms consumers. In one case the consumer did not get what he wanted and in another case the consumer paid more than he should have and got something he didn't want. What is unsatisfactory about that example?
I guess I should have said that you have not shown that the harm outweighs the benefit.
Sun made its money selling expensive hardware that was rock-solid and fast -- and if you wanted to run Solaris, you bought a Sun box with a SPARC processor. Now Solaris is out for the x86 and hardware reliability and speed can be had at a fraction of the cost in x86-based servers from Dell, Compaq, IBM, and others. There is no longer a compelling argument to buy Sun boxes for most applications. Sure, there are some exotic, massively multi-CPU servers from Sun, but that's not bread and butter sales and there are nott enough of them sold to support a company the size of Sun (hence the layoffs).
We've seen this before with IBM. To the Slashdot youngsters who may not remember: It was IBM who created the x86 PC back in the early 80's. They were trouncing "hobbyist" venders like MITS (Altair), Imsai, and Cromemco. They owned the PC market as far as business was concerned. Then the smaller companies like Compaq hit the scenes aiming at the business market with equivalent, or better, performance at lower prices. When is the last time that you saw a new IBM brand PC for sale?
Next to take a hit: Cisco. Companies are seeing the cost advantage to going with simpler, less-expensive routers and firewalls wherever possible. Why pay for "Cisco-certified" personnel when they can buy an SMC router, some switches, and have their office up and running at a fraction of the cost? Again, there are niche areas where Cisco is still king, but that won't support a Cisco-sized company.
However, the supply of all artists' paintings are constricted this way, yet people aren't willing to pay millions of dollars for a Bob Ross.
Bob may be a better artist than you know. Remember, Van Gogh's paintings didn't command a premium during his lifetime.
What makes you think A&E Bio is high-quality when you don't even consider it to be worth watching?
I can recognize quality programming even if it does not appeal to my particular interests. I don't enjoy opera, but I still recognize that Puccini's operas are of high quality. I'm not a fan of musicals, but know that the movie "Chicago" was high quality.
When consumers are forced to choose exactly how their money is spent, their priorities and budgets will be fairly represented by the content that survives.
You watch an hour of programming per month from one of five niche channels (A,B,C,D, and E). Since, on any given month, there's a one-in-five chance that you'll watch something on each individual channel, you elect not to pay for any of them in the a la carte model. All five go under. You don't get to see the programming from any of them. That didn't serve your needs, tastes, or reflect your budget.
The only way we can tell honestly what channels are worth is by letting the market decide. We can't get a fair picture under the bundling model.
You can't get a fair picture, period. If you don't subscribe to channel X, how will you judge its value?
It's not the government's responsibility to maintain the cable companies' profits. It is the government's responsibility to protect the consumer from monopoly abuse, especially when that monopoly has been granted by the government!
I agree with you 100%. But you have to show that bundling harms consumers, which has not been done to my satisfaction.
Why is it that Asian products and companies have such idiotic names? "Happiness Controller"? DFI = Diamond Flower Incorporated. Lucky Goldstar? KiKi Joy USB Game Controller?
They seem to just plop the words "joy", "happy", "golden" randomly next to other words (what the hell is a "data flower" anyway?) and assume that they have a company or product name.
I don't understand what your point was in the van Gogh example, then. I thought you were trying to demonstrate that a cable channel can exist for art's sake, not for the money. Now you're saying cable channels are commercial ventures so they only exist to make money. Which is it?
I was countering your claim that quality can be gauged by how many people buy something. Nothing more or less was intended.
Television and a cure for herpes both scratch an itch (if you pardon the pun). What makes one itch so fundamentally different that people would be willing to pay a premium for one but not the other?
Priorities and budgets. If you are choosing between a medicine that can cure a painful, contagious, stigmatizing disease and a subscription to a cable TV channel, which would you choose? I hope that you don't actually believe that every household has an unlimited budget with which to purchase everything that they deem to be of high quality.
Let's take some hypothetical channel distribution and begin to examine the two systems. Suppose under the bundled model we pay $40 for 10 mainstream channels, 5 niche channels that we consider "good quality" and 5 niche channels that we consider crap.... Suppose we learn that those three channels that we decided not to support are going out of business. According to your theory, we believed that the $40 we were paying before was justified because we were supporting these other channels we didn't watch or barely watched. So if $40 was justifiable, we should be willing to pay up to $16 to support those remaining channels to keep them alive, even though we're barely watching them or not watching them at all. That's over $5/channel!
And therein lies the problem. Like you, most consumers are looking for a way to save money -- and those channels will go out of business. They might be good channels with quality content, but they won't generate enough revenue if offered as a la carte items.
Your next example gets more interesting...
Let's assume now that our niche is only supported by 1% of the subscribers, as opposed to the approximately 20% it would need to break even. Instead of those three stations costing $8, they now cost $160. Obviously the a la carte system would not provide the revenue these channels need to survive (all other factors being constant). However, suppose we all agree on the socialist agenda and move to raise the base subscription fee from $20 to $23. Now our three channels are getting their $1 each from everyone to stay alive and those subscribers that were willing to continue to pay the original rate can pay $12 for their channels like everyone else. Now subscribers are all paying $35 apiece instead of forcing a few to pay $40, the cable company is getting the same funding, and we aren't losing our quality shows. The $5 we were normally giving to the crap channels goes away and consequently the crap disappears.
But the fundamental problem still exists - how do we determine what is valuable and what is crap? Do we vote on it? Here your democratic analogy is very applicable - the wolves may just vote the sheep right out of existence when they choose the channels that get that $3 subsidy. Your argument is that we should all be willing to accept a lot of crap at an elevated price simply to protect the good stuff which may or may not survive on its own.
Crap has no trouble surviving. Just look at network television and you will see that crap is well-funded by advertisers because it appeals to the masses. It'w quality niche programming that has a hard time surviving. I don't watch A&E Biography, but I still recognize that it is a high-quality channel worthy of retaining a spot on the "dial."
I still maintain that the current niche channels exist because the key players in the system see capital value in keeping them in the lineup (i.e. the channels are profitable), not because subscribers as a whole have some altruistic notions abou
Even though he never saw a relative dime for his work, van Gogh still painted, didn't he?
He was doing it for art's sake, not for money. Commercial ventures don't work that way.
It's simple: if you don't want the niche channel to fail, give it financial support!
Again, this does no good if the niche is not large enough.
However, your advocacy of the bundling model suggests that you want the mainstream to follow your tastes by supporting the channels you don't want to fail without any specific cost to yourself!
Yes! Correct. That's why so many niche channels survive now.
This argument relies on the assumption that there will be both widespread recognition of the quality programming on a channel, but equally widespread refusal to purchase that channel. That still boils down to people not willing to pay for quality.
No, no, no! You're willing to pay for quality, aren't you? So does that mean that you will pay for any high quality niche channel offered to you, even if it is about a subject that doesn't interest you? If you aren't interested in marsupials, you won't be subscribing to The Marsupial Channel, no matter how high the quality of their programming.
I didn't say niche channels were automatically low quality simply because they had a small target audience. I said they were low quality if the target audience wasn't willing to support them. There is a huge difference there.
Yes, you did say that:
I never said that niches that were so small that they can barely even support one channel would benefit in this way. If the niche can't support one channel, it is by definition low quality and needs to be broadened or redefined.
Summary: If it doesn't appeal to a wide enough audience, it's low quality.
Using your drug argument, suppose there there was a cure for herpes (which affects a very small percentage of the population). What possible reason would cause people not to want to pay for it?
That's not my argument. I said that something can appeal to a tiny percentage of people and still be high quality -- such as a drug. Of course people with Herpes would pay a lot for such a drug. But what does that have to do with discretionary spending on television programming?
Your argument is still fundamentally based on the premise that edgy, high-quality, niche channels can't survive because people won't pay for them directly. If that is the case, why do those channels exist now? Are you arguing that advertisers support them because they recognize the value of the programming even though there is an insignificant viewer base? Are you arguing that content providers are shoehorning "societally worthwhile" programming into otherwise worthless channel lineups out of guilt or selfless altruism? Are you arguing that consumers demand to have these channels, but will only accept them if they come as a package with the channels they really want so they can pretend to themselves that they're not actually paying for them, even if that package comes with a bunch of crap they would rather not pay for if they had a choice? Are you arguing the the cable companies demand these channels because they recognize the value even if their customers don't? I'm really trying to understand your premise here.
My premise is as follows:
Cable companies recognize the niche programming and a diverse channel lineup brings them subscribers. It is unlikely that someone will subscribe to cable JUST to get a niche channel, but the availability of niche channels will lead to some consumers subscribing and give a higher perceived value to the service. Many niche channels, regardless of quality, will not attract enough subscribers to be self-sufficient if unbundled. Here's why: If a consumer watches ten hours of TV per month on a single niche channel, he will probably subscribe to that channel individually if offered in an a la carte manner. If h
Typically socialism and liberalism in the sense that you are using it are synonymous, so there seemed to be a bit of a logical disconnect in saying that the two were at odds with each other.
Socialist: Keeping the channels bundled lets those with less broad appeal channels can survive. It's for the good of the people.
Liberal: Regulate the cable companies so that they have to offer a la carte programming.
If it's not profitable, it disappears. I fail to see how I'm misinterpreting this argument.
Many worthwhile things aren't profitable and many profitable things aren't worthwhile. During his lifetime, Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting, which he sold to his brother. On the other hand, "Fear Factor" is making a mint off of people drinking pulverized earthworms.
Why would I want niche channels that I like to fail? How would that benefit me? Or are you suggesting that I need to develop more mainstream tastes so that I can enjoy ESPN, tractor pulls, and "reality" shows?
Again, I interpreted your argument as saying that people will not be willing to pay for quality. I don't see how that is at odds with what you're saying here.
You misinterpreted my argument. People will pay for their favorite high-quality channels. They may occasionally watch Discovery Wings, but not often enough to justify paying for it as a standalone channel. They may opt for The Science Channel, History Channel, and The Biography Channel, and just not be willing to pay for yet another channel, even if it is good quality.
However, prevailing market forces should level the playing field and reward quality with high subscription rates as well as allowing competition to drive down prices and raise overall quality. Obviously a channel producer would like to cater to the broadest market possible, but not at the expense of the bottom line. With the a la carte model, more realistic market factors will also enter the calculations. Channels that perform well are those that strike a good balance between quality, production cost, size of the target audience, targeted advertising, and subscription pricing.
Don't you see why that's bad? All of cable will become pablum, with no edgy, high-quality, niche channels because they can't survive economically. If you own a niche channel, then you will have to tightly control production costs because you don't have the ad revenue and viewer revenue to support higher costs. That reduces quality and you lose viewers. Or you raise subscription and advertising rates, costing you subscribers and advertisers. Either way, it's a downward spiral that eventually ends in the channel either going under to morphing into something more mainstream. Starting Monday, "The Biography Channel" will become "The Reality Network", featuring "Survivor", "Fear Factor", and "American Idol."
I never said that niches that were so small that they can barely even support one channel would benefit in this way. If the niche can't support one channel, it is by definition low quality and needs to be broadened or redefined. That would increase quality by eliminating the crap that nobody wants and/or forcing it to be more tailored to its viewers.
Why is something automatically "low quality" just because they have a small target audience? That's like saying that a drug which only treats a rare disease must be low quality because it's "crap that nobody wants." The entire thrust of my argument is that the current system of bundling supports channels that may, due to their subject matter (not quality), not have a large enough audience to support them in an a la carte market.
20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.
How many people died as a result of Clinton lying about a blowjob? How many died thus far as a result of Bush's unfounded claims about "weapons of mass destruction"?
As to the rest of your semi-coherent ranting, 1/3 of your "points" involved guns. Guns just shouldn't be that important to anyone. It's one minor issue, not the very reason for our existence on Earth. I don't know if someone laughed at your penis or what, but you are way too hung up on guns for there not to be an underlying psychological problem. Maybe that's the reason that your web page (mrbrown.net) has an ad for "Viagra under $3 dose - free delivery, no prescription charges."
In case it wasn't obvious, the parent is using 'liberal' in the sense in which it applies to economic theory, which in this case means laissez-faire.
No, the parent was using "liberal" in the sense of believing that government regulation of rates and terms is often needed to protect consumers. I know, because I wrote the parent to your post.
The parent argues that a la carte cable plans subject us to the risk of LCD "reality crapfest" programming, where National Geographic and other quality programming will disappear. His argument is that people are willing to pay for crap and not for quality.
No, that was not my argument. My argument was two-fold:
1. That many vertical market channels (i.e., those aimed at special interest markets) will have a hard time attracting enough viewers to be profitable. Even if you get 100% of the market of people who play harps, it's not enough to sustain "The Harp Channel."
2. That high-quality channels which are only viewed occasionally by a given consumer will not be picked up by that consumer as part of his rental package. Someone might watch a show on "Animal Planet" every few months, but he won't pay for that channel if it's a la carte.
The reason the LCD crapfest exists is because of the LCD mentality of advertisers. It is in the best interest of program directors to seek out the LCD "crap" so as to provide the largest market for advertisers.
It's in the interest of stations in the a la carte model to seek out the largest market of paying viewers. If you run a channel that caters to thimble collectors, you won't have enough of an audience to pay your costs or to attract advertisers. What's so confusing about that?
Similarly, we don't really have much choice in niche markets (TechTV or bust).
There are many niche market channels. Here are just some of the niche market channels carried on DirecTV:
Animal Planet The Biography Channel Discovery Health Channel Discovery Wings DIY - Do It Yourself Network FitTV Galavision Newsworld International Outdoor Life Network (OLN) The Science Channel Speed Channel TechTV World Harvest Television
Many viewers who now subsidize those channels with package deals would no longer do so under the a la carte scheme being discussed. Then we would see if "World Harvest Television" and "TechTV" have enough paying viewers to keep them afloat.
Allowing a subscriber to choose between several providers in a niche will increase competition and increase standards across the board.
If the market can't support one TechTV, how will it support two? Let's say that there are seven viewers for "The Marsupial Channel" and it's losing money hand over fist. Do you really think that quality will go up the someone starts "Marsupial Network" and lures three of those viewers away?
I agree that we run the risk of sinking ot the least common denominator, but I would also point out that it also provides an escape from least common denominator programming. Take TechTV for example. It's a nice idea, but it's target for most everyone, because it has to be. With the ability to be an al a carte channel it could be come far more technical in nature to cater to those people who are actually willing to pay for something that provides usefull content.
To use your example, TechTV is not watched by nearly as many people as is HBO, but you are proposing that they 'geek themselves up' even more, further limiting the number of people to whom they appeal. Fewer potential viewers = higher cost per viewer. A television channel with very narrow appeal is going to play hell getting enough people to subscribe so that the cost is kept reasonable.
I think it's more likely that this competition will force the channels to be better. Why would some small time channel cater to the lowest common denominator when the said denominator is already watching ESPN and MTV?
Because they can't get enough viewers who are willing to pay for their content. The Marsupial Channel may have the world's best programming about marsupials, but that doesn't help if there are only 50 paying viewers. The reason that MTV, Fox, ESPN, etc. put crap on TV is because it sells. There's not a lot of future in selling unpopular things -- and that's why channels which cater to a very vertical market would be in trouble.
A problem that could be solved by making programs on the channels you're not subscribed to available on a "pay per view" basis.
That's an interesting suggestion, but, even at the 99 cent figure you mention, how many people will search-out, and pay for, such programming? Pay-per-view programming now relies on saturating regular channels with ads to alert people to upcoming pay-per-view events. When you're talking about a $25 boxing match or a hit movie that will attract huge numbers of viewers, then that's money well-spent. But given the limited potential audience and 99 cent per-program fees, I can't imagine a cable TV provider spending any money and "air"time to promote the day-to-day programming of, say, The National Geographic channel.
This reminds me of the old saying: "Democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
With our current system, less popular channels are subsidized. That makes it possible for channels like TechTV, The Biography Channel, and Discovery Wings to survive.
With a la carte cable plans, we run the risk of sinking to a least-common-denominator selection of cable programming, where the consumer is given viewing choices of pro wresting, Fear Factor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?, and soap operas. Small, special-interest channels may go under due to a lack of people willing to pay for them individually. Sure, mom & dad my get the kids to watch a National Geographic Channel show once every month or two, but will they be willing to pay for the channel every month? I bet that most of them won't.
On the other hand, I don't like paying for non-English channels, either, nor do I have any great interest in women's channels like Oxygen. I don't really want the Home Shopping Club or QVC. But I recognize that people who do want those channels may not like paying for The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, or Speed Channel, either, all of which I do watch.
I'd rather see us go back to the old system where cable rates were regulated. This would prevent content providers from raising the rates too high, because they would know that the cable companies could not pass the costs on to consumers. Now they raise rates and the cable companies pass the costs on to us.
It doesn't matter if Turnipseed was "just one tiny piece." They're still using it as one of their "facts" even after he recanted, which makes all of their other information suspect by my standards.
So, are all of Bush's statements now "suspect" in your eyes since the "weapons of mass distruction" claims? How long did he go on claiming that there were WMDs after inspectors said that there were none? How about the fact that Bush wrote on page 54 of your autobiography "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." But the truth is that he quit flying after less than two years, despite fighter training that cost the taxpayers almost a million dollars. Does that mean that everything that he says is now suspect?
Or do you just look for excuses to ignore information that doesn't support your world view?
Go there, read the evidence, and come back when you've finished. I don't have time to lay out all of the facts for you. As to what kind of pressure might have been put on Turpinseed since his initial statement, I don't know, but he was just one tiny piece of the vast stockpile of evidence against Bush.
1) Name one republican who has criticized people addicted to drugs. Show me proof, too.
Rush Limbaugh:
"[He's] another dead drug addict." - Rush Limbaugh on Jerry Garcia, 8/11/95
"We have alcoholics and drug addicts in our society, don't we? And what do we say about them? Well, they can't help it. Why, it's genetic. Why, they have a disease. Why, put one thimbleful of scotch in front of them and they can die.' We totally exempt them from any control over their lives, do we not? Some athlete will spend two years snorting lines of coke. He can't help it.' You know, it's--it's just--it's not--it's--it's genetic. These people--they're predisposed to having this addictive syndrome. They--they can't help--yeah, like that line of cocaine just happened to march into the hotel, go up to the athlete's room and put itself right there in front of him on his blotter." -- Rush Limbaugh how, December 16, 1994
5)I look at it this way: in order to be human you need to have 46 chromosomes, this is unique to the animal kingdom).
Bush has nothing to do with sending jobs overseas. Businesses do, however... but in your little world, you believe they are one of the same.
When Republicans pass legislation that gives tax incentives to send jobs overseas, then, yes, they are responsible for the job losses.
Everyone makes mistakes. Bill Clinton did it too, but that's OK. That's "youthful discretion" as Mr. Clinton claimed.
So now that Clinton's out of office, you are willing to accept "youthful indiscretion" as an explanation, but when he was in office, you right-wingers wanted to hang him by his balls for those same indiscretions.
We did not "belittle" our allies, we had disagreements with them.
Donald Rumsfeld said "Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."
That sounds like belittling them to my ears.
The difference is that in the US you have the opprotunity to get a job which provides health insurance.
Bulls***! There are people out there who lack the skills, advanced education, and intelligence to get a job at a firm that will provide health insurance. About 62% of uninsured people live in a household in which the head of the family works full-time for the full year, but is either not offered health insurance or cannot afford to pay the premiums to participate. Uninsured workers tend to be self-employed or work for smaller businesses. About 12% of the self-employed are uninsured, 36% of workers at businesses with less than 25 people are uninsured, and 13.7% of workers at businesses with 25 to 100 employees are uninsured.
No one has proposed censoring the internet, they have proposed stopping people from stealing from others.
Ever heard of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a federal law that requires public libraries that rely on federal funds for Internet use to install filtering software on library computers? That was Republican legislation.
Creationism, on the other hand, should be taught in school right next to evolution. They are both theories, neither of which is proven, and one should not be chosen above the other, but both should be taught.
The word "theory," as used in science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of genera
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise.
What planet are you from? All that the White House did was show that Bush once took advantage of free dental work at the Air National Guard base in Alabama.
The payroll records released by the White House show that Bush performed no guard duties at all for more than half a year in 1972. They also raise questions about how he could be credited with at least 14 days of duty during subsequent periods when his superior officers in two units said they had not seen him.
This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.
What heroism! Flying a fighter jet around Texas at taxpayer expense. Think of the danger! What if the North Vietnamese had attacked Houston? Bush would have been on the front line. And to think that people portray Kerry, who was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, a war hero! Damn liberals.
Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for.
Give your chest pounding bravado a rest. Bush lied to the American people about "weapons of mass destruction", lied to the troops, and sent our troops to Iraq with no exit strategy and poorly equipped. I know troops who did not have enough rations, toilet paper, and whose parents had to buy them the body armor that Bush & Co. didn't supply. Maybe you think that it's okay to lie to our troops, but I don't. Quit with the ends justify the means crap. If Bush thinks that we should be engaged in "nation building", then he should say so instead of making up stories about imaginary weapons.
In closing, here are some things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
4. "Standing Tall for America'" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
How long will it be before we get a photo album of the area around Three Mile Island put together by some gum-chewing Jersey girl riding around on a moped? Somehow it just won't be the same...
They've changed my perception--why did data storage just get more expensive?"
That's like bitching that a 40GB iPod is $500 when you can go to Best Buy and get a 40GB hard drive for $60. This does so much more than a bare hard drive that comparing the two on a cost-per-gigabyte basis is absurd.
With the Asus device, you are getting an ultraportable network attached storage device (with a pair of wired 10/100Mbps Ethernet ports) that also speaks WiFi over 802.11g. It has security managed with a web-based interface which allows you to specify which clients have read access, read/write access, no access, etc.
What a neat filesharing device! Load it up with your favorite MP3s (for which you hold copyright, of course), set it on a table. and let all of your friends access the music, adding or removing as they see fit.
Hell yes, there are barriers to open source adoption. Most women who give their babies up for adoption don't want to be contacted by the child in the future. Nor do they want everyone on the Internet to know that they had a child and put it up for adoption. The source of a baby put up for adoption should remain a secret. Otherwise, there will be fewer women willing to put their babies up for adoption. Why are we even discussing this?
(Being a typical Slashdot user, I didn't really read the article, but I'm sure that I know enough to comment just based on the title.)
Slashdot Mirror
I have to applaud RCA for providing this product. It will make everyone happy, if they would shut up and think for a minute..
Do you believe that Tom Hanks will be happy to have the atrocities of war stripped from Saving Private Ryan? Will Steven Spielberg be happy when Schindler's List is pared down so that Nazi's don't look like such bad guys? Would Stanley Kubrick, were he still alive, be glad that they are taking out the brutal, violent parts of Full Metal Jacket?
Some writers and directors consider their work to be art and not something to be trifled with by some right-wing Mormon zealot working for Clearplay in Salt Lake City, Utah. They don't want their movie to jarringly skip over important scenes. They don't want their movies stripped of all emotional impact, adult language, and human sexuality. They don't want the viewer being left confused as to the subtleties of the motivating factors (which were censored out) that drove the characters.
Uh hello, this is a win-win for everybody!
That is, everyone for whom artistic vision is unimportant.
"1U rack-mount servers" you mean?
Yes. The folks I hang out with refer to them as "racks" for short, as in 1U racks, 2U racks, etc., although that's probably a term better saved for waitresses at Hooters.
The problem with such power densitty is exactly that. Supplying a standard rack with enough juice and cooling to fill all the units, or even half of them, is a challange, and very few hosting centers were built to supply it.
It's a survival of the fittest world in the co-lo facilities. Dell, a company known for building civilized, quiet desktop PCs, puts fans that are so loud in servers that they would make the average fighter jock cringe. It's not that they need that in a normal world, but when they are breathing hot air exhausted by all of the other systems in the co-lo facility, they need every advantage that they can get.
I really wonder how long it will be before the PC manufacturers standardize fittings for liquid cooling so that each rack server has a liquid in and a liquid out line for cooling. They can't keep doing all of the cooling with air and high-speed fans. It's just not going to scale as processors get more power-hungry.
AMD fanboys listen up: Yeah, you guys are winning the strongarm race right now. You've got the faster middle-class processor (upper end desktop/lower- to medium-end server) and Intel knows this quite well. They could scale Prescott very quickly up, but so would come heat, and therefore energy prices.
AMD has the faster high-end processors, too. I just ordered a high-end workstation for modeling and simulation at work. I chose a 64-bit AMD CPU both for the speed it gives now as well as for the future growth potential. Server guys are demaning AMDs and you'll probably even see the Intel-only Dell start offering AMD-based servers.
Intel has no concern about energy prices and the only reason that they care about heat is because they would need liquid nitrogen cooling to draw off the heat if their CPUs ran much hotter. Their other big concern about heat is that manufacturers can't create reliable 1U racks with CPUs that pull 100+ watts. There is also the issue of building power supplies which have amperages that approach those of arc-welders (yes, I know the voltage is not the same). And there is the issue of carrying that much current through PCB traces.
Now, lets look at other moves Intel's made lately. They've announced they're going to a PR-rating for selling processors.
But when AMD did that, Intel screamed that it was deceptive (which was, itself, ironic coming from a company selling GHZ specs to ignorant consumers).
So, I'm very sure that this is one of the top priorities sitting on the desks of Intel Engineers, I applaud them for taking every step towards a cleaner environment while making my newest tech gadgets.
I'll believe that Intel has an interest in the environment when they stop trying to convince consumers to throw their existing PCs into landfills and to upgrade to light-dimming 3GHZ P4s for websurfing on their AOL dial-up connections. I'll believe that Intel has an interest in the environment when their desktop chipsets have built-in CPU speed throttling to save power (do you think that you need a 3GHZ CPU for word processing?). All that Intel is doing now is complying with upcoming EU regulations regarding lead.
Bob Ross died of cancer July 4th, 1995.
I was completely unfamiliar with his work and assumed that, due to the simplicity, it was a fictitious name used to make your point. Sorry for my ignorance on the subject.
I'd guess your argument here is that you recognize quality programming as you flip past it on the way to other channels, which wouldn't be possible under the subscription model.
It's more to it than that. I know someone who enjoys the programs on A&E Biography. She's an extremely intelligent graduate from an Ivy League university and makes her living as a professional editor/writer. I trust her opinion.
That argues that one could hear of the occasional good program/channel even if not subscribed. I'll buy that, but I don't think that word-of-mouth is enough to sustain a niche channel.
I think you are making the assumption that people will somehow forget about the channels they used to consider quality programming once the change is made.
You make the assumption that people know what channel they are watching and that they are cognizant of what shows were on what channels. For many people, especially those with TiVo, it's normal to just come home and watch the programs without having to be aware of what channels they were on. Others "channel surf" looking for something that catches their eye. Do they know whether the show about fishing that they enjoyed was on TNN, ESPN, or some other channel? Probably not.
In the long term, you are probably correct that people will have no way to have a "test run" of a channel before they subscribe (there might be a marketable angle to this somehow, like the 'free sample' concept).
Analogy for brevity: You have an interest in jet fighters. Once every two weeks, Channel X has such a show on for 30 minutes. You get a "free sample" of Channel X for a month. What's the chance that you will stumble on their jet fighter show?
But again, if you're paying less for your cable, you can fulfill that need by contributing the difference to the channels that you want to survive.
The state of Virginia has, for quite some time, had a program where people can voluntarily pay more taxes if they want to contribute to the state budget. Five people have done so thus far (according to WTOP -- a news radio station). Relying on the generousity of people is a good way to starve.
I thought my interpretation of the Radio Shack example showed how bundling harms consumers. In one case the consumer did not get what he wanted and in another case the consumer paid more than he should have and got something he didn't want. What is unsatisfactory about that example?
I guess I should have said that you have not shown that the harm outweighs the benefit.
Sun made its money selling expensive hardware that was rock-solid and fast -- and if you wanted to run Solaris, you bought a Sun box with a SPARC processor. Now Solaris is out for the x86 and hardware reliability and speed can be had at a fraction of the cost in x86-based servers from Dell, Compaq, IBM, and others. There is no longer a compelling argument to buy Sun boxes for most applications. Sure, there are some exotic, massively multi-CPU servers from Sun, but that's not bread and butter sales and there are nott enough of them sold to support a company the size of Sun (hence the layoffs).
We've seen this before with IBM. To the Slashdot youngsters who may not remember: It was IBM who created the x86 PC back in the early 80's. They were trouncing "hobbyist" venders like MITS (Altair), Imsai, and Cromemco. They owned the PC market as far as business was concerned. Then the smaller companies like Compaq hit the scenes aiming at the business market with equivalent, or better, performance at lower prices. When is the last time that you saw a new IBM brand PC for sale?
Next to take a hit: Cisco. Companies are seeing the cost advantage to going with simpler, less-expensive routers and firewalls wherever possible. Why pay for "Cisco-certified" personnel when they can buy an SMC router, some switches, and have their office up and running at a fraction of the cost? Again, there are niche areas where Cisco is still king, but that won't support a Cisco-sized company.
Yeah, I prefer "e-company" "i-company" "company-corp" "companysoft" "company dot com"
So do I. At least with those names, you have some idea that it's a tech company, whereas "happy golden flower" could be anything.
However, the supply of all artists' paintings are constricted this way, yet people aren't willing to pay millions of dollars for a Bob Ross.
Bob may be a better artist than you know. Remember, Van Gogh's paintings didn't command a premium during his lifetime.
What makes you think A&E Bio is high-quality when you don't even consider it to be worth watching?
I can recognize quality programming even if it does not appeal to my particular interests. I don't enjoy opera, but I still recognize that Puccini's operas are of high quality. I'm not a fan of musicals, but know that the movie "Chicago" was high quality.
When consumers are forced to choose exactly how their money is spent, their priorities and budgets will be fairly represented by the content that survives.
You watch an hour of programming per month from one of five niche channels (A,B,C,D, and E). Since, on any given month, there's a one-in-five chance that you'll watch something on each individual channel, you elect not to pay for any of them in the a la carte model. All five go under. You don't get to see the programming from any of them. That didn't serve your needs, tastes, or reflect your budget.
The only way we can tell honestly what channels are worth is by letting the market decide. We can't get a fair picture under the bundling model.
You can't get a fair picture, period. If you don't subscribe to channel X, how will you judge its value?
It's not the government's responsibility to maintain the cable companies' profits. It is the government's responsibility to protect the consumer from monopoly abuse, especially when that monopoly has been granted by the government!
I agree with you 100%. But you have to show that bundling harms consumers, which has not been done to my satisfaction.
Is "Happiness Controller" is what you get when you translate "joystick" into Japanese and then back into English?
Why is it that Asian products and companies have such idiotic names? "Happiness Controller"? DFI = Diamond Flower Incorporated. Lucky Goldstar? KiKi Joy USB Game Controller?
They seem to just plop the words "joy", "happy", "golden" randomly next to other words (what the hell is a "data flower" anyway?) and assume that they have a company or product name.
Yes, it probably could kill you.
My recommendation:
Get a vasectomy. Anyone who would consider drinking 100 cups of coffee in 24 hours doesn't belong in the gene pool.
I don't understand what your point was in the van Gogh example, then. I thought you were trying to demonstrate that a cable channel can exist for art's sake, not for the money. Now you're saying cable channels are commercial ventures so they only exist to make money. Which is it?
...
I was countering your claim that quality can be gauged by how many people buy something. Nothing more or less was intended.
Television and a cure for herpes both scratch an itch (if you pardon the pun). What makes one itch so fundamentally different that people would be willing to pay a premium for one but not the other?
Priorities and budgets. If you are choosing between a medicine that can cure a painful, contagious, stigmatizing disease and a subscription to a cable TV channel, which would you choose? I hope that you don't actually believe that every household has an unlimited budget with which to purchase everything that they deem to be of high quality.
Let's take some hypothetical channel distribution and begin to examine the two systems. Suppose under the bundled model we pay $40 for 10 mainstream channels, 5 niche channels that we consider "good quality" and 5 niche channels that we consider crap.
Suppose we learn that those three channels that we decided not to support are going out of business. According to your theory, we believed that the $40 we were paying before was justified because we were supporting these other channels we didn't watch or barely watched. So if $40 was justifiable, we should be willing to pay up to $16 to support those remaining channels to keep them alive, even though we're barely watching them or not watching them at all. That's over $5/channel!
And therein lies the problem. Like you, most consumers are looking for a way to save money -- and those channels will go out of business. They might be good channels with quality content, but they won't generate enough revenue if offered as a la carte items.
Your next example gets more interesting...
Let's assume now that our niche is only supported by 1% of the subscribers, as opposed to the approximately 20% it would need to break even. Instead of those three stations costing $8, they now cost $160. Obviously the a la carte system would not provide the revenue these channels need to survive (all other factors being constant). However, suppose we all agree on the socialist agenda and move to raise the base subscription fee from $20 to $23. Now our three channels are getting their $1 each from everyone to stay alive and those subscribers that were willing to continue to pay the original rate can pay $12 for their channels like everyone else. Now subscribers are all paying $35 apiece instead of forcing a few to pay $40, the cable company is getting the same funding, and we aren't losing our quality shows. The $5 we were normally giving to the crap channels goes away and consequently the crap disappears.
But the fundamental problem still exists - how do we determine what is valuable and what is crap? Do we vote on it? Here your democratic analogy is very applicable - the wolves may just vote the sheep right out of existence when they choose the channels that get that $3 subsidy. Your argument is that we should all be willing to accept a lot of crap at an elevated price simply to protect the good stuff which may or may not survive on its own.
Crap has no trouble surviving. Just look at network television and you will see that crap is well-funded by advertisers because it appeals to the masses. It'w quality niche programming that has a hard time surviving. I don't watch A&E Biography, but I still recognize that it is a high-quality channel worthy of retaining a spot on the "dial."
I still maintain that the current niche channels exist because the key players in the system see capital value in keeping them in the lineup (i.e. the channels are profitable), not because subscribers as a whole have some altruistic notions abou
He was doing it for art's sake, not for money. Commercial ventures don't work that way.
It's simple: if you don't want the niche channel to fail, give it financial support!
Again, this does no good if the niche is not large enough.
However, your advocacy of the bundling model suggests that you want the mainstream to follow your tastes by supporting the channels you don't want to fail without any specific cost to yourself!
Yes! Correct. That's why so many niche channels survive now.
This argument relies on the assumption that there will be both widespread recognition of the quality programming on a channel, but equally widespread refusal to purchase that channel. That still boils down to people not willing to pay for quality.
No, no, no! You're willing to pay for quality, aren't you? So does that mean that you will pay for any high quality niche channel offered to you, even if it is about a subject that doesn't interest you? If you aren't interested in marsupials, you won't be subscribing to The Marsupial Channel, no matter how high the quality of their programming.
I didn't say niche channels were automatically low quality simply because they had a small target audience. I said they were low quality if the target audience wasn't willing to support them. There is a huge difference there.
Yes, you did say that:
Summary: If it doesn't appeal to a wide enough audience, it's low quality.
Using your drug argument, suppose there there was a cure for herpes (which affects a very small percentage of the population). What possible reason would cause people not to want to pay for it?
That's not my argument. I said that something can appeal to a tiny percentage of people and still be high quality -- such as a drug. Of course people with Herpes would pay a lot for such a drug. But what does that have to do with discretionary spending on television programming?
Your argument is still fundamentally based on the premise that edgy, high-quality, niche channels can't survive because people won't pay for them directly. If that is the case, why do those channels exist now? Are you arguing that advertisers support them because they recognize the value of the programming even though there is an insignificant viewer base? Are you arguing that content providers are shoehorning "societally worthwhile" programming into otherwise worthless channel lineups out of guilt or selfless altruism? Are you arguing that consumers demand to have these channels, but will only accept them if they come as a package with the channels they really want so they can pretend to themselves that they're not actually paying for them, even if that package comes with a bunch of crap they would rather not pay for if they had a choice? Are you arguing the the cable companies demand these channels because they recognize the value even if their customers don't? I'm really trying to understand your premise here.
My premise is as follows:
Cable companies recognize the niche programming and a diverse channel lineup brings them subscribers. It is unlikely that someone will subscribe to cable JUST to get a niche channel, but the availability of niche channels will lead to some consumers subscribing and give a higher perceived value to the service. Many niche channels, regardless of quality, will not attract enough subscribers to be self-sufficient if unbundled. Here's why: If a consumer watches ten hours of TV per month on a single niche channel, he will probably subscribe to that channel individually if offered in an a la carte manner. If h
Typically socialism and liberalism in the sense that you are using it are synonymous, so there seemed to be a bit of a logical disconnect in saying that the two were at odds with each other.
Socialist: Keeping the channels bundled lets those with less broad appeal channels can survive. It's for the good of the people.
Liberal: Regulate the cable companies so that they have to offer a la carte programming.
If it's not profitable, it disappears. I fail to see how I'm misinterpreting this argument.
Many worthwhile things aren't profitable and many profitable things aren't worthwhile. During his lifetime, Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting, which he sold to his brother. On the other hand, "Fear Factor" is making a mint off of people drinking pulverized earthworms.
Why would I want niche channels that I like to fail? How would that benefit me? Or are you suggesting that I need to develop more mainstream tastes so that I can enjoy ESPN, tractor pulls, and "reality" shows?
Again, I interpreted your argument as saying that people will not be willing to pay for quality. I don't see how that is at odds with what you're saying here.
You misinterpreted my argument. People will pay for their favorite high-quality channels. They may occasionally watch Discovery Wings, but not often enough to justify paying for it as a standalone channel. They may opt for The Science Channel, History Channel, and The Biography Channel, and just not be willing to pay for yet another channel, even if it is good quality.
However, prevailing market forces should level the playing field and reward quality with high subscription rates as well as allowing competition to drive down prices and raise overall quality. Obviously a channel producer would like to cater to the broadest market possible, but not at the expense of the bottom line. With the a la carte model, more realistic market factors will also enter the calculations. Channels that perform well are those that strike a good balance between quality, production cost, size of the target audience, targeted advertising, and subscription pricing.
Don't you see why that's bad? All of cable will become pablum, with no edgy, high-quality, niche channels because they can't survive economically. If you own a niche channel, then you will have to tightly control production costs because you don't have the ad revenue and viewer revenue to support higher costs. That reduces quality and you lose viewers. Or you raise subscription and advertising rates, costing you subscribers and advertisers. Either way, it's a downward spiral that eventually ends in the channel either going under to morphing into something more mainstream. Starting Monday, "The Biography Channel" will become "The Reality Network", featuring "Survivor", "Fear Factor", and "American Idol."
I never said that niches that were so small that they can barely even support one channel would benefit in this way. If the niche can't support one channel, it is by definition low quality and needs to be broadened or redefined. That would increase quality by eliminating the crap that nobody wants and/or forcing it to be more tailored to its viewers.
Why is something automatically "low quality" just because they have a small target audience? That's like saying that a drug which only treats a rare disease must be low quality because it's "crap that nobody wants." The entire thrust of my argument is that the current system of bundling supports channels that may, due to their subject matter (not quality), not have a large enough audience to support them in an a la carte market.
20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.
How many people died as a result of Clinton lying about a blowjob? How many died thus far as a result of Bush's unfounded claims about "weapons of mass destruction"?
As to the rest of your semi-coherent ranting, 1/3 of your "points" involved guns. Guns just shouldn't be that important to anyone. It's one minor issue, not the very reason for our existence on Earth. I don't know if someone laughed at your penis or what, but you are way too hung up on guns for there not to be an underlying psychological problem. Maybe that's the reason that your web page (mrbrown.net) has an ad for "Viagra under $3 dose - free delivery, no prescription charges."
In case it wasn't obvious, the parent is using 'liberal' in the sense in which it applies to economic theory, which in this case means laissez-faire.
No, the parent was using "liberal" in the sense of believing that government regulation of rates and terms is often needed to protect consumers. I know, because I wrote the parent to your post.
The parent argues that a la carte cable plans subject us to the risk of LCD "reality crapfest" programming, where National Geographic and other quality programming will disappear. His argument is that people are willing to pay for crap and not for quality.
No, that was not my argument. My argument was two-fold:
1. That many vertical market channels (i.e., those aimed at special interest markets) will have a hard time attracting enough viewers to be profitable. Even if you get 100% of the market of people who play harps, it's not enough to sustain "The Harp Channel."
2. That high-quality channels which are only viewed occasionally by a given consumer will not be picked up by that consumer as part of his rental package. Someone might watch a show on "Animal Planet" every few months, but he won't pay for that channel if it's a la carte.
The reason the LCD crapfest exists is because of the LCD mentality of advertisers. It is in the best interest of program directors to seek out the LCD "crap" so as to provide the largest market for advertisers.
It's in the interest of stations in the a la carte model to seek out the largest market of paying viewers. If you run a channel that caters to thimble collectors, you won't have enough of an audience to pay your costs or to attract advertisers. What's so confusing about that?
Similarly, we don't really have much choice in niche markets (TechTV or bust).
There are many niche market channels. Here are just some of the niche market channels carried on DirecTV:
Animal Planet
The Biography Channel
Discovery Health Channel
Discovery Wings
DIY - Do It Yourself Network
FitTV
Galavision
Newsworld International
Outdoor Life Network (OLN)
The Science Channel
Speed Channel
TechTV
World Harvest Television
Many viewers who now subsidize those channels with package deals would no longer do so under the a la carte scheme being discussed. Then we would see if "World Harvest Television" and "TechTV" have enough paying viewers to keep them afloat.
Allowing a subscriber to choose between several providers in a niche will increase competition and increase standards across the board.
If the market can't support one TechTV, how will it support two? Let's say that there are seven viewers for "The Marsupial Channel" and it's losing money hand over fist. Do you really think that quality will go up the someone starts "Marsupial Network" and lures three of those viewers away?
I agree that we run the risk of sinking ot the least common denominator, but I would also point out that it also provides an escape from least common denominator programming. Take TechTV for example. It's a nice idea, but it's target for most everyone, because it has to be. With the ability to be an al a carte channel it could be come far more technical in nature to cater to those people who are actually willing to pay for something that provides usefull content.
To use your example, TechTV is not watched by nearly as many people as is HBO, but you are proposing that they 'geek themselves up' even more, further limiting the number of people to whom they appeal. Fewer potential viewers = higher cost per viewer. A television channel with very narrow appeal is going to play hell getting enough people to subscribe so that the cost is kept reasonable.
I think it's more likely that this competition will force the channels to be better. Why would some small time channel cater to the lowest common denominator when the said denominator is already watching ESPN and MTV?
Because they can't get enough viewers who are willing to pay for their content. The Marsupial Channel may have the world's best programming about marsupials, but that doesn't help if there are only 50 paying viewers. The reason that MTV, Fox, ESPN, etc. put crap on TV is because it sells. There's not a lot of future in selling unpopular things -- and that's why channels which cater to a very vertical market would be in trouble.
A problem that could be solved by making programs on the channels you're not subscribed to available on a "pay per view" basis.
That's an interesting suggestion, but, even at the 99 cent figure you mention, how many people will search-out, and pay for, such programming? Pay-per-view programming now relies on saturating regular channels with ads to alert people to upcoming pay-per-view events. When you're talking about a $25 boxing match or a hit movie that will attract huge numbers of viewers, then that's money well-spent. But given the limited potential audience and 99 cent per-program fees, I can't imagine a cable TV provider spending any money and "air"time to promote the day-to-day programming of, say, The National Geographic channel.
This reminds me of the old saying: "Democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
With our current system, less popular channels are subsidized. That makes it possible for channels like TechTV, The Biography Channel, and Discovery Wings to survive.
With a la carte cable plans, we run the risk of sinking to a least-common-denominator selection of cable programming, where the consumer is given viewing choices of pro wresting, Fear Factor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?, and soap operas. Small, special-interest channels may go under due to a lack of people willing to pay for them individually. Sure, mom & dad my get the kids to watch a National Geographic Channel show once every month or two, but will they be willing to pay for the channel every month? I bet that most of them won't.
On the other hand, I don't like paying for non-English channels, either, nor do I have any great interest in women's channels like Oxygen. I don't really want the Home Shopping Club or QVC. But I recognize that people who do want those channels may not like paying for The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, or Speed Channel, either, all of which I do watch.
I'd rather see us go back to the old system where cable rates were regulated. This would prevent content providers from raising the rates too high, because they would know that the cable companies could not pass the costs on to consumers. Now they raise rates and the cable companies pass the costs on to us.
It doesn't matter if Turnipseed was "just one tiny piece." They're still using it as one of their "facts" even after he recanted, which makes all of their other information suspect by my standards.
So, are all of Bush's statements now "suspect" in your eyes since the "weapons of mass distruction" claims? How long did he go on claiming that there were WMDs after inspectors said that there were none? How about the fact that Bush wrote on page 54 of your autobiography "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." But the truth is that he quit flying after less than two years, despite fighter training that cost the taxpayers almost a million dollars. Does that mean that everything that he says is now suspect?
Or do you just look for excuses to ignore information that doesn't support your world view?
www.awolbush.com
Go there, read the evidence, and come back when you've finished. I don't have time to lay out all of the facts for you. As to what kind of pressure might have been put on Turpinseed since his initial statement, I don't know, but he was just one tiny piece of the vast stockpile of evidence against Bush.
Rush Limbaugh:
5)I look at it this way: in order to be human you need to have 46 chromosomes, this is unique to the animal kingdom).
Now people with Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, and Turner Syndrome aren't human. Great going, Dr. Mengele.
Do you support killing humans?
No. I was against the war in Iraq.
Bush has nothing to do with sending jobs overseas. Businesses do, however... but in your little world, you believe they are one of the same.
When Republicans pass legislation that gives tax incentives to send jobs overseas, then, yes, they are responsible for the job losses.
Everyone makes mistakes. Bill Clinton did it too, but that's OK. That's "youthful discretion" as Mr. Clinton claimed.
So now that Clinton's out of office, you are willing to accept "youthful indiscretion" as an explanation, but when he was in office, you right-wingers wanted to hang him by his balls for those same indiscretions.
We did not "belittle" our allies, we had disagreements with them.
That sounds like belittling them to my ears.
The difference is that in the US you have the opprotunity to get a job which provides health insurance.
Bulls***! There are people out there who lack the skills, advanced education, and intelligence to get a job at a firm that will provide health insurance. About 62% of uninsured people live in a household in which the head of the family works full-time for the full year, but is either not offered health insurance or cannot afford to pay the premiums to participate. Uninsured workers tend to be self-employed or work for smaller businesses. About 12% of the self-employed are uninsured, 36% of workers at businesses with less than 25 people are uninsured, and 13.7% of workers at businesses with 25 to 100 employees are uninsured.
No one has proposed censoring the internet, they have proposed stopping people from stealing from others.
Ever heard of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a federal law that requires public libraries that rely on federal funds for Internet use to install filtering software on library computers? That was Republican legislation.
Creationism, on the other hand, should be taught in school right next to evolution. They are both theories, neither of which is proven, and one should not be chosen above the other, but both should be taught.
The word "theory," as used in science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of genera
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise.
What planet are you from? All that the White House did was show that Bush once took advantage of free dental work at the Air National Guard base in Alabama.
The payroll records released by the White House show that Bush performed no guard duties at all for more than half a year in 1972. They also raise questions about how he could be credited with at least 14 days of duty during subsequent periods when his superior officers in two units said they had not seen him.
This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.
What heroism! Flying a fighter jet around Texas at taxpayer expense. Think of the danger! What if the North Vietnamese had attacked Houston? Bush would have been on the front line. And to think that people portray Kerry, who was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, a war hero! Damn liberals.
Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for.
Give your chest pounding bravado a rest. Bush lied to the American people about "weapons of mass destruction", lied to the troops, and sent our troops to Iraq with no exit strategy and poorly equipped. I know troops who did not have enough rations, toilet paper, and whose parents had to buy them the body armor that Bush & Co. didn't supply. Maybe you think that it's okay to lie to our troops, but I don't. Quit with the ends justify the means crap. If Bush thinks that we should be engaged in "nation building", then he should say so instead of making up stories about imaginary weapons.
In closing, here are some things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
4. "Standing Tall for America'" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
11. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
How long will it be before we get a photo album of the area around Three Mile Island put together by some gum-chewing Jersey girl riding around on a moped? Somehow it just won't be the same...
They've changed my perception--why did data storage just get more expensive?"
That's like bitching that a 40GB iPod is $500 when you can go to Best Buy and get a 40GB hard drive for $60. This does so much more than a bare hard drive that comparing the two on a cost-per-gigabyte basis is absurd.
With the Asus device, you are getting an ultraportable network attached storage device (with a pair of wired 10/100Mbps Ethernet ports) that also speaks WiFi over 802.11g. It has security managed with a web-based interface which allows you to specify which clients have read access, read/write access, no access, etc.
What a neat filesharing device! Load it up with your favorite MP3s (for which you hold copyright, of course), set it on a table. and let all of your friends access the music, adding or removing as they see fit.
Hell yes, there are barriers to open source adoption. Most women who give their babies up for adoption don't want to be contacted by the child in the future. Nor do they want everyone on the Internet to know that they had a child and put it up for adoption. The source of a baby put up for adoption should remain a secret. Otherwise, there will be fewer women willing to put their babies up for adoption. Why are we even discussing this?
(Being a typical Slashdot user, I didn't really read the article, but I'm sure that I know enough to comment just based on the title.)