Therin lies the real problem with spread spectrum vs. conventional broadcasting channels. The limitations of conventional communications techniques is part of what stimulated the development of these more efficient algorithms. And since different groups are confined to their own frequencies, there was little stepping on toes.
But with spread spectrum, there is no pressure to be efficient, because there are no direct limitations on how much you can broadcast. The only problem is background "noise" from other broadcasters, and the easiest way to overcome that is with a more powerful broadcast. The obvious result is an escalation of more people talking louder.
It's like being in a nightclub, where everybody has to scream and repeat themselves to make themselves heard, but communication is near impossible anyway. The only one that can really be heard are the super-amplified guys on stage.
What we need is a more efficient and publicly-accessible use of the airwaves. Deregulating them will give the folks with the big antennas more control, not less.
Sheesh. A big long review like that, and somehow Rei and Shinji are the lead pair of characters while Asuka is relegated to no-name status. Perhaps the Asuka-haters might like that but it isn't an accurate depiction of the show. Rei, Asuka, and Misato were the triad of women in Shinji's life and dreams, and Shinji was definitely the main and central character.
(Side note - somebody do a Music Video for Evangelion to the tune of "Three Libras" by A Perfect Circle)
Gainax works (Evangelion, FLCL, KareKano, Mahoromatic) may get pretty wacky sometimes, and certainly give way too much fan service, and Hedeaki Anno has a rather bipolar approach to direction, but their works are passionate. The premise in Evangelion was outlandish. But the premise in Gasaraki (along with the plot, character development, and "acting"), like so many other Sunrise shows of the same ilk (namely Argento Soma, Brain Powered, and Scryed), is ridiculous and forced.
Well I can't actually say who is better or worse in the world - this was just my casual observation.
For the record, I think the US media is not independent enought. They're too easily swayed by various powerful special interest groups with their own agendas and little regard for fair play. Perhaps it's America's puritan heritage, but they're also too easily swayed by sex scandals in the face of more important issues too. Furthermore, there are few news outlets with real journalistic integrity. The trend towards papers that cater to niche mentalities in the name of "alternative perspectives" has become so great that I doubt there are any truly trusted objective news sources out there.
Naturally this is really important since the media plays such a key role, but people tend to gloss over it.
I'm serious about the Daily Show. They do real interviews besides the joke news, and have some insane number of viewers who ONLY get their news from the Daily Show. Of course it helps to be funny too, otherwise they'll provide the humor at your expense. And provide viable alternatives to your objections.
I'm not saying what an objectively superior culture might be, nor even if there is one, but I am saying that much of history involves powerful nations pursuing this ideal. What is superior or inferior is not for people to decide directly, but manifests itself in the positive or negative effects it has on the world, particularly in light of other cultures.
The unaccountability of the WTO is a major concern - likewise, any dictates it has where key resources (water, food, and energy) are concerned. I find it odd that Bolivia would be required to privatize water, when this is usually a matter of state control and international treaty, including in the US.
Nationally, we do set boundaries on corporations, through taxes and regulations. We expect other countries to do the same. It works just fine. I don't see how the WTO can bypass these regulations. They may be able to pressure some economies into making concessions, but there will be limits with the US for sure. The problems come with the differences in regulations, specifically in countries that don't mind exploiting their people and resources. But ultimately, the WTO must bow to the laws of the lands. Mark my words, the moment the EU or the US governments are actually challenged by the WTO it'll be gone or unrecognizable in a flash. Heck, China's economy is untenable already - when the state decides to "appropriate" all those foreign funded projects, investors will take a bath and the WTO will get a black eye on that one. Money doesn't buy loyalty.
There is no "we, the people" of the world, but what you're proposing is some sort of world law. I don't like the idea of that at all for anything that isn't a purely international matter (like nautical law or international trade). I don't like the idea of someone in another country telling me what I can and can't do in my own, like that awful Hague treaty. Nor do we need some sort of Mommy World government.
People want the power, and smarter ones also want the ethics that will bring it to them. Whether western technologism is a good or bad thing is a matter of debate, but ultimately I think it's a moot point. Technology is very, very powerful, and people always want that. Some might choose not to pursue it, but they generally end up getting screwed in the end by those who do. Countries eschew technology at their own peril.
I'm not sure that cultural development of any kind can be called un-natural. Whether it's an accidental turn of phrase on the part of an individual, or a major multinational pursuing a campaign, it happens. If you want culture, local or global, to go a certain way you have to take responsibility for seeing that it does so, and hope others do the same.
Corporations regularly try to create culture (or rather a market) which will accept their product. We call this advertising. And I don't just mean commercials and ads. Nowadays advertising is more science than art, it's pervasive, and it's very effective, especially on the unsuspecting. Bad? Most likely. What to do about it? You decide.
Many countries have been where Afghanistan is now before. Frankly, I don't hold much hope for them at all. Afghanistan has never progressed even beyond warring clans. At a minimum it will take generations to build a strong national identity that won't cave into tribal interests.
That's an interesting survey, but it's strictly about perception. I'm not even sure who they were surveying, exactly, nor how to objectively evaluate between different countries.
Hong Kong, for instance, has weak laws governing business practice and major trafficking problems. Swiss banks will keep money for anyone, no matter if it was criminally obtained. Luxemborg (I think) was used as a tax shelter for people in the EU. All fine and good domestically, but it has major international impacts.
Japan is only 5 spots below America, but the cronyism and political connections endemic in the system is driving their economy straight to hell - even the Prime Minister who was elected on precisely that issue can't do anything about it.
Point being, I'd prefer some more objective assessment of corruption rather than a poll.
Well I think rational globalists should be eschewing protesting and seeking out active debate and coverage, bringing their arguement to the people rather than berating those who don't subscribe to it. If they really want to make a statement they should go to the Daily Show, knowing full well that they better be honest and rational, otherwise they simply be ridiculed.
As for the whole global/western culture thing, certainly the west has been agressively exporting its culture, often through its superior technology and at the expense of local culture. Competition between cultures as between nations was considered perfectly reasonable, and only in recent times has this been considered bad by anyone on the winning side. The only reason it is considered bad now is because the winners of the culture wars started realizing that because their advantages were so great, they might be losing things of value in the process of waging the cultural wars. The west began actively studying and adopting the cultures of the less powerful non-west in search of valuable ideas and perspectives, in addition spreading their own. Somewhere along the way this multicultural caveat in the pursuit of an objectively superior culture got twisted into the non-sensical postmodern notion that all cultures are equally able and valid, except for western/american culture which is inherently bad. Which they aren't, and it isn't.
Certainly the non-western world would not have given any more consideration to local culture had they been the ones in power. Many probably would have been much worse - look at China or Japan! But they weren't, and it seems the ethics of western culture are an integral part of that same technological power, and vice versa. This is what is in such demand, and in pursuit of it much local culture is still lost. I'm not saying that all the hallmarks of western culture (such as McDonalds) are good. But neither are they all bad, there are many good things that the rest of the world would be better off adopting and developing further for their own sakes. The key is preserving the truly valuable aspects of their local societies, and promoting their adoption to the rest of the world.
A certain amount of corruption will inevitably occur. What matters is how the government and especially the CITIZENS respond to it, once they become aware of it. Corruption is the single most dangerous threat to any government, and especially democracies, because a democracy that won't control corruption is not a democracy at all. Severe punishment and righteous indignation are the hallmarks of societies which can keep corruption in check, allowing themselves to prosper. Apathy and capitulation are hallmarks of societies which will allow corruption to grow until they can't even function.
The US is pretty good about corruption, at least where domestic affairs are concerned, but we could be better, particularly with regard to corporate regulations and international concerns. Some spots in Northern Europe may be as good or better, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned they need a lot of improvement. Yes, even and in fact especially Japan.
That's not such a bad sentiment, but it's hardly what I hear coming from the angry mobs of protesters. Generally it's either people upset over the fact that their livelihoods have lost out in the equation (understandable, but not unexpected, and requires adaptation rather than protection), the weakening of their local culture with regards to global culture (again, change is inevitable, adapt), some specific issue i.e. the environment (needs to be addressed), or anti-capitalist (despite the fact that every command economy/government in history has turned out miserably compared to regulated markets, especially the marxist "utopias").
Maybe if American and 1st World globalism protesters would start representing themselves rationally in the media and engage in active debate and problem-solving, rather than organizing yet more incoherent, costume-laden, stupid-slogan-shouting protests, they would be taken more seriously.
People too often confuse globalism with some of its results. But globalism itself is rather simple. Throughout very time an improvement in transportation, shipping, and/or communication came about, the ability of an individual to trade goods and information got wider, leading to new opportunities for collaboration and new sources of conflict. As one region finds itself in a common market with another, it finds differences in culture that both enrich and enrage, and a market in which it may excel or suffer in due to natural advantages or disadvantages. The net result is generally a richer and more productive lifestyle on average - that frequently comes at the costs of individuals, cities, and now whole nations in the process.
All globalism is is the latest and perhaps last ('til space) iteration of this process. It's just as inevitable as it was before. Fighting against it with favoratist practices just makes things harder. The less competitive nations and companies will naturally have a problem with it, as will anyone opposed to the market system in general (which explains all the neo-marxist college students). One thing is clear: your comfortable and predictable lifestyle (for however long you've had it) won't be there for you forever. Preserve the unique things that matter most, and be prepared to adapt to change and compete in the world.
Re:extension? what do we need the extension for?
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2
What I'm talking about is comparable to the current digital video scene, specifically the semi-open architectures like Video For Windows, Quicktime, and MPEG4. In those cases, producers generally want to worry about codecs (compression/decompression modules) as little as consumers, so a few select ones predominate at any given time until better ones come along. Thus while the stream of internal formats may be endless, it's actually a slow but steady stream. In the better architectures, all codecs are registered and on file with a central server, so if you don't have the necessary codec you can download it automatically. If you really wanted to, you could even include the necessary codec (or whatever) in the file, with a properly designed architecture.
TIFF could be adapated to do all of this with a little effort. AFAIK the main thing holding it back are poor implementations of the TIFF specification and possibly Adobe's ultimate control. MPEG4 is supposed to do for video what I am suggesting, and is actually able to handle all sorts of multimedia data besides mere video. The only thing I worry about with these formats is the overhead they need to be able to specify so broadly.
Re:extension? what do we need the extension for?
on
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
·
· Score: 2
true enough. In a perfect world all relevant file data including type would be internal to the file itself, so it couldn't be screwed up so easily by changing the name or mistyping.
Heck, I don't see why there should be any more than one file type for still pictures (or audio, or video, or indeed any media in general), with an internal marker indicating what the file format and compression is. Having to worry about changing a reference to a file (say on a web page) because you changed the file type and therefore the name is a pain.
It's really, really wierd, which is sometimes appealing. Everything else (except farscape and some movies, miniseries and reruns) is pretty tepid, predictable stuff.
I never bitched about it. As far as I'm concerned Farscape is the only show they have worth watching, with the sometimes exception of Lexx. And the occasionaly mini-series and re-run (I want a Prisoner Chain Reaction, Dammit!).
Unfortunately, being a geek, Farscape on Friday nights are just fine for me. Likewise Adult Swim Action on Saturdays. I'm pretty sure these networks, knowing their demographic and the competition on other networks for the rest of the week, are counting on this.
Pay-per-view is far more maligned than it should be. Every time you see a movie in a theater or rent a video, that is essentially pay-per-view, but nobody complains about that! You do however expect higher quality and/or a better viewing experience.
With regular TV, you're paying with your time and possibly your attention. Even if you don't watch the commercials there's not much you can do in 2-3 minutes besides get a snack or go to the can. And you're still paying many bucks a month for stuff you never watch anyway.
I only watch a handful of shows with any sort of regularity, and I generally only want to watch them once and not with any re-runs. If they were reasonably priced per show or (no more than $1 since this is television quality, not movies) or better yet per series (with free sample episodes), I would buy them and it would probably be CHEAPER than the $45 I'm paying now just so I can get Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Discovery and Sci-Fi, not to mention getting shows on the premium channels which are out of my price range.
Just one more thing... the content and delivery industries have demonstrated their close-mindedness and unwillingness to take risks or eat costs. Waiting for them to fix it may ultimately be futile. But everything I mentioned can be effected individual companies. The satellite companies like DirectTV are particularly well suited to start integrating PVRs into their delivery scheme, since they handle such a large and broad audience - but while they may be able to provide low-demand content in clever ways, the other advantages broadband has they cannot provide. On the other hand, digital cable systems can integrate broadband content with no difficulty at all, except with the comfortable lack of competition in markets they have little incentive to do so. It may take an upstart third company, like Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, to make the killer set-top box/computer system integrating intelligent multi-source delivery and broadband to shake up the status quo (and legal infrastructure) enought to force the TV/entertainment industry into the 21st century.
The tag-team hit of no content, high cost, no demand is what's holding all this back. Trying to legislate through it isn't going to work, especially considering it's not that much better than what we have - and never will be. HDTV may have more megapixels, but that doesn't make the shows any better, which is what really matters. The key is content, and there's no way to improve that significantly, right?
Wrong. You can vastly improve the way that content is delivered. The key is (as I mentioned in my last post, check my list) Personal Video Recorders. You know, Tivos, PVRs. A properly designed digital system integrating a storage device and programability can draw consumers into the fold with a combination of digital quality; personal time-shifting so that you never miss a show; multi-source delivery methods including broadband for delivering personal videos, amateur productions (the ultimate public access), re-runs (so you don't have to keep watching just to find one show), and low-demand content (like international television); better ways of finding and recommending shows (even the small ones) via interactive methods, on-line communities, and playlists; enhanced playback with dubbing, subtitling, commenting and so forth allowing a broad audience and user-tailored delivery; less FCC censoring with integrated ratings systems; and even novel content like interactive television and games.
At the same time, it gives the broadcaster and producers many advantages including: better-targeted and more effective advertising; better options for pay-per-view delivery; a more efficient distribution system; a more forgiving and less directly competitive environment enabling smaller producers and less flashy shows to find their audience; and simpler, more effective wide distribution.
Essentially, what will drive user demand for digital TV is not digital quality, but digital flexibility. DVD isn't beating VHS just because it's a better picture, but because of all the bells and whistles that come with the disk, its' more robust storage medium, and yes, even the ability to make perfect copies and distribute them.
The way networks are broadcasted these days are totally obsolete, a holdover from when the only way you could get TV was via a local transmitter, including all the severe limitations that brings.
The vast majority of content on TV is produced and distributed nationally. But because of the reliance on local channels rather than nationwide networks, it gets distributed haphazardly and with gross inefficiency. At the same time there is a need for a modest amount of local and regional content (news, public access, sports), but broadcasting that everywhere makes no sense. And while there may be demand for international content (i.e. Anime), it rarely makes it onto the networks at all (at least not in one piece).
Contrariwise, advertising typically only relevant at a local level. There's no sense in people in Houston TX getting ads for Bentara's in New Haven CT, nor should someone in New Haven be getting advertisments for Sonic, a southern regional chain.
The solution? Restructure the way TV is delivered entirely. Allow the (far more efficient) satellite networks to focus entirely on the globally, nationally, and regionally produced material, giving everyone equal and complete access, while integrating Personal Video Recorders into the equation to deliver an appropriate mix of local, regional, and national advertising. Since commercials are broadcast many times over, you can have a special, satellite-controlled channel broadcasting all commercials for all markets, with the PVR downloading and storing only those targeted specifically to the viewer and locality, and inserting them into the broadcast at the appropriate time. It could also allow time-shifting, although that might better be handled with multiple channels. Let local broadcasters focus on local material and end network affiliation. Or provide them with a way to purchase select (current and classic) content from the national networks in a syndicated fashion. Or just let them die off until only a few local material stations are left, and free up the bandwidth from the airways. Digital cable could do the same thing at the local redistribution station, eliminating the need for the PVR component or local air broadcasting entirely. Restructuring could also allow for new services: user-controlled subtitling and dubbing subchannels for international content and non-english-speaking audiences; individually targeted and dynamic advertising; auto-inserted local news, sports, and weather alerts on any channel; low-demand content broadcast late at night and stored for later; Pay-per-view capabilities for individual shows.
Of course, this would all require substantial re-legislation, with the accompanying political wrangling and lobbying. If nothing else, universal PVRs and thus personal timeshifting would dramatically change the way networks compete directly against each other. But no more missing the Red Sox game just because you live near New York. No more missing Adult Swim because your local cable provider doesn't carry Cartoon Network. No more sitting through commercials intended for another audience, or missing shows because they're on at an inconvinient time or opposite another one.
There should only be four infrastructure links going into your home or apartment: Data, power, water, and sewage. It's pointless to operate and maintain separate feeds for internet, telephone, and cable, and the like when they are all really the same thing - data. It would be far more efficient to maintain a single fiber optic link to the home/complex in terms of cost, lifetime, maintenance (especially of the wires), service addition (especially for novel services), power requirements, billing, and quality of service. In fact, coupled to a wireless network and backup power, it could be far more reliable and flexible in all respects. Why shouldn't the government handle something like that?
I could care less if some greedy cable company gets put out of business - the gov't should be in the business of providing and regulating key services to the public, even if it makes it difficult for private companies. Deal with it.
I was thinking the same thing. Guess we've both got sick minds. I suppose the only real worry would be that if some deranged person acquired a taste for it, they might get the urge to try the real thing (One instance of cannibalism and that stuff is off the market so fast it'll make your head spin).
Steve Varley suggested something similar in The Ophiuchi Hotline, except that they were growing meat on trees there (including an illegal human variety).
Slashdot Mirror
Therin lies the real problem with spread spectrum vs. conventional broadcasting channels. The limitations of conventional communications techniques is part of what stimulated the development of these more efficient algorithms. And since different groups are confined to their own frequencies, there was little stepping on toes.
But with spread spectrum, there is no pressure to be efficient, because there are no direct limitations on how much you can broadcast. The only problem is background "noise" from other broadcasters, and the easiest way to overcome that is with a more powerful broadcast. The obvious result is an escalation of more people talking louder.
It's like being in a nightclub, where everybody has to scream and repeat themselves to make themselves heard, but communication is near impossible anyway. The only one that can really be heard are the super-amplified guys on stage.
What we need is a more efficient and publicly-accessible use of the airwaves. Deregulating them will give the folks with the big antennas more control, not less.
Sheesh. A big long review like that, and somehow Rei and Shinji are the lead pair of characters while Asuka is relegated to no-name status. Perhaps the Asuka-haters might like that but it isn't an accurate depiction of the show. Rei, Asuka, and Misato were the triad of women in Shinji's life and dreams, and Shinji was definitely the main and central character.
(Side note - somebody do a Music Video for Evangelion to the tune of "Three Libras" by A Perfect Circle)
Gainax works (Evangelion, FLCL, KareKano, Mahoromatic) may get pretty wacky sometimes, and certainly give way too much fan service, and Hedeaki Anno has a rather bipolar approach to direction, but their works are passionate. The premise in Evangelion was outlandish. But the premise in Gasaraki (along with the plot, character development, and "acting"), like so many other Sunrise shows of the same ilk (namely Argento Soma, Brain Powered, and Scryed), is ridiculous and forced.
Well I can't actually say who is better or worse in the world - this was just my casual observation.
For the record, I think the US media is not independent enought. They're too easily swayed by various powerful special interest groups with their own agendas and little regard for fair play. Perhaps it's America's puritan heritage, but they're also too easily swayed by sex scandals in the face of more important issues too. Furthermore, there are few news outlets with real journalistic integrity. The trend towards papers that cater to niche mentalities in the name of "alternative perspectives" has become so great that I doubt there are any truly trusted objective news sources out there.
Naturally this is really important since the media plays such a key role, but people tend to gloss over it.
I'm serious about the Daily Show. They do real interviews besides the joke news, and have some insane number of viewers who ONLY get their news from the Daily Show. Of course it helps to be funny too, otherwise they'll provide the humor at your expense. And provide viable alternatives to your objections.
I'm not saying what an objectively superior culture might be, nor even if there is one, but I am saying that much of history involves powerful nations pursuing this ideal. What is superior or inferior is not for people to decide directly, but manifests itself in the positive or negative effects it has on the world, particularly in light of other cultures.
The unaccountability of the WTO is a major concern - likewise, any dictates it has where key resources (water, food, and energy) are concerned. I find it odd that Bolivia would be required to privatize water, when this is usually a matter of state control and international treaty, including in the US.
Nationally, we do set boundaries on corporations, through taxes and regulations. We expect other countries to do the same. It works just fine. I don't see how the WTO can bypass these regulations. They may be able to pressure some economies into making concessions, but there will be limits with the US for sure. The problems come with the differences in regulations, specifically in countries that don't mind exploiting their people and resources. But ultimately, the WTO must bow to the laws of the lands. Mark my words, the moment the EU or the US governments are actually challenged by the WTO it'll be gone or unrecognizable in a flash. Heck, China's economy is untenable already - when the state decides to "appropriate" all those foreign funded projects, investors will take a bath and the WTO will get a black eye on that one. Money doesn't buy loyalty.
There is no "we, the people" of the world, but what you're proposing is some sort of world law. I don't like the idea of that at all for anything that isn't a purely international matter (like nautical law or international trade). I don't like the idea of someone in another country telling me what I can and can't do in my own, like that awful Hague treaty. Nor do we need some sort of Mommy World government.
People want the power, and smarter ones also want the ethics that will bring it to them. Whether western technologism is a good or bad thing is a matter of debate, but ultimately I think it's a moot point. Technology is very, very powerful, and people always want that. Some might choose not to pursue it, but they generally end up getting screwed in the end by those who do. Countries eschew technology at their own peril.
I'm not sure that cultural development of any kind can be called un-natural. Whether it's an accidental turn of phrase on the part of an individual, or a major multinational pursuing a campaign, it happens. If you want culture, local or global, to go a certain way you have to take responsibility for seeing that it does so, and hope others do the same.
Corporations regularly try to create culture (or rather a market) which will accept their product. We call this advertising. And I don't just mean commercials and ads. Nowadays advertising is more science than art, it's pervasive, and it's very effective, especially on the unsuspecting. Bad? Most likely. What to do about it? You decide.
Many countries have been where Afghanistan is now before. Frankly, I don't hold much hope for them at all. Afghanistan has never progressed even beyond warring clans. At a minimum it will take generations to build a strong national identity that won't cave into tribal interests.
That's an interesting survey, but it's strictly about perception. I'm not even sure who they were surveying, exactly, nor how to objectively evaluate between different countries.
Hong Kong, for instance, has weak laws governing business practice and major trafficking problems. Swiss banks will keep money for anyone, no matter if it was criminally obtained. Luxemborg (I think) was used as a tax shelter for people in the EU. All fine and good domestically, but it has major international impacts.
Japan is only 5 spots below America, but the cronyism and political connections endemic in the system is driving their economy straight to hell - even the Prime Minister who was elected on precisely that issue can't do anything about it.
Point being, I'd prefer some more objective assessment of corruption rather than a poll.
Well I think rational globalists should be eschewing protesting and seeking out active debate and coverage, bringing their arguement to the people rather than berating those who don't subscribe to it. If they really want to make a statement they should go to the Daily Show, knowing full well that they better be honest and rational, otherwise they simply be ridiculed.
As for the whole global/western culture thing, certainly the west has been agressively exporting its culture, often through its superior technology and at the expense of local culture. Competition between cultures as between nations was considered perfectly reasonable, and only in recent times has this been considered bad by anyone on the winning side. The only reason it is considered bad now is because the winners of the culture wars started realizing that because their advantages were so great, they might be losing things of value in the process of waging the cultural wars. The west began actively studying and adopting the cultures of the less powerful non-west in search of valuable ideas and perspectives, in addition spreading their own. Somewhere along the way this multicultural caveat in the pursuit of an objectively superior culture got twisted into the non-sensical postmodern notion that all cultures are equally able and valid, except for western/american culture which is inherently bad. Which they aren't, and it isn't.
Certainly the non-western world would not have given any more consideration to local culture had they been the ones in power. Many probably would have been much worse - look at China or Japan! But they weren't, and it seems the ethics of western culture are an integral part of that same technological power, and vice versa. This is what is in such demand, and in pursuit of it much local culture is still lost. I'm not saying that all the hallmarks of western culture (such as McDonalds) are good. But neither are they all bad, there are many good things that the rest of the world would be better off adopting and developing further for their own sakes. The key is preserving the truly valuable aspects of their local societies, and promoting their adoption to the rest of the world.
Amen.
A certain amount of corruption will inevitably occur. What matters is how the government and especially the CITIZENS respond to it, once they become aware of it. Corruption is the single most dangerous threat to any government, and especially democracies, because a democracy that won't control corruption is not a democracy at all. Severe punishment and righteous indignation are the hallmarks of societies which can keep corruption in check, allowing themselves to prosper. Apathy and capitulation are hallmarks of societies which will allow corruption to grow until they can't even function.
The US is pretty good about corruption, at least where domestic affairs are concerned, but we could be better, particularly with regard to corporate regulations and international concerns. Some spots in Northern Europe may be as good or better, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned they need a lot of improvement. Yes, even and in fact especially Japan.
That's not such a bad sentiment, but it's hardly what I hear coming from the angry mobs of protesters. Generally it's either people upset over the fact that their livelihoods have lost out in the equation (understandable, but not unexpected, and requires adaptation rather than protection), the weakening of their local culture with regards to global culture (again, change is inevitable, adapt), some specific issue i.e. the environment (needs to be addressed), or anti-capitalist (despite the fact that every command economy/government in history has turned out miserably compared to regulated markets, especially the marxist "utopias").
Maybe if American and 1st World globalism protesters would start representing themselves rationally in the media and engage in active debate and problem-solving, rather than organizing yet more incoherent, costume-laden, stupid-slogan-shouting protests, they would be taken more seriously.
People too often confuse globalism with some of its results. But globalism itself is rather simple. Throughout very time an improvement in transportation, shipping, and/or communication came about, the ability of an individual to trade goods and information got wider, leading to new opportunities for collaboration and new sources of conflict. As one region finds itself in a common market with another, it finds differences in culture that both enrich and enrage, and a market in which it may excel or suffer in due to natural advantages or disadvantages. The net result is generally a richer and more productive lifestyle on average - that frequently comes at the costs of individuals, cities, and now whole nations in the process.
All globalism is is the latest and perhaps last ('til space) iteration of this process. It's just as inevitable as it was before. Fighting against it with favoratist practices just makes things harder. The less competitive nations and companies will naturally have a problem with it, as will anyone opposed to the market system in general (which explains all the neo-marxist college students). One thing is clear: your comfortable and predictable lifestyle (for however long you've had it) won't be there for you forever. Preserve the unique things that matter most, and be prepared to adapt to change and compete in the world.
What I'm talking about is comparable to the current digital video scene, specifically the semi-open architectures like Video For Windows, Quicktime, and MPEG4. In those cases, producers generally want to worry about codecs (compression/decompression modules) as little as consumers, so a few select ones predominate at any given time until better ones come along. Thus while the stream of internal formats may be endless, it's actually a slow but steady stream. In the better architectures, all codecs are registered and on file with a central server, so if you don't have the necessary codec you can download it automatically. If you really wanted to, you could even include the necessary codec (or whatever) in the file, with a properly designed architecture.
TIFF could be adapated to do all of this with a little effort. AFAIK the main thing holding it back are poor implementations of the TIFF specification and possibly Adobe's ultimate control. MPEG4 is supposed to do for video what I am suggesting, and is actually able to handle all sorts of multimedia data besides mere video. The only thing I worry about with these formats is the overhead they need to be able to specify so broadly.
true enough. In a perfect world all relevant file data including type would be internal to the file itself, so it couldn't be screwed up so easily by changing the name or mistyping.
Heck, I don't see why there should be any more than one file type for still pictures (or audio, or video, or indeed any media in general), with an internal marker indicating what the file format and compression is. Having to worry about changing a reference to a file (say on a web page) because you changed the file type and therefore the name is a pain.
I know it says the author is Edward Rothstein, but such hyperbole and implicit bias is unmistakeable. Must be a pen name.
It's really, really wierd, which is sometimes appealing. Everything else (except farscape and some movies, miniseries and reruns) is pretty tepid, predictable stuff.
The only problem with theaters is all the actors and actresses. It certainly isn't a replacement for TV, film, recorded music, print, etc.
I never bitched about it. As far as I'm concerned Farscape is the only show they have worth watching, with the sometimes exception of Lexx. And the occasionaly mini-series and re-run (I want a Prisoner Chain Reaction, Dammit!).
Unfortunately, being a geek, Farscape on Friday nights are just fine for me. Likewise Adult Swim Action on Saturdays. I'm pretty sure these networks, knowing their demographic and the competition on other networks for the rest of the week, are counting on this.
I wonder how colorful the bits we can't see are...
Pay-per-view is far more maligned than it should be. Every time you see a movie in a theater or rent a video, that is essentially pay-per-view, but nobody complains about that! You do however expect higher quality and/or a better viewing experience.
With regular TV, you're paying with your time and possibly your attention. Even if you don't watch the commercials there's not much you can do in 2-3 minutes besides get a snack or go to the can. And you're still paying many bucks a month for stuff you never watch anyway.
I only watch a handful of shows with any sort of regularity, and I generally only want to watch them once and not with any re-runs. If they were reasonably priced per show or (no more than $1 since this is television quality, not movies) or better yet per series (with free sample episodes), I would buy them and it would probably be CHEAPER than the $45 I'm paying now just so I can get Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Discovery and Sci-Fi, not to mention getting shows on the premium channels which are out of my price range.
Just one more thing... the content and delivery industries have demonstrated their close-mindedness and unwillingness to take risks or eat costs. Waiting for them to fix it may ultimately be futile. But everything I mentioned can be effected individual companies. The satellite companies like DirectTV are particularly well suited to start integrating PVRs into their delivery scheme, since they handle such a large and broad audience - but while they may be able to provide low-demand content in clever ways, the other advantages broadband has they cannot provide. On the other hand, digital cable systems can integrate broadband content with no difficulty at all, except with the comfortable lack of competition in markets they have little incentive to do so. It may take an upstart third company, like Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, to make the killer set-top box/computer system integrating intelligent multi-source delivery and broadband to shake up the status quo (and legal infrastructure) enought to force the TV/entertainment industry into the 21st century.
The tag-team hit of no content, high cost, no demand is what's holding all this back. Trying to legislate through it isn't going to work, especially considering it's not that much better than what we have - and never will be. HDTV may have more megapixels, but that doesn't make the shows any better, which is what really matters. The key is content, and there's no way to improve that significantly, right?
Wrong. You can vastly improve the way that content is delivered. The key is (as I mentioned in my last post, check my list) Personal Video Recorders. You know, Tivos, PVRs. A properly designed digital system integrating a storage device and programability can draw consumers into the fold with a combination of digital quality; personal time-shifting so that you never miss a show; multi-source delivery methods including broadband for delivering personal videos, amateur productions (the ultimate public access), re-runs (so you don't have to keep watching just to find one show), and low-demand content (like international television); better ways of finding and recommending shows (even the small ones) via interactive methods, on-line communities, and playlists; enhanced playback with dubbing, subtitling, commenting and so forth allowing a broad audience and user-tailored delivery; less FCC censoring with integrated ratings systems; and even novel content like interactive television and games.
At the same time, it gives the broadcaster and producers many advantages including: better-targeted and more effective advertising; better options for pay-per-view delivery; a more efficient distribution system; a more forgiving and less directly competitive environment enabling smaller producers and less flashy shows to find their audience; and simpler, more effective wide distribution.
Essentially, what will drive user demand for digital TV is not digital quality, but digital flexibility. DVD isn't beating VHS just because it's a better picture, but because of all the bells and whistles that come with the disk, its' more robust storage medium, and yes, even the ability to make perfect copies and distribute them.
The way networks are broadcasted these days are totally obsolete, a holdover from when the only way you could get TV was via a local transmitter, including all the severe limitations that brings.
The vast majority of content on TV is produced and distributed nationally. But because of the reliance on local channels rather than nationwide networks, it gets distributed haphazardly and with gross inefficiency. At the same time there is a need for a modest amount of local and regional content (news, public access, sports), but broadcasting that everywhere makes no sense. And while there may be demand for international content (i.e. Anime), it rarely makes it onto the networks at all (at least not in one piece).
Contrariwise, advertising typically only relevant at a local level. There's no sense in people in Houston TX getting ads for Bentara's in New Haven CT, nor should someone in New Haven be getting advertisments for Sonic, a southern regional chain.
The solution? Restructure the way TV is delivered entirely. Allow the (far more efficient) satellite networks to focus entirely on the globally, nationally, and regionally produced material, giving everyone equal and complete access, while integrating Personal Video Recorders into the equation to deliver an appropriate mix of local, regional, and national advertising. Since commercials are broadcast many times over, you can have a special, satellite-controlled channel broadcasting all commercials for all markets, with the PVR downloading and storing only those targeted specifically to the viewer and locality, and inserting them into the broadcast at the appropriate time. It could also allow time-shifting, although that might better be handled with multiple channels. Let local broadcasters focus on local material and end network affiliation. Or provide them with a way to purchase select (current and classic) content from the national networks in a syndicated fashion. Or just let them die off until only a few local material stations are left, and free up the bandwidth from the airways. Digital cable could do the same thing at the local redistribution station, eliminating the need for the PVR component or local air broadcasting entirely. Restructuring could also allow for new services: user-controlled subtitling and dubbing subchannels for international content and non-english-speaking audiences; individually targeted and dynamic advertising; auto-inserted local news, sports, and weather alerts on any channel; low-demand content broadcast late at night and stored for later; Pay-per-view capabilities for individual shows.
Of course, this would all require substantial re-legislation, with the accompanying political wrangling and lobbying. If nothing else, universal PVRs and thus personal timeshifting would dramatically change the way networks compete directly against each other. But no more missing the Red Sox game just because you live near New York. No more missing Adult Swim because your local cable provider doesn't carry Cartoon Network. No more sitting through commercials intended for another audience, or missing shows because they're on at an inconvinient time or opposite another one.
There should only be four infrastructure links going into your home or apartment: Data, power, water, and sewage. It's pointless to operate and maintain separate feeds for internet, telephone, and cable, and the like when they are all really the same thing - data. It would be far more efficient to maintain a single fiber optic link to the home/complex in terms of cost, lifetime, maintenance (especially of the wires), service addition (especially for novel services), power requirements, billing, and quality of service. In fact, coupled to a wireless network and backup power, it could be far more reliable and flexible in all respects. Why shouldn't the government handle something like that?
I could care less if some greedy cable company gets put out of business - the gov't should be in the business of providing and regulating key services to the public, even if it makes it difficult for private companies. Deal with it.
I was thinking the same thing. Guess we've both got sick minds. I suppose the only real worry would be that if some deranged person acquired a taste for it, they might get the urge to try the real thing (One instance of cannibalism and that stuff is off the market so fast it'll make your head spin).
Steve Varley suggested something similar in The Ophiuchi Hotline, except that they were growing meat on trees there (including an illegal human variety).