As far as I know, there is always an equilibrium between different states of matter, and this is no different. Changes in pressure changes the equilibrium dynamics (as well as the gas pressure).
To elaborate a bit on this, you can find some more information there, and in the detailed article. It's written there that cavitation in this case arises from the dissolved carbon dioxide, not from the vaporization of the synovial fluid itself, but it basically works the same:)
* Why does this uncomfortable feeling happen in the first place that goes away when you crack your knuckles?
Well, that's probably because of habit, but that's a wild guess at this point. Maybe this has some unknown benefit as well? I however read somewhere that it was advised against cracking one's spine, as it could cause microlesions.
* What causes the bubbles?
As far as I know, there is always an equilibrium between different states of matter, and this is no different. Changes in pressure changes the equilibrium dynamics (as well as the gas pressure).
* Are the bubbles related to the feeling, or not or merely a side-effect?
Well, this causes a non-linear pressure response, whereby you feel more and more resistance as it increases, and then it suddenly decreases as the bubbles collapses, so this is definitely related (plus, the sound feels nice)
And it's not just knuckles. Toes, shins, knees, elbows, neck,... it seems it can be everything, depending on the person.
I know, right? This can happen everywhere you have some synovial fluid, so basically at every joint.
Of course, always take with a grain of salt the sayings of a random internet stranger who barely knows a thing or two on the topic:)
I passed my driving license in France, and was surprised by what you wrote. I have never really driven in Paris, so I can't comment on that point, but with most of our roundabouts, people already on it have the priority. It is even written "Vous n'avez pas la priorité" on the signs before entering.
Now, I admit that this sign hints at the possibility of the opposite, and I have seen roundabouts turning in the other direction (although not in a long while), but I don't think that's a thing.
What can happen is that courteous (yes, that exists!) people sometimes let other cars go in, especially if there is a traffic jam at the entry point.
Which brings me to my last point: imagine a roundabout where people from the outside have the priority. Wouldn't such a thing be completely saturated in no time, new entrants blocking the way for the exiting cars? I can't imagine it working, excepted on some highly-signaled roundabouts (traffic signs or lights in the curve).
Even if each patient's viral strains have to be sequenced, and a CRISPR cocktail picked based on the strains harbored, AIDS drugs are not cheap. This could be a turning point representing the beginning of the end of AIDS.
I agree. And this could also have the additional benefit of driving costs down for sequencing, and CRISPR-based therapies, which could in turn bring such a cure to more people, and enable the same to be done for other diseases.
Strictly speaking, a lot of boats have been hybrid for quite some time now (diesel-electric propulsion, for example). This allows motors to always operate at their maximum efficiency, and to get rid of gearboxes. It also simplifies power transmission, and allows deported motors to be put more easily, as far as I know.
I don't know how this compares to the "hybrids" of this article, but it doesn't seem to be that different, maybe except for the batteries, thus the opportunity for fully-electric operation?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I hope you are.
The only argument for having less accidents at high speed that is even remotely receivable is that you spend less time overall on the road (assuming you drive the same).
And that's if you assume that every accident is related to external factors, independent of your speed. In practice, you will have more accidents at higher speed, because:
* You have more kinetic energy (it is very, very rarely useful), thus turns, braking, etc are more dangerous/difficult, and accidents are more dangerous
* You have less time to react.
Let's take your argument to the extreme: 10 kids cross the road you are on at the same time, at different points. If you're going slow enough, you brake in time. If not, you are probably looking at five dead bodies, because you didn't have time to react, not the room to brake.
It is a bit extreme, but those random events happen all over the place, it is not only time-dependant (if you go slower, you might see more people crossing the road at the same spot), but space-dependant (If you go faster, you might see more people crossing the road at different spots).
Of course, this probabilistic analysis is incomplete, but I will let you consider the cost/reward function associated to a higher probability of (a more dangerous) accident vs arriving late for dinner. And if you are really curious, run some simulations, and you will see that you don't lose that much time by going slower, vs the one you lose by not moving at all (red light, for example). Speeding (in most cases) only leads to marginal gains.
It sounds like header overhead. The obvious solution here is to increase packet size, to boost throughput.
Or yeah, in other words... car sharing or public transportation.
I am not even kidding, look at the techniques to avoid packet collision in network protocols. Especially wireless ones.
To answer the parent's parent: That's also why it's bad practice to always closely follow the next car, even in a traffic jam. Leaving a bit of space in between cars allows to smooth the effect of someone breaking.
Don't they already require that any electronic device have enough battery to be powered on and therefore prove that its insides were not replaced?
I could imagine some cases in which you replace the second HDD with explosives in a laptop, but X-rays would detect that, hopefully. But that gives a bit more insight on their choice to ban this class of electronics altogether, and I think it makes sense; or is understandable, at the very least.
If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses from 8:45 PM to 5:45 AM (source), and you're given hours at night, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job. If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses on Sundays, and you're given hours on Sunday, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job.
On the other hand, there traffic is usually less problematic during these hours, as there are often less commuters (maybe except for holidays on Saturdays, those can be quite crowded).
So, that use case is hardly a problem, in my opinion (unless I missed something).
While that's true, I must point out that I would take a lower pixel density anytime for a better battery life (reducing both the power used by the screen and the CPU+GPU that drives it), especially since the pixel density isn't exactly ridiculously low.
As far as I know, Microsoft/Sony do not earn money from the sales of these adapters. It's more asking to prohibit them altogether or allow to plug in any mouse/keyboard.
Which would of course drive down the sales of the profitable controllers.
Steam boxes, where are you? (And I am surprised by the lack of mention of the steam controller in this thread, which is, IMO, quite a good compromise).
Experience and what you are used to are very important. But, as someone who started on consoles, only to switch to PC years later, I find M+K a lot, lot more precise (even though I sometimes miss the analog stick for moving around in FPSes, which is a good use of an analog stick). And coming back to consoles, I find my accuracy considerably decreased (also due to the lack of practice, nowadays). Aim assist is also blatantly obvious. It jumps in my face every time I play halo/borderlands/left for dead/whatever FPS on a console.
Now, a mouse is *objectively* better for aiming. There are many different ways to approach the problem, but I just thought about this one: imagine an aimbot. What kind of interface would you want to plug it in, for it to be effective? The quantization (~10 bits) of an analog stick makes it hard to be both fast and precise. Increase sensitivity, and you will have a hard time aiming precisely. Decrease it, and you now have to wait for aiming.
Of course, this is somewhat mitigated with non-linear scales, but it makes it very hard to input the exact movement in less than one frame. And this is for an aimbot. Humans are notoriously bad with precise timings. And I didn't even start on the ergonomy side of the argument.
If that could bring down the company into flames, that would be a small relief for the consumer.
That said, DRM is like an Hydra, when you think you won the battle against one, a handful more appear to take its place. I sincerely hope it will be outlawed at some point.
I had a look at these slides, and they're very obviously marketing material. Anyone who has written a handful of those knows how full of exaggerated claims they can be. For example, assuming the 40% piracy figure holds true (for which I couldn't find trustworthy references), would that automatically translate to a 40% in sales? A 40% increase in profit for the company? I don't think so, to put it mildly.
OK, I will stop my rant for now; but I've been burned too many times by DRM as a legit consumer to keep thinking that for media companies (not every one, but as a general trend, esp. from sales departments), "consumer is king" instead of a milk cow that you desperately need to milk until blood comes (and keep doing it, for good measure). [/rant]
And of course, to do that, you would have to trust the windows firewall, which doesn't show everything.
Maybe an esoteric proxy configuration that only works with a manually configured browser could do?
But the easiest option is just to ditch windows if you're serious about security. And maybe also modern x86-based CPUs, since they usually contain ring -2 to -5 coprocessors with DMA, network access, and other niceties.
That might be true, but it's still a very, very tiny amount of radiation exposure. I think that this claim came from a paper comparing nuclear and coal power plants under normal operation, and finding that the coal plant emitted 1000 times more.
I looked up some references quickly, and I found this XKCD; but admittedly, I did not try to find arguments in favor of the opposite view.
On the other hand, I think that his interpretation of company culture is quite right.
Now, on doing something to increase employment numbers, how about making employees work less? I know this is controversial, might conflict with the "American Dream", and require further thinking; but it would be an interesting idea to consider. Quite feasible, in my opinion, and much less radical than universal basic income (which might or might not come in a more distant future).
If I ever develop an "electronic person"; it will have no kill switch. Would you do that to a human, or any intelligent "person" for that matter? I would prefer to see some humans and politicians equipped with kill switches before my robots, thank you.
Actually, the "human kill switch" reminds me of the movie Dune.
Well, to be fair, I also know a handful of Windows "distributions" (custom windows installers/live environments). I guess OEM installation media could also count as various distributions (and if you are not convinced, see what Alienware tried to do with its Alpha, with Kodi as a GUI).
Most of those are unknown to the general public, and we can see the same pattern here. To my dad, Linux=Ubuntu, because that's something he heard somewhere, even though I installed Linux mint on his computer. And he's still referring to it as "Ubuntu".
I believe that fragmentation is not an issue. It can merely repel people who are afraid of it because they were told it was a "bad thing" (TM); while not realizing that installing any software (say Firefox) on windows was already making it somewhat different from the original one; and the only reason why this is not called a distribution is that you (in this case) do not distribute your new windows installation with Firefox freshly installed as a Windows spin. That's all.
Minor problems such as libraries distribution are what they are, minor (and considered solved) problems with a plethora of solutions. I usually like the idea of a distribution for a specific purpose. I wouldn't install DD-Wrt on my desktop, or ChromeOS on my NAS, although both are possible. I hope you do not feel overwhelmed when opening your wardrobe and noticing that you have more than one kind of cloth, or that you do not only have hammers in your toolbox:D
Talking about Linux versions, just to nitpick (here, the correct terminology is distributions)... yes, they are fragmented too, but the current stable is generally regarded as being the one from kernel.org, currently 4.8.15.
like none of the versions that are already out there are up to the job
This is an interesting argument, that I partially answered above: installing a new piece of software, then distributing it makes it a different distribution. But why create something from scratch? Ok, most of the time it's not completely from scratch. But sometimes, they are indeed not completely up to the job, or they would like to try and do something different, showcase a new piece of technology. At other times, distribution makers like to be in complete control of the experience they provide, and that seems to be the reason here. Provide something that's configured out-of-the box like they intend it to be; without any additional tweaking necessary for the end user. Plus, it's not like they are starting from scratch either. They just took a Debian, installed their software plus a few other utilities, and called it a ~day~ distribution:)
(off-topic) Seriously, slashdot? no strike/s/del or small html tag?
It's only serving a photo screensaver on a Luxo Mac anyway.
That's precisely what's dangerous here, and the reason why we have those IoT botnets bringing the net to its knees. No one feels the need to update their photo screensavers, especially if they are just sitting in a corner.
Either those devices should remain off the Internet (LAN or completely disconnected), or have automatic updates/remote health monitoring by the company.
An other thing to note, however, is that most companies don't care (for long) about your product once they got you to buy it. Especially apple, that usually just wants you to buy the next iThing.
Well, other than the fact that I I am not really interested in this particular title, It's nice to just slap one movie on a USB stick, to watch it anywhere. Or just have it sitting in my kodi library.
But just being able to put it on my phone's SD card to watch later on the go when I have no internet access is nice too. And if by chance I have access to a computer, I can transfer it back from it to have a bigger screen for my viewing pleasure.
These are some of the things I like to be able to do with my movies/TV shows, and DRM usually prevents it. I do not care about the rights that come with the content; the right to watch it (with whomever I want) is enough for me, but I care about *How* I watch it. I am personally not the kind of person who creates derivative works from the original content. So, just the 'M' for Management in DRM is what's bothering me here. Give me my rights back and let me manage my content!
Popcorn time was an open source experiment, and was completely shut down (afaik) following some legal threats. Naturally, and predictably, this spun off countless forks of various quality and with varying ethical standards.
The name is probably just a clickbait to trick more users into installing the malware.
IMHO the movie industry should have embraced the popcorn time distribution model, maybe with some encryption, and make the content paid-for/ads-subsidized (that's just an example, there are countless of other ways to monetize such a product, some of which are better than others). Use the brand/Name recognition to bootstrap the next-gen movie content distribution platform (think steam). Sign me up!
I wonder if this post is intended to be sarcastic or not (It is not obvious, but I think that's the case), but almost everything here could be reversed and applied to the content industry, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, there is always an equilibrium between different states of matter, and this is no different. Changes in pressure changes the equilibrium dynamics (as well as the gas pressure).
To elaborate a bit on this, you can find some more information there, and in the detailed article. It's written there that cavitation in this case arises from the dissolved carbon dioxide, not from the vaporization of the synovial fluid itself, but it basically works the same :)
* Why does this uncomfortable feeling happen in the first place that goes away when you crack your knuckles?
Well, that's probably because of habit, but that's a wild guess at this point. Maybe this has some unknown benefit as well? I however read somewhere that it was advised against cracking one's spine, as it could cause microlesions.
* What causes the bubbles?
As far as I know, there is always an equilibrium between different states of matter, and this is no different. Changes in pressure changes the equilibrium dynamics (as well as the gas pressure).
* Are the bubbles related to the feeling, or not or merely a side-effect?
Well, this causes a non-linear pressure response, whereby you feel more and more resistance as it increases, and then it suddenly decreases as the bubbles collapses, so this is definitely related (plus, the sound feels nice)
And it's not just knuckles. Toes, shins, knees, elbows, neck, ... it seems it can be everything, depending on the person.
I know, right? This can happen everywhere you have some synovial fluid, so basically at every joint.
:)
Of course, always take with a grain of salt the sayings of a random internet stranger who barely knows a thing or two on the topic
I passed my driving license in France, and was surprised by what you wrote. I have never really driven in Paris, so I can't comment on that point, but with most of our roundabouts, people already on it have the priority. It is even written "Vous n'avez pas la priorité" on the signs before entering.
Now, I admit that this sign hints at the possibility of the opposite, and I have seen roundabouts turning in the other direction (although not in a long while), but I don't think that's a thing.
What can happen is that courteous (yes, that exists!) people sometimes let other cars go in, especially if there is a traffic jam at the entry point.
Which brings me to my last point: imagine a roundabout where people from the outside have the priority. Wouldn't such a thing be completely saturated in no time, new entrants blocking the way for the exiting cars? I can't imagine it working, excepted on some highly-signaled roundabouts (traffic signs or lights in the curve).
On x86, I use cli Unfortunately, It doesn't get rid of non-maskable interrupts, so you have to handle them manually.
Even if each patient's viral strains have to be sequenced, and a CRISPR cocktail picked based on the strains harbored, AIDS drugs are not cheap. This could be a turning point representing the beginning of the end of AIDS.
I agree. And this could also have the additional benefit of driving costs down for sequencing, and CRISPR-based therapies, which could in turn bring such a cure to more people, and enable the same to be done for other diseases.
Strictly speaking, a lot of boats have been hybrid for quite some time now (diesel-electric propulsion, for example). This allows motors to always operate at their maximum efficiency, and to get rid of gearboxes. It also simplifies power transmission, and allows deported motors to be put more easily, as far as I know.
I don't know how this compares to the "hybrids" of this article, but it doesn't seem to be that different, maybe except for the batteries, thus the opportunity for fully-electric operation?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I hope you are.
The only argument for having less accidents at high speed that is even remotely receivable is that you spend less time overall on the road (assuming you drive the same).
And that's if you assume that every accident is related to external factors, independent of your speed. In practice, you will have more accidents at higher speed, because:
* You have more kinetic energy (it is very, very rarely useful), thus turns, braking, etc are more
dangerous/difficult, and accidents are more dangerous * You have less time to react.
Let's take your argument to the extreme: 10 kids cross the road you are on at the same time, at different points. If you're going slow enough, you brake in time. If not, you are probably looking at five dead bodies, because you didn't have time to react, not the room to brake.
It is a bit extreme, but those random events happen all over the place, it is not only time-dependant (if you go slower, you might see more people crossing the road at the same spot), but space-dependant (If you go faster, you might see more people crossing the road at different spots).
Of course, this probabilistic analysis is incomplete, but I will let you consider the cost/reward function associated to a higher probability of (a more dangerous) accident vs arriving late for dinner. And if you are really curious, run some simulations, and you will see that you don't lose that much time by going slower, vs the one you lose by not moving at all (red light, for example). Speeding (in most cases) only leads to marginal gains.
It sounds like header overhead. The obvious solution here is to increase packet size, to boost throughput.
Or yeah, in other words... car sharing or public transportation.
I am not even kidding, look at the techniques to avoid packet collision in network protocols. Especially wireless ones.
To answer the parent's parent: That's also why it's bad practice to always closely follow the next car, even in a traffic jam. Leaving a bit of space in between cars allows to smooth the effect of someone breaking.
Don't they already require that any electronic device have enough battery to be powered on and therefore prove that its insides were not replaced?
I could imagine some cases in which you replace the second HDD with explosives in a laptop, but X-rays would detect that, hopefully.
But that gives a bit more insight on their choice to ban this class of electronics altogether, and I think it makes sense; or is understandable, at the very least.
it's selfish people who don't use mass transit
If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses from 8:45 PM to 5:45 AM (source), and you're given hours at night, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job. If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses on Sundays, and you're given hours on Sunday, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job.
On the other hand, there traffic is usually less problematic during these hours, as there are often less commuters (maybe except for holidays on Saturdays, those can be quite crowded).
So, that use case is hardly a problem, in my opinion (unless I missed something).
While that's true, I must point out that I would take a lower pixel density anytime for a better battery life (reducing both the power used by the screen and the CPU+GPU that drives it), especially since the pixel density isn't exactly ridiculously low.
As far as I know, Microsoft/Sony do not earn money from the sales of these adapters. It's more asking to prohibit them altogether or allow to plug in any mouse/keyboard.
Which would of course drive down the sales of the profitable controllers.
Steam boxes, where are you? (And I am surprised by the lack of mention of the steam controller in this thread, which is, IMO, quite a good compromise).
I find it
Experience and what you are used to are very important. But, as someone who started on consoles, only to switch to PC years later, I find M+K a lot, lot more precise (even though I sometimes miss the analog stick for moving around in FPSes, which is a good use of an analog stick). And coming back to consoles, I find my accuracy considerably decreased (also due to the lack of practice, nowadays). Aim assist is also blatantly obvious. It jumps in my face every time I play halo/borderlands/left for dead/whatever FPS on a console.
Now, a mouse is *objectively* better for aiming. There are many different ways to approach the problem, but I just thought about this one: imagine an aimbot. What kind of interface would you want to plug it in, for it to be effective? The quantization (~10 bits) of an analog stick makes it hard to be both fast and precise. Increase sensitivity, and you will have a hard time aiming precisely. Decrease it, and you now have to wait for aiming.
Of course, this is somewhat mitigated with non-linear scales, but it makes it very hard to input the exact movement in less than one frame. And this is for an aimbot. Humans are notoriously bad with precise timings. And I didn't even start on the ergonomy side of the argument.
If that could bring down the company into flames, that would be a small relief for the consumer.
That said, DRM is like an Hydra, when you think you won the battle against one, a handful more appear to take its place. I sincerely hope it will be outlawed at some point.
I had a look at these slides, and they're very obviously marketing material. Anyone who has written a handful of those knows how full of exaggerated claims they can be. For example, assuming the 40% piracy figure holds true (for which I couldn't find trustworthy references), would that automatically translate to a 40% in sales? A 40% increase in profit for the company? I don't think so, to put it mildly.
OK, I will stop my rant for now; but I've been burned too many times by DRM as a legit consumer to keep thinking that for media companies (not every one, but as a general trend, esp. from sales departments), "consumer is king" instead of a milk cow that you desperately need to milk until blood comes (and keep doing it, for good measure). [/rant]
And of course, to do that, you would have to trust the windows firewall, which doesn't show everything.
Maybe an esoteric proxy configuration that only works with a manually configured browser could do?
But the easiest option is just to ditch windows if you're serious about security. And maybe also modern x86-based CPUs, since they usually contain ring -2 to -5 coprocessors with DMA, network access, and other niceties.
Is the preview available on the mobile site, though? I think it submits the post directly, which is rather annoying.
That might be true, but it's still a very, very tiny amount of radiation exposure. I think that this claim came from a paper comparing nuclear and coal power plants under normal operation, and finding that the coal plant emitted 1000 times more.
I looked up some references quickly, and I found this XKCD; but admittedly, I did not try to find arguments in favor of the opposite view.
On the other hand, I think that his interpretation of company culture is quite right.
Now, on doing something to increase employment numbers, how about making employees work less? I know this is controversial, might conflict with the "American Dream", and require further thinking; but it would be an interesting idea to consider. Quite feasible, in my opinion, and much less radical than universal basic income (which might or might not come in a more distant future).
No.
If I ever develop an "electronic person"; it will have no kill switch. Would you do that to a human, or any intelligent "person" for that matter? I would prefer to see some humans and politicians equipped with kill switches before my robots, thank you.
Actually, the "human kill switch" reminds me of the movie Dune.
Mac is misleading here, though, since:
Most of those are unknown to the general public, and we can see the same pattern here. To my dad, Linux=Ubuntu, because that's something he heard somewhere, even though I installed Linux mint on his computer. And he's still referring to it as "Ubuntu".
I believe that fragmentation is not an issue. It can merely repel people who are afraid of it because they were told it was a "bad thing" (TM); while not realizing that installing any software (say Firefox) on windows was already making it somewhat different from the original one; and the only reason why this is not called a distribution is that you (in this case) do not distribute your new windows installation with Firefox freshly installed as a Windows spin. That's all.
Minor problems such as libraries distribution are what they are, minor (and considered solved) problems with a plethora of solutions.
I usually like the idea of a distribution for a specific purpose. I wouldn't install DD-Wrt on my desktop, or ChromeOS on my NAS, although both are possible. I hope you do not feel overwhelmed when opening your wardrobe and noticing that you have more than one kind of cloth, or that you do not only have hammers in your toolbox
Talking about Linux versions, just to nitpick (here, the correct terminology is distributions)... yes, they are fragmented too, but the current stable is generally regarded as being the one from kernel.org, currently 4.8.15.
like none of the versions that are already out there are up to the job
This is an interesting argument, that I partially answered above: installing a new piece of software, then distributing it makes it a different distribution. But why create something from scratch? Ok, most of the time it's not completely from scratch. But sometimes, they are indeed not completely up to the job, or they would like to try and do something different, showcase a new piece of technology. At other times, distribution makers like to be in complete control of the experience they provide, and that seems to be the reason here. Provide something that's configured out-of-the box like they intend it to be; without any additional tweaking necessary for the end user. Plus, it's not like they are starting from scratch either. They just took a Debian, installed their software plus a few other utilities, and called it a ~day~ distribution :)
(off-topic) Seriously, slashdot? no strike/s/del or small html tag?
It's only serving a photo screensaver on a Luxo Mac anyway.
That's precisely what's dangerous here, and the reason why we have those IoT botnets bringing the net to its knees. No one feels the need to update their photo screensavers, especially if they are just sitting in a corner.
Either those devices should remain off the Internet (LAN or completely disconnected), or have automatic updates/remote health monitoring by the company.
An other thing to note, however, is that most companies don't care (for long) about your product once they got you to buy it. Especially apple, that usually just wants you to buy the next iThing.
Well, other than the fact that I I am not really interested in this particular title, It's nice to just slap one movie on a USB stick, to watch it anywhere. Or just have it sitting in my kodi library.
But just being able to put it on my phone's SD card to watch later on the go when I have no internet access is nice too. And if by chance I have access to a computer, I can transfer it back from it to have a bigger screen for my viewing pleasure.
These are some of the things I like to be able to do with my movies/TV shows, and DRM usually prevents it. I do not care about the rights that come with the content; the right to watch it (with whomever I want) is enough for me, but I care about *How* I watch it. I am personally not the kind of person who creates derivative works from the original content. So, just the 'M' for Management in DRM is what's bothering me here. Give me my rights back and let me manage my content!
Popcorn time was an open source experiment, and was completely shut down (afaik) following some legal threats. Naturally, and predictably, this spun off countless forks of various quality and with varying ethical standards.
The name is probably just a clickbait to trick more users into installing the malware.
IMHO the movie industry should have embraced the popcorn time distribution model, maybe with some encryption, and make the content paid-for/ads-subsidized (that's just an example, there are countless of other ways to monetize such a product, some of which are better than others). Use the brand/Name recognition to bootstrap the next-gen movie content distribution platform (think steam). Sign me up!
I wonder if this post is intended to be sarcastic or not (It is not obvious, but I think that's the case), but almost everything here could be reversed and applied to the content industry, in my opinion.