To be fair, alcohol isn't that nice either. That's why people drink either low-strength beer without a strong alcohol taste, or wine with enough rancid grape juice to mask the alcohol.
When you get a drink that lets you taste the alchohol (like Special Brew), it tastes sickly.
Broadcast TV is not free, it is paid for by advertising paid for by consumer purchases.
Internet TV will/still/ have advertising. You are also not required to buy things advertised during the programmes you watch, and you can buy them even if you only watch over the Internet.
I see no reason why a simple Cisco/Netgear/D-Link "Direct-cast" box wouldn't be released for $49.99 at Circuit City that grabs the WiFi signals and puts them up on your TV or your PC to view.
Or for £0 you could just watch your normal TV? Your idea isn't really getting off the ground.
No experience? I've been in the consulting and retail market for 18 years.
You're a consultant? No point reading anything else you have to say then.
I'll get blasted for this and called a troll, but my real opinion is that the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen.
Great karma whoring. You start with the obligatory 'I know I'll be modded down' intro, then immediately pander to the crowd by railing against the evil 'media cartel', at the same time pretending to be a controversial minority. The slashdotters who think the same way and want to feel part of a 'counter-mainstream' movement all agree with you and mod you up, thinking how great they are that they're so much cleverer than the 'norms'. The sickest part is that it worked.
UHF and VHF should be dead, and HDTV along with it. If people want HD broadcasts, they could be better suited to a faster more localized version of the torrent protocol -- maybe set up by a few re-distro companies, maybe by amateurs, let competition bring it about.
I don't want to have to set up an Internet connection, a computer, TV card etc just to watch TV, when the current system means I can just turn on the TV. No doubt you'd have to pay for this torrent business, broadcast TV is free.
As for paying for it, I believe 5 second spots work just as well as 30 and 60 second spots.
And the TV companies believe otherwise. Who to believe: the random Internet person with no experience, or the people actually running real life businesses?
And as more and more of our entertainment goods goes to digital, we will find that the distinction between 'Telly' and 'computer' and 'phone' and 'dvd player'will dissolve till we have the grail of home medai management.
So the grail is a TV that takes ages to turn on, needs drivers/software installing, needs endless configuration, crashes all the time and is crippled when someone is saturating the internet connection?
But then maybe I'm a Luddite, I don't even see the point in digital TV: you get obscure channels with no sound or no picture, with nothing worth watching on anyway. The picture freezes up, it takes ten times longer to change the channel, you can't get teletext and if you even touch your normal remote the whole thing goes wrong.
Not all technology is a good idea just because it's new (i.e. ebooks).
I agree. But ever wonder why so many people try to scam the system like this?
Um, I dunno... maybe a feeling of disenfranchisement? The thought that they've been fleeced their entire lives by excess taxes to fund worthless pork?
Either that, or they're just lazy. Guess which one of us is closer to the mark?
So in some sense, I can't blame some people for trying to fleece a system that has fleeced them for so long.
Come off it, most people scamming benefits have barely done a day's work in their life. Single mothers with four children all to different fathers, nothing to do other than spend benefit money on scratchcards and cigarettes. Work? Why work when the government pays for anything? Sometimes you even get a free house.
I didn't want them to have a monolpoly. I never shopped there. Where is my democracy and freedom?
Democracy is not an individual thing, it's a collective thing, there's no such thing as 'your' democracy. Your vote in not shopping there has been beaten by the votes of people shopping there. Democracy has prevailed.
Democracy was never intended to be fair to everyone, just fair to the largest number of people. There is no system which can satisfy everyone.
The people haven't decided anything. For many families, Walmart is about all they can afford.
Then what did they do before Walmart came to town?
It seems that if poor families are now saving money and can afford to live better, then Walmart has been a blessing.
Of course middle-class Slashdotters might not see it that way, hence the patronising comments about how immoral and unethical the poor people are in shopping where they can afford.
Surely the only reason they have a monopoly is because people were going to Walmart rather than smaller shops? In that case, the PEOPLE have decided they want Walmart to have a monopoly. This is a great example of democracy and freedom.
Maybe you'd prefer the government to mandate that people shop at locally-owned shops to stop them going out of business?
If there are spare cops available, why not send them to patrol around crime-ridden neighbourhoods? Surely that's more important than preventing the odd yuppie losing his laptop (which he can afford to replace without blinking).
"Do you truely love writing software? So much, that you invest your personal time into reading about it, writing it, and writing about it?" If not, please don't work for us because you'll whine and bitch all day about how you have to write software at a software company. Latter your skills will go to shit because you won't be reading about it in your spare time.
Let me guess, you don't pay overtime for when your employees write software in their spare time?
Typical of modern corporations: expecting people to train themselves in their own time and at their own expense, all for the (free) benefit of the corporation.
"I'll have to crank it out day and night, and talk to my wife but I think I can do this." and I grin because I love to prove myself to the company and it feels *DAMN F'ing GOOD to prove my worth!*. Go ahead and outsource jobs, it won't be me getting fired I'm too busy writing code for the company day and night and I'm LOVING EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!
What if the things you like doing won't bring you an income?
There's nothing wrong with doing something you don't like because it makes you money. Do you think binmen like emptying bins? Do you think plumbers like fishing for turds? Do you think shelf stackers like putting beans on shelves? No, they do them because it brings them money.
Similarly, if someone programmes computers purely because it brings them money, what is wrong with that?
The good thing about imdb is that each film has one entry. At amazon, each book can have dozens of entries, for each publication of it, it's a complete mess. Its main aim is to sell you the book, rather than to provide information about it.
The reviews are awful, it seems the most popular, dumbed-down books released in the last few years are the only ones which get any decent ratings.
Not to mention the site is cut up into geographical areas, so you end up having to go to several different entries for a book on several different sites just to get what imdb would have on a single page.
Amazon isn't a database of books, it's a database of publications of books. You can get the same book listed over and over again, each of a different size/cover/price, rather than one entry for each book. The ranking system is very flawed and only the most recently released books have any comments.
Slashdot Mirror
A Scotsman wouldn't call it scotch, that's an American thing.
To be fair, alcohol isn't that nice either. That's why people drink either low-strength beer without a strong alcohol taste, or wine with enough rancid grape juice to mask the alcohol.
When you get a drink that lets you taste the alchohol (like Special Brew), it tastes sickly.
So I tell them what I earn, and they tax accordingly.
Great, I'll tell them I earnt £50 last year.
You're an idiot.
Broadcast TV is not free, it is paid for by advertising paid for by consumer purchases.
/still/ have advertising. You are also not required to buy things advertised during the programmes you watch, and you can buy them even if you only watch over the Internet.
Internet TV will
I see no reason why a simple Cisco/Netgear/D-Link "Direct-cast" box wouldn't be released for $49.99 at Circuit City that grabs the WiFi signals and puts them up on your TV or your PC to view.
Or for £0 you could just watch your normal TV? Your idea isn't really getting off the ground.
No experience? I've been in the consulting and retail market for 18 years.
You're a consultant? No point reading anything else you have to say then.
I'll get blasted for this and called a troll, but my real opinion is that the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen.
Great karma whoring. You start with the obligatory 'I know I'll be modded down' intro, then immediately pander to the crowd by railing against the evil 'media cartel', at the same time pretending to be a controversial minority. The slashdotters who think the same way and want to feel part of a 'counter-mainstream' movement all agree with you and mod you up, thinking how great they are that they're so much cleverer than the 'norms'. The sickest part is that it worked.
UHF and VHF should be dead, and HDTV along with it. If people want HD broadcasts, they could be better suited to a faster more localized version of the torrent protocol -- maybe set up by a few re-distro companies, maybe by amateurs, let competition bring it about.
I don't want to have to set up an Internet connection, a computer, TV card etc just to watch TV, when the current system means I can just turn on the TV. No doubt you'd have to pay for this torrent business, broadcast TV is free.
As for paying for it, I believe 5 second spots work just as well as 30 and 60 second spots.
And the TV companies believe otherwise. Who to believe: the random Internet person with no experience, or the people actually running real life businesses?
Can you say 'tinfoil hat'?
And as more and more of our entertainment goods goes to digital, we will find that the distinction between 'Telly' and 'computer' and 'phone' and 'dvd player'will dissolve till we have the grail of home medai management.
So the grail is a TV that takes ages to turn on, needs drivers/software installing, needs endless configuration, crashes all the time and is crippled when someone is saturating the internet connection?
But then maybe I'm a Luddite, I don't even see the point in digital TV: you get obscure channels with no sound or no picture, with nothing worth watching on anyway. The picture freezes up, it takes ten times longer to change the channel, you can't get teletext and if you even touch your normal remote the whole thing goes wrong.
Not all technology is a good idea just because it's new (i.e. ebooks).
So if America was invaded, and you fought against the invaders, you would have no qualms about being arrested and permanently imprisoned/tortured?
Why do they have the right to know everything I earn?
Because they need to collect taxes based on what you earn. This isn't rocket science.
Why am I presumed guilty of tax evasion?
Maybe when you're grown up you'll understand how taxation works.
There's no such thing as privacy from the IRS. They have the right to find out EVERYTHING you earn. Do you expect them just to take your word for it?
Small business bears the brunt of the IRS. We are more audited than any other class of taxpayers
Guess why?
I agree. But ever wonder why so many people try to scam the system like this?
Um, I dunno... maybe a feeling of disenfranchisement? The thought that they've been fleeced their entire lives by excess taxes to fund worthless pork?
Either that, or they're just lazy. Guess which one of us is closer to the mark?
So in some sense, I can't blame some people for trying to fleece a system that has fleeced them for so long.
Come off it, most people scamming benefits have barely done a day's work in their life. Single mothers with four children all to different fathers, nothing to do other than spend benefit money on scratchcards and cigarettes. Work? Why work when the government pays for anything? Sometimes you even get a free house.
I didn't want them to have a monolpoly. I never shopped there. Where is my democracy and freedom?
Democracy is not an individual thing, it's a collective thing, there's no such thing as 'your' democracy. Your vote in not shopping there has been beaten by the votes of people shopping there. Democracy has prevailed.
Democracy was never intended to be fair to everyone, just fair to the largest number of people. There is no system which can satisfy everyone.
The people haven't decided anything. For many families, Walmart is about all they can afford.
Then what did they do before Walmart came to town?
It seems that if poor families are now saving money and can afford to live better, then Walmart has been a blessing.
Of course middle-class Slashdotters might not see it that way, hence the patronising comments about how immoral and unethical the poor people are in shopping where they can afford.
Walmart isn't largely frequented by people who can spare $20-30 a week for 'ethical' reasons.
Surely the only reason they have a monopoly is because people were going to Walmart rather than smaller shops? In that case, the PEOPLE have decided they want Walmart to have a monopoly. This is a great example of democracy and freedom.
Maybe you'd prefer the government to mandate that people shop at locally-owned shops to stop them going out of business?
I'm sure there are plenty of call-girls out there who're classier than the average lawyer or politician.
Yeah, what could be classier than letting an obese stranger stick his dick in your arse then sucking it whilst squeezing his balls?
Bear in mind the muggers will also be carrying $900 pistols. Are you willing to get into a gunfight over a mobile phone?
If there are spare cops available, why not send them to patrol around crime-ridden neighbourhoods? Surely that's more important than preventing the odd yuppie losing his laptop (which he can afford to replace without blinking).
"Do you truely love writing software? So much, that you invest your personal time into reading about it, writing it, and writing about it?" If not, please don't work for us because you'll whine and bitch all day about how you have to write software at a software company. Latter your skills will go to shit because you won't be reading about it in your spare time.
Let me guess, you don't pay overtime for when your employees write software in their spare time?
Typical of modern corporations: expecting people to train themselves in their own time and at their own expense, all for the (free) benefit of the corporation.
"I'll have to crank it out day and night, and talk to my wife but I think I can do this." and I grin because I love to prove myself to the company and it feels *DAMN F'ing GOOD to prove my worth!*. Go ahead and outsource jobs, it won't be me getting fired I'm too busy writing code for the company day and night and I'm LOVING EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!
Famous last words.
What if the things you like doing won't bring you an income?
There's nothing wrong with doing something you don't like because it makes you money. Do you think binmen like emptying bins? Do you think plumbers like fishing for turds? Do you think shelf stackers like putting beans on shelves? No, they do them because it brings them money.
Similarly, if someone programmes computers purely because it brings them money, what is wrong with that?
It's called professionalism.
Entry-level janitors earn $25K/yr.
Janitors work though, they don't just sit behind a desk. I'm sure that 25k is above the national median.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a simple mpeg/avi, which I can view with whatever software I want, save to my harddisk, at any size/zoom I want?
The good thing about imdb is that each film has one entry. At amazon, each book can have dozens of entries, for each publication of it, it's a complete mess. Its main aim is to sell you the book, rather than to provide information about it.
The reviews are awful, it seems the most popular, dumbed-down books released in the last few years are the only ones which get any decent ratings.
Not to mention the site is cut up into geographical areas, so you end up having to go to several different entries for a book on several different sites just to get what imdb would have on a single page.
Amazon isn't a database of books, it's a database of publications of books. You can get the same book listed over and over again, each of a different size/cover/price, rather than one entry for each book. The ranking system is very flawed and only the most recently released books have any comments.