If the entire TV industry is predicated on advertising, and the idea of advertising is predicating on paying to have as many people see your ads as possible (and the payment is proportional to proven amounts of people who may be watching), if an increasing number of people (many in educated and financially stable demographics) have the capability to avoid ever seeing any advertising, what, exactly, makes it worthwhile for advertisers to continue paying for it, at least at the same levels? You are choosing to watch content whose creation and delivery is funded in large part by advertising revenues. What funds it if that model is completely broken?
The solution seems obvious to me - present advertising in a form that people want to watch. Everyone is stuck with the idea that advertising is something you subject people to, then you reward them with the show.
If the advertising wasn't painful to watch, you wouldn't even need the show.
"They know not to cut into a hybrid's doors -- that's where many of the cables are --"
Why in the world would there be high voltage in the doors? Maybe they mean the door sills? Or did Toyota save a buck by standardizing all their motors on 500V?
Slashdot Mirror
"They know not to cut into a hybrid's doors -- that's where many of the cables are --" Why in the world would there be high voltage in the doors? Maybe they mean the door sills? Or did Toyota save a buck by standardizing all their motors on 500V?