1. The elephant in the room is that Netflix simply can't afford the +x% licensing renewal contract costs. Its days are numbered. This is why every year it has fewer and fewer selection.
No shows = No subscribers. No subs == No income. No income == bankrupt or get bought.
Netflix needs to secure a couple of sitcoms to survive:
* Big Bang Theory
* Friends
* Seinfeld
2. The other BIG problem with Netflix is self-censored results:
a) Last night I did a search for "Expendables 3" on the iOS version. As I type in expen it will list "Explore titles related to" with "The Expendables 1, 3, 2" (yes in that order) but then it shows ZERO results. Instead it shows "Redemption" and "Blitz". WTF? I want Expendables -- either on Streaming or Mail order. Instead I get neither. *FAYUL*
How about showing me the movie I _actually_ want, even if you currently don't have it, and let me vote on it so you guys have a clue how many people actually are interested in it!/sarcasm Gee, what a crazy concept !
b) Search for: Soldier Blue . This is a interesting 1970 political commentary classic with a very young Candice Bergen. NADA. ZILTCH. WTF? How can I provide feedback if you don't give me the option???
Netflix changing their 5-star system to either a thumbs up/down was also another retarded decision. If you have a "legacy" account you see 5 stars, but if you have a new account you only get the new two dumb choices. Gee, thanks. How about letting me set this as a user preference. The back-end already supports it.
Netflix is either going to go out of business or get bought (for pennies on the dollar) in the next 5 years. (I'm predicting the latter.)
> Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want." > They are in the business of TV wish fulfillment, and nobody has ever done that before.
Not exactly. While technically they are older (1997) then Tivo (1999) they didn't start streaming until 2007.
Tivo created the idea of giving customers "My TV, My Time". Netflix didn't have the high speed internet infrastructure to continue it until ~10 years ago.
Everyone is fighting over a piece of the pie. I wouldn't be (too) surprised to see one of the big cable companies buy it. I'm kind of surprised Google hasn't bought it yet as they could tie in their YouTube branding.
Instead of following someone's blog, or RSS feed, or other social media site, you can listen to someone's textualsound bite and suddenly it is "news." (*)
/sarcasm Because obviously what the Kartrashian's have to say about politics / religion / sex provides such an eloquent and insightful commentary on today's problems. Oh wait...
-- FazeBook, noun, a webspace with extremely low S:N due to where (almost) everyone posts their dumb shit that no one really gives a fuck about -- except you can't downvote the stupid stuff. Also known as Fadbook, Fagbook, Farcebook, Farcusbook, Fartbook, Fecesbook, Fetidbook, Foolbook, FracasBook, Fuckbook.
> Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?
Half joking, Half serious: Who says we're not?
Aside, because a developer's time costs more then the CPU's time -- THAT is why we use higher level languages. It comes down to price. We trade quality for iteration time. Most businesses can't _afford_ to justify writing in assembly. It is far cheaper to just hire a few recent college grads and have them bang out code in the latest iHipster language. High Level language are good enough.
/sarcasm Who cares how inefficient & bloated the code is we can "solve" the 80% of the problem. Who cares if it takes 4 GB of RAM to run and 2 minutes to startup!? This mentality of apathy "I don't care about the user's experience" is why we have crap like computers being 1,000 time faster but tasks still take longer!
> The world indeed doesn't need another rehash of C++ or Lisp:
Sooo when is C++ going to modules?? You know, something every other modern language has had for, you know, decades. Why do you have to copy/paste a function definition header to forward declare it when the compiler could do this automatically??
-- Slashtard / Redditard, noun, Someone too immature / ignorant / stupid to understand the down-vote is NOT "I disagree" but rather "this post adds nothing interesting to the discussion."
The younger crowd doesn't know of or use/. but some of us do use other forums such as reddit. Educating helps reddit grow from the cesspool it is.
I've far seen too many posts -- that I disagree with but have a very interesting viewpoint -- get down modded into oblivion simply because it was "unpopular".
Political Philosopher John Stewart Mill made an argument for free speech including that of hate speech for a good reason.
He argued that if we censor hate speech our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong are not tested. If our beliefs are aren't argued against then we don't attempt to rationalize what we believe to be true. We don't think about why our beliefs are right. When we don't question our beliefs we don't think about them. And when we don't think about our beliefs we don't learn new things. We don't advance and improve our thoughts about what is right and wrong.
Even if someone's argument is wrong it still serves a purpose of making us rationalize and check our beliefs and even improve them. Being able to listen to an argument that is wrong lets us understand what makes an argument wrong and improve our own beliefs from learning from someone else's failure.
> Internet for doesn't "solve a problem," it's just convenience. When I wanted to look up a word, I used to grab a dictionary, instead of googling.
Uh, that's a bad example.
Your definition of "problem" is flawed.
The problem is that I want to look something up that I don't know -- I may not even have access to the book(s). The solution is that the internet has become a repository of shared knowledge.
i.e. Problem: Look up a definition for a (slang) word that may or may not exist in the dead tree version. Solution: http://www.urbandictionary.com...
> (e.g. magnesium diboride superconductivity) is perhaps of historical interest, but not much beyond that.
That' s an assumption. We don't know if someone will have new insight into using.
> For boring, uncited papers (most of them), no one will ever care.
I'm sure people doing interest _in that field_ might find them interesting. Just because it has no value to you doesn't imply others don't find it interesting. i.e. I have zero interesting in the mating habits of Drosophila Melanogaster, but if I was a biologist studying fruit flies I might.
> In an extreme case like CERN, all the data simply isn't available as it's stripped out in hardware.
Right, that's why I said Obviously this won't work for some projects.:-)
> So even ignoring the problem that most researchers can't produce release-quality software, much of it isn't useful.
The question isn't so much as about usefulness but about:
a) archiving it b) giving people the opportunity to replicate the outcome if they desire
There is a lot of Science that is of dubious value but it is essential that the data be available so it can be peer reviews for mistakes. Keeping it hostage prevents progress.
For example in a SigGraph (computer graphics) paper they might discuss a new algorithm. Without the ability to independently verify the results this means we have to take it on faith. That's not proper science.
> That's like software but 10x as bad. Oftentimes the schematics won't even exist.
Then how are people verifying at an offsite that the results are "normal" ??
> So yes, those are nice goals. However, absent an awful lot of money... > If it was done, it would certainly help, but the question is whether or not the improvement would be worth the money.
I didn't say it would be easy, only worth it.
I don't know what the right balance is, nor how we get there but the first step in solving any problem is to recognize there is a problem.
There has to be a better way of funding it then the current system of paywalls and patents -- which are hindering progress. Science should never be about profit. Nor should we be in the situation where tax payer funded research is being license back to the government as a run-around for the Government not being able to copyright data.
Money _must_ eventually be removed from Science, Politics, and Religion if we are to have any hope of removing the corruption inherent in them.
The first step is to create a new repository of "known" experiments which is 100% open. Maybe along the lines of CC(0).
The same thing needs to apply to textbooks as well. Price Gouging students $80.. $150 for textbooks that contain almost no new information from the previous year is theft. Having OPEN standardized textbooks for Mathematics, Physics, Biology, etc. will save money in the long run which could be used to fund research.
But as long as the majority people are more interested in who {said what/slept with} who it will never get off the ground.
Skype (almost like every P2P network) has its particular P2P architecture. It had to be adapted to the network uses. For example, unlike the P2P Kazaa network, designed for file sharing, the Skype network had to be optimized to transfer data in real time, where Kazaa network transfers data stored on nodes. In addition, Skype network still includes centralized networks entities, because unlike Kazaa network, Skype protocol had to implement user secured authentication, dynamic contacts lists management and ensure privacy.
The Skype user directory is entirely decentralized and distributed among the nodes in the network, which means the network can scale very easily to large sizes without a complex and costly centralized infrastructure.
If M$ kills off Skype 6.20 then it will be time to migrate to something else that is open source and doesn't have known backdoors.
They have both the SAME number of pixels, which means it must be the colors which are different.
Peter Jackson (used to) deeply understands using miniatures and bigatures to convey the "warmth" and "depth" with unique texturing and realistic lighting.
George Lucas on the other does not understanding anything about noise. Notice how the bottom textures look all bland. Everything looks fake and plastic. The word "Sterile" comes to mind.
It isn't about less, but more. Namely adding noise so objects look more realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed it is a little hypocritical of Epic.
I guess helping to make sure their games run on OSX and Linux costs too much.
It isn't an expense, it is an investment in the future to help keep Microsoft honest.
There are 2 huge problems with Netflix:
1. The elephant in the room is that Netflix simply can't afford the +x% licensing renewal contract costs. Its days are numbered. This is why every year it has fewer and fewer selection.
No shows = No subscribers. No subs == No income. No income == bankrupt or get bought.
Netflix needs to secure a couple of sitcoms to survive:
* Big Bang Theory
* Friends
* Seinfeld
2. The other BIG problem with Netflix is self-censored results:
a) Last night I did a search for "Expendables 3" on the iOS version. As I type in expen it will list "Explore titles related to" with "The Expendables 1, 3, 2" (yes in that order) but then it shows ZERO results. Instead it shows "Redemption" and "Blitz". WTF? I want Expendables -- either on Streaming or Mail order. Instead I get neither. *FAYUL*
How about showing me the movie I _actually_ want, even if you currently don't have it, and let me vote on it so you guys have a clue how many people actually are interested in it! /sarcasm Gee, what a crazy concept !
b) Search for: Soldier Blue . This is a interesting 1970 political commentary classic with a very young Candice Bergen. NADA. ZILTCH. WTF? How can I provide feedback if you don't give me the option???
Netflix changing their 5-star system to either a thumbs up/down was also another retarded decision. If you have a "legacy" account you see 5 stars, but if you have a new account you only get the new two dumb choices. Gee, thanks. How about letting me set this as a user preference. The back-end already supports it.
Netflix is either going to go out of business or get bought (for pennies on the dollar) in the next 5 years. (I'm predicting the latter.)
> Netflix is the first media company with the business model of "Give the customers exactly what they want."
> They are in the business of TV wish fulfillment, and nobody has ever done that before.
Not exactly. While technically they are older (1997) then Tivo (1999) they didn't start streaming until 2007.
Tivo created the idea of giving customers "My TV, My Time". Netflix didn't have the high speed internet infrastructure to continue it until ~10 years ago.
Everyone is fighting over a piece of the pie. I wouldn't be (too) surprised to see one of the big cable companies buy it. I'm kind of surprised Google hasn't bought it yet as they could tie in their YouTube branding.
We'll see.
--
My Device, My Rules. Fuck off with your ads.
What's the issue?
Instead of following someone's blog, or RSS feed, or other social media site, you can listen to someone's textual sound bite and suddenly it is "news." (*)
/sarcasm Because obviously what the Kartrashian's have to say about politics / religion / sex provides such an eloquent and insightful commentary on today's problems. Oh wait ...
(*) Except in China
--
FazeBook, noun, a webspace with extremely low S:N due to where (almost) everyone posts their dumb shit that no one really gives a fuck about -- except you can't downvote the stupid stuff. Also known as Fadbook, Fagbook, Farcebook, Farcusbook, Fartbook, Fecesbook, Fetidbook, Foolbook, FracasBook, Fuckbook.
> I have a list of things I want to see fixed or improved in Windows.
Care to post that list by chance please? TIA.
.. it still spies on you.
Destroy Windows 10 Spying
Fuck off M$.
> Then why aren't we programming everything in assembly?
Half joking, Half serious: Who says we're not?
Aside, because a developer's time costs more then the CPU's time -- THAT is why we use higher level languages. It comes down to price. We trade quality for iteration time. Most businesses can't _afford_ to justify writing in assembly. It is far cheaper to just hire a few recent college grads and have them bang out code in the latest iHipster language. High Level language are good enough.
> The world indeed doesn't need another rehash of C++ or Lisp:
Sooo when is C++ going to modules?? You know, something every other modern language has had for, you know, decades. Why do you have to copy/paste a function definition header to forward declare it when the compiler could do this automatically??
When you have idiots on the C++ design committee -- a native binary literal took DECADES to add, "A Proposal to Add 2D Graphics Rendering and Display to C++", etc. I would argue it certainly does. That's why we have D, etc.
Every year C++ piles on more and more crap. It needs a simplification, not more over-engineering.
As someone who has worked on a PS3 C++ compiler there are two jokes amongst compiler writers:
^ This.
Proof:
Yahoo homepage vs Google homepage history
--
Slashtard / Redditard, noun, Someone too immature / ignorant / stupid to understand the down-vote is NOT "I disagree" but rather "this post adds nothing interesting to the discussion."
Sadly, Americans have become a bunch of pussies. /Oblg. Hey who won the latest sports game? ...
> Question authority.
Teacher: Question Authority!
Student: Says who!
Teacher: *smiles as student gets it*
There are actually a some fantastic social commentaries about authority ...
* Network (1976) (I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore")
* They Live (1988) (by the famous John Carpenter -- Obey)
* The Newsroom (2012) (amazing monologue by Jeff Daniels on Why America isn't the greatest country in the word)
In the mobile space customers who use IAP (In-App-Purchases) are known as whales.
* Who Are the 'Whales' Driving Free-to-Play Gaming? You'd Be Surprised
* Forbes: Why It's Scary When 0.15% Mobile Gamers Bring In 50% Of The Revenue
This exploitation is nothing more then a legalized form of gambling. In other news gambling is for those that suck at math.
But go ahead and keep hijacking the term "free" and making headlines about how gambling makes money.
--
redditard, noun, some one who down votes simply because they disagree instead of content.
> These people do not have unlimited plans,
Not according the AC with message #52556337
Q. Does anyone have a picture of a current bill with this?
Education and Reminders.
The younger crowd doesn't know of or use /. but some of us do use other forums such as reddit. Educating helps reddit grow from the cesspool it is.
I've far seen too many posts -- that I disagree with but have a very interesting viewpoint -- get down modded into oblivion simply because it was "unpopular".
I recently came across this video 5 Banned YouTubers You Can't Watch Anymore that had this brilliant commentary:
> Internet for doesn't "solve a problem," it's just convenience. When I wanted to look up a word, I used to grab a dictionary, instead of googling.
Uh, that's a bad example.
Your definition of "problem" is flawed.
The problem is that I want to look something up that I don't know -- I may not even have access to the book(s).
The solution is that the internet has become a repository of shared knowledge.
i.e.
Problem: Look up a definition for a (slang) word that may or may not exist in the dead tree version.
Solution: http://www.urbandictionary.com...
More examples:
Look up if a rumor is true or false
* http://www.snopes.com/
Check facts / trivia
* http://www.wikipedia.org/
Check who was in what movie
* http://www.imdb.com/
Hey MS
If you want to _prove_ your innocence then show the source code so we can audit what, when, where, data is being collected.
Because you have ZERO trust at this point.
What's that? Have "faith" in you? BWUAHA. Fuck your arrogance and spying. PROVE IT.
/Oblg. You keep using this word "unlimited". It doesn't mean what you think it means
If Verizon is advertising their services as unlimited but it is not then it is fraud plain and simple.
But I guess accurately calling it Nearly Unlimited won't get as many suckers ^H^H^H customers as they want.
I hope they get sued.
--
Note to Redditards: The downvote button is NOT for disagreement but that "this post adds nothing interesting to the conversation."
You were born precisely at the moment you were supposed to be.
Don't worry, ~2024 First Contact is coming and it will make the moon landing look like kindergarten.
The golden era of mankind hasn't even _started_ yet.
--
The bigger question is: "Why the hell is the humanoid template so common across the universe?
> Provide to whom?
The general public.
> (e.g. magnesium diboride superconductivity) is perhaps of historical interest, but not much beyond that.
That' s an assumption. We don't know if someone will have new insight into using.
> For boring, uncited papers (most of them), no one will ever care.
I'm sure people doing interest _in that field_ might find them interesting. Just because it has no value to you doesn't imply others don't find it interesting. i.e. I have zero interesting in the mating habits of Drosophila Melanogaster, but if I was a biologist studying fruit flies I might.
> In an extreme case like CERN, all the data simply isn't available as it's stripped out in hardware.
Right, that's why I said Obviously this won't work for some projects. :-)
> So even ignoring the problem that most researchers can't produce release-quality software, much of it isn't useful.
The question isn't so much as about usefulness but about:
a) archiving it
b) giving people the opportunity to replicate the outcome if they desire
There is a lot of Science that is of dubious value but it is essential that the data be available so it can be peer reviews for mistakes. Keeping it hostage prevents progress.
For example in a SigGraph (computer graphics) paper they might discuss a new algorithm. Without the ability to independently verify the results this means we have to take it on faith. That's not proper science.
> That's like software but 10x as bad. Oftentimes the schematics won't even exist.
Then how are people verifying at an offsite that the results are "normal" ??
> So yes, those are nice goals. However, absent an awful lot of money ...
> If it was done, it would certainly help, but the question is whether or not the improvement would be worth the money.
I didn't say it would be easy, only worth it.
I don't know what the right balance is, nor how we get there but the first step in solving any problem is to recognize there is a problem.
There has to be a better way of funding it then the current system of paywalls and patents -- which are hindering progress. Science should never be about profit. Nor should we be in the situation where tax payer funded research is being license back to the government as a run-around for the Government not being able to copyright data.
Money _must_ eventually be removed from Science, Politics, and Religion if we are to have any hope of removing the corruption inherent in them.
The first step is to create a new repository of "known" experiments which is 100% open. Maybe along the lines of CC(0).
The same thing needs to apply to textbooks as well. Price Gouging students $80 .. $150 for textbooks that contain almost no new information from the previous year is theft. Having OPEN standardized textbooks for Mathematics, Physics, Biology, etc. will save money in the long run which could be used to fund research.
But as long as the majority people are more interested in who {said what/slept with} who it will never get off the ground.
Here is a list of Skype reverse engineering whitepapers
* http://www.oklabs.net/wp-conte...
* http://www.oklabs.net/wp-conte...
* http://www.oklabs.net/wp-conte...
* http://www.oklabs.net/wp-conte...
* http://www.oklabs.net/wp-conte...
Specifically see:
Skype Reverse Engineering : The (long) journey ;)..
* http://www.oklabs.net/skype-re...
> It seems kind of strange nobody ever reverse engineered the protocol.
Old versions of the protocol were:
skype protocol reverse engineered
> No, I don't know how to fix it.
You can never remove dogma and politics from Science.
However, a first step would be to mandate that all published whitepapers must provide:
* ALL the data
* ALL the Software
* Schematics for the Hardware, and
* non-paywalled Whitepapers (so that money is no longer a barrier for access)
so that others can independently verify the results.
Obviously this won't work for some projects but it would be an important first step.
> Am I the only one who considered the old Peer to Peer mode of Skype suspicious?
No. When the Skype client relies heavily on obfuscation it SHOULD be extremely suspicious!
* http://www.oklabs.net/skype-re...
If M$ kills off Skype 6.20 then it will be time to migrate to something else that is open source and doesn't have known backdoors.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
He wasn't responsible for the special effects in the original Star Wars though.
* http://www.starwars.com/news/t...
* http://www.wired.com/2013/02/s...
That's OK, there are better sci-fi out there anyways to watch in the meantime:
* Battlestar Galactica (2004)
* Continuum
* Dark Matter
* Fringe
* Futurama
* Lost
* Red Dwarf
The secret sauce is noise.
Here is a picture of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Top: Real
Bottom: CG
They have both the SAME number of pixels, which means it must be the colors which are different.
Peter Jackson (used to) deeply understands using miniatures and bigatures to convey the "warmth" and "depth" with unique texturing and realistic lighting.
George Lucas on the other does not understanding anything about noise. Notice how the bottom textures look all bland. Everything looks fake and plastic. The word "Sterile" comes to mind.
It isn't about less, but more. Namely adding noise so objects look more realistic.