I come from a videogame development background. Developers rarely see 20% of the retail price. Often it is half that. So forgive me if I don't see the relationship with retail as very symbiotic.
The total cost of the boxed-goods model has to include the duplication and manufacture of the disk and packaging. This is another cost that would vanish if the industry went to download. Along with the costs of inventory and the potential loss of over-duplication.
Fewer overheads means lower prices to end-users, and better still, a higher revenue to the people who actually make the games.
Music has already shifted to download. The shift to download for movies and games is inevitable.
Console manufacturers and game publishers are going to move towards games which are entirely downloaded.
Directly downloaded games are impossible to re-sell. So will block this "problem"
Moreover, the revenue from downloaded games is not shared by resellers and retailers. Retailers can take up to 50% of the sale price. Just to sell a box.
When publishers, originate the game, develop it, promote it and take all the risks- you can see why they resent the used game market and the burden of "boxed-goods" retailers.
That video must have cost a fortune to make. It's a pity the premise was just was not that funny to start with.
Dear Onion,
Throwing cash at a weak joke does not make it super hilarious.
C.
The original story was massively influenced by Joseph Campbell's book Hero with a Thousand Faces, which explains cross-cultural mythic structures that all stories share.
Star Wars (IV) is an almost perfect example of exploiting these themes. And it created an perfect modern myth.
So what happened?
Lucas resented the interference of the studios in the creative process. As his power grew, he was able to push the external editorial forces away and take sole command of the property.
This explains why the films became increasingly weak. Because everyone, even a genius, needs editing.
No cameras do not address root causes of crime. Poverty, ignorance and testosterone don't have a one-pill solution.
No the cameras do little to enforce the law. Apart from gathering evidence when idiots are stupid enough to commit crimes on film.
But the cameras do deter certain types of crime from happening in the first place. That's the benefit.
Yes prisons are bulging. Have been for a while. And that's precisely because the whole idea of prison, with longer tougher sentences, simply has no effect on crime.
We tried the whole "throw the book at 'em" thing. Now having to backpedal.
It's become obvious that Prison is a educational establishment where amateur law breakers graduate into fully-qualified professionals.
Although to be fair, Britain's prison population is still much less per capita than the USA.
In the UK cameras are a still a new thing. In a small city with dense centre, it's relatively cheap to carpet-bomb the entire city centre with remote-controlled cameras.
Only a handful of cities has a full-on camera network with total coverage.. My city is like the goddamn big-brother house. The effect is dramatic.
They prevent low-level street crime along with more serious assaults, rapes etc. But that's precisely the sort of crime that upsets people and leaves them feeling unsafe.
There are of course types of crime which are unaffected. But murders and armed robberies are actually statistically rare in the UK. Certainly rarer than the US.
Drunken angry English people tend to hit people with fists or bottles. Which is messy and ugly but not nearly so fatal as shooting them with handguns.
The handgun ban is partially effective. The good guys and the police do not carry firearms. If someone has a gun, they are, by definition, a bad guy.
The armed response unit is called. And public safety demands rapid and decisive measures.
Recently, many young Afro Caribbean English boys have formed a sudden attachment to firearms, but their targets are invariably other young Afro Carribean English boys.
It is probably unfair to compare country to country. The UK is quite different to other countries in Europe. The population density is higher. (The population of London is pretty much the same as Australia.)
The country is becoming richer, but not everyone is sharing in the wealth. An attempt to make the education system flatter and fairer, has resulted in less social mobility.
To conclude, cameras seem the least bad option.
They are cheap and effective.
The alternatives: agressive policing, harsh sentencing, more legislation, zero tolerance etc. all seem to be more expensive, less effective and require more rights and more liberty to be curtailled.
C.
Jail is *really* expensive.
It runs to what? $100K per annum per prisoner. And yet - jail on its own fails to deter anyone from offending.
Nailing up a few cameras is pretty cheap. Half of them can be dummies. In terms of deterring crime. the fake ones work just as well as real ones.
You are mis-understanding what is happening in the UK.
These kids misbehave only when they think no-one is watching. When they think someone in authority is looking - they are as good as gold.
The cameras really do solve the kid problem. It does not require police to intervene. It does not require investigation or follow up. Street crime is reduced BECAUSE of the cameras.
These crappy kids see the cameras and just decide to behave themselves. When an assault occur, camera footage does improve detection rates. But more importantly it deters the crime from happening in the first place.
Right wingers bang on about prison being a deterrent. But prison requires detection and detection requires evidence. Cameras gather evidence. And their effect is to deter.
They deter even when they are not switched on.
Consequently street crime is *prevented*. The numbers are clear and undeniable. And crime prevention is way better than the comical assertions of "harsher punishment".
(Or the even more laughable notion that armed citizens drive down the likelihood of crime. That's as dumb as solving bullying in schools by giving the victims knives.)
Yes. I agree that arming the police IS a bad thing. I said this already. Give a policeman a gun, and he will shoot your ass. Give a policeman a camcorder and he will shoot his girlfriend's ass and leave me alone.
I have yet to hear what civil liberties are actually reduced by public cameras. Answers please.
What is the alternative? The American model of mass-imprisonment clearly does not work. It is more expensive. Less effective. And I suspect the civil rights of the millions of detainees might have been curtailled by detention.
If you are interested in facts - see the stats on how cameras actually reduce street crime. It's pretty clear. Undeniable in fact.
The funny thing is, I am not a right-wing authoritarian nutcase. I see myself as a liberal. I have the whole compassion thing. Criminals are people too. etc. I just want them to not do so much bad stuff.
So you people who are objecting to cameras are who? Exactly?
? Uber-liberals. Human rights fanatics. I don't think so.
? One of you guys thinks he can to solve crime by shooting the perps. I'd say he was right-of-center.
? Are you rapists?
? Graffiti Artists?
? Do you crave for a time when public floggings and hangings provided us with order?
Who are you people?
Do you have a deep-seated mis-trust of government?
I do too. But like I say. A bobby with a 35milimeter is less threatening than a donut-eater with a.45.
The police cannot be everywhere.
Long ago, before the police, in small communities it was difficult to be anti social in public. People recognized you. You'd get identified and the story would get back to your parents.
Back then, street crime was difficult in small towns and villages because you were under constant surveillance by an intelligence network called a community.
Nowadays large cities afford the petty criminal the cover of annonymity. No one knows anyone. These kids can offend without fear of identification. Cameras put a stop to that.
The majority of petty street crime is carried out by children, who simply do not offend if they think they are being observed.
If you remind them they are being observed. They offend even less. You don't even have to have the cameras switched on.
Cameras just work. Like I said, in like-for-like cities there is 1/3 of the street crime. Thats not 1/3 less that's 1/3.
Yep, I do like them statistics.
But think on.
When you are in the subway, and three upstanding young men are kicking the living crap out of you. You can reflect on the fact, (as your molar arcs majestically from your mouth) . That no cameras will infringe your rights recording this event. The identities of your assailants will evaporate as quickly as the cash in your wallet. And the red stripes of bloody fingermarks on the tiles, as they kick away at your head, will remind you that you live in a truly free society.
Ever been to school?
Remember those kids who beat people up, caused trouble, generally were scumbags. Then the teacher came in and they were as good as gold?
These are the ones that cameras stop. They behave themselves - as long as they think someone is watching. That's how cameras work.
They do work, it is measurable.
When someone rapes. When someone mugs. When someone vandalizes your car. When someone tries to pick a fight. Real honest actual human rights are violated.
If you were being mugged, and a policeman choses not to intervene. Would that be wrong?
If installing cameras can demonstrably prevent street crime, and your state choses not to. Isn't that the same wrong?
When someone is photgraphed in public, from afar, no rights are violated. Not one. When you are in public you expect to be seen by people. That's what "in public" means.
If being on camera worries you - I wonder why. What is it that you fear? I suggest you are living in a paranoid delusion where an all-oppressive evil state watches your every move. Faceless men monitor your movements. They watch your feet. They care whether you step on a crack.
Good luck. And go buy a new copy of "Enemy of the State". Your copy is wearing thin.
What civil liberties are curtailled?
The right to vandalize?
The right to snatch handbags?
The right to assult? The right to rape or indecently expose?
These are not rights we should be protecting.
The right to walk the streets without fear of such acts is a more important and significant one. It's an essential human right that we should all defend and cherish.
If the state has the power to reduce such crime by 2/3 then it has a moral obligation to do so. Failing to do so impinges on the rights of the majority.
Cameras demonstrably reduce street crime. Which is a problem in several cities.
They don't, as far as I can tell, restrict anyone's rights to do anything. Unless that is the right to commit crime.
My city, which has more cameras than anywhere has 1/3 the street crime rate of a neighboring similar sized city.
The cameras record crimes. They use the tapes to prosecute offenders. Now the cameras are a deterrent.
I prefer it to that other system. The one with the police as armed militia. Gimme a copper with a camcorder any day.
Midnight torture abductions seem more the style of Cheneys America than Blairs Britain.
When alcohol was made illegal is the US did anyone protest?
There were no cameras then.
Oh, that's right. The Police carry firearms and shoot protestors.
On the balance of things. I'd rather be videotaped than shot.
Singapore and Zurich, what fine examples! These are Police States already. Doesn't Singapore have the Death Penalty for drugs. In Swizerland, everyone has to be in bed for 10pm!
London is a multi-ethnic, chaotic, 24-hour semi-anarchy. Of course it's not safe. Which is why cameras are good.
But a Londoner visiting the US, is shocked to have to produce identity papers to buy a drink.
Being beaten up at night is not a right that I want preserving. Cameras have cut crime. and you know, I like my safe-feeling. I live in the UK but my only experience of mugging was Los Angeles and Paris.
The British would get upset if someone tried to take away important rights.
If some religion-inspired leader told us that we cannot buy alcohol until the age of 21. We'd say "What is this? Some kind of Police state?".
Reality shows have good viewing figures. Advertisers know that. I watch them too - but I can't ever visualise a circumstance where I would consciously pay for them.
Would you personally reach into your pocket and pay for a reality show in order to watch it? Even if the price was $0.50?
I can not. I will watch them, but I only watch them because they are "on". They are free. There is no cost associated with them.
To pay for TV, without seeing it, requires trust. Trust has to be earned. Shows that are popular in a "free" context might only survive in a free/advertising supported context.
Shows which I seek out. Shows which I actively want to see are an entirely different animal.
C.
I agree that whatever the model, there will still be crap. At the end of the day, people pay for whatever they like. And some people do like crap. Cinema is a direct-pay model and there's plenty of crap movies. What I meant was that in a direct-pay model, there will be few people prepared to pay hard cash for filler television. We would at least need a flexible pricing model which reflected demand.
It's interesting, that even in the case of Big Brother, we see advertisers attempting to restrict and control content.
If you take an example of a show like Firefly, It had a modest audience incapable of sustaining advertiser interest and quickly the network dropped the show. But that modest audience was massively passionate and enthusiastic. In a direct-pay world, enthusiastic audiences might pay more per episode. If something like that could happen, then quality and enthusiam could triumph over advertiser demographics. That's got to be a good thing.
Whether you agree that $1.99 or $2.99 per show is a good deal, directly paying for shows allows something amazing to happen.
* It allows audiences to pass money DIRECTLY to television creators. *
And that model is more honest and fairer than the advertising model which currently dominates broadcasting. It is a way better model, and better TV would be the outcome.
It has the power to transform the type of shows being made because it makes television-makers directly accountable to their audience. Program makers would not have to pander to the needs of the network or the advertisers, but would put the audience first. Shows which have a small enthusiastic audience would not be dropped. Reality shows would have to stick in advertising land, because no-one would pay for that crap.
Of course the networks and advertisers are fearful of being cut-out of the market. So while they still have power, they'll attempt to drive the prices of download TV ever higher.
This is going to get interesting.
C
It is wonderful how US citizens love the "Freedom" logo which is sewn invisibly onto every flag. They love it and their country - which is a cool thing. I wish Britons were more patriotic.
But the funny thing is - as a European I feel that some freedoms seem noticably absent in the US. Real rights - which I enjoy. For example...
The freedom to buy alcohol - as an adult. Denied until the age of 21. Never been "carded" in England.
The freedom to have sexual intercourse. (Both heterosexual and homosexual) - the age of consent is 16 in the UK.
The freedom to consume soft drugs.
The freedom to decline mass immunization programs.
And not to mention the fact that most European states no longer execute criminals (especially retartded or child criminals)
-
It is not just the government - walk into Tesco- the UKs largest retailler and take some photograps - no problem
Walk into Walmart with a camera and you will be escorted off the premises.
I guess freedom comes in different flavours.
Carni
This was a genuinely distubing broadcast - although I think it is too early to base predictions.
The essential point is that human activity had two effects:
Greenhouse gasses trapped IR and had a warming effect.
Pollution (particulates) created clouds and had a cooling effect. This was dramatically demonstrated by the no-fly ban after 9-11. When the absence of contrails caused an astonishing two degree temperature shift in just days.
The two effects to some extent are cancelling each other out. Reducing the temperature shift and making things look much better than they are.
As fuels get cleaner - the amount of particuate emission is reducing and the warming effect is more profound.
So the upshot of the show was this: The models which are being proposed which co-relate CO2 to global warming are probably wrong. They are not nearly sensitive enough. If you model the cooling and heating phenomenon indendently you could have much larger temperature swings much sooner.
The show went on to suggest some of the catestrophic effects of a 2 or 3 degree temperature shift over the next thirty years. This was slightly over-dramatic for my tastes.
That said I would urge anyone interested in the environmental debate to watch this or read the transcript.
Carni
Slashdot Mirror
I come from a videogame development background. Developers rarely see 20% of the retail price. Often it is half that. So forgive me if I don't see the relationship with retail as very symbiotic.
The total cost of the boxed-goods model has to include the duplication and manufacture of the disk and packaging. This is another cost that would vanish if the industry went to download.
Along with the costs of inventory and the potential loss of over-duplication.
Fewer overheads means lower prices to end-users, and better still, a higher revenue to the people who actually make the games.
Music has already shifted to download.
The shift to download for movies and games is inevitable.
C.
Console manufacturers and game publishers are going to move towards games which are entirely downloaded.
Directly downloaded games are impossible to re-sell. So will block this "problem"
Moreover, the revenue from downloaded games is not shared by resellers and retailers. Retailers can take up to 50% of the sale price. Just to sell a box.
When publishers, originate the game, develop it, promote it and take all the risks- you can see why they resent the used game market and the burden of "boxed-goods" retailers.
C.
That video must have cost a fortune to make. It's a pity the premise was just was not that funny to start with. Dear Onion, Throwing cash at a weak joke does not make it super hilarious. C.
The original story was massively influenced by Joseph Campbell's book Hero with a Thousand Faces, which explains cross-cultural mythic structures that all stories share. Star Wars (IV) is an almost perfect example of exploiting these themes. And it created an perfect modern myth. So what happened? Lucas resented the interference of the studios in the creative process. As his power grew, he was able to push the external editorial forces away and take sole command of the property. This explains why the films became increasingly weak. Because everyone, even a genius, needs editing.
No cameras do not address root causes of crime. Poverty, ignorance and testosterone don't have a one-pill solution. No the cameras do little to enforce the law. Apart from gathering evidence when idiots are stupid enough to commit crimes on film. But the cameras do deter certain types of crime from happening in the first place. That's the benefit. Yes prisons are bulging. Have been for a while. And that's precisely because the whole idea of prison, with longer tougher sentences, simply has no effect on crime. We tried the whole "throw the book at 'em" thing. Now having to backpedal. It's become obvious that Prison is a educational establishment where amateur law breakers graduate into fully-qualified professionals. Although to be fair, Britain's prison population is still much less per capita than the USA. In the UK cameras are a still a new thing. In a small city with dense centre, it's relatively cheap to carpet-bomb the entire city centre with remote-controlled cameras. Only a handful of cities has a full-on camera network with total coverage.. My city is like the goddamn big-brother house. The effect is dramatic. They prevent low-level street crime along with more serious assaults, rapes etc. But that's precisely the sort of crime that upsets people and leaves them feeling unsafe. There are of course types of crime which are unaffected. But murders and armed robberies are actually statistically rare in the UK. Certainly rarer than the US. Drunken angry English people tend to hit people with fists or bottles. Which is messy and ugly but not nearly so fatal as shooting them with handguns. The handgun ban is partially effective. The good guys and the police do not carry firearms. If someone has a gun, they are, by definition, a bad guy. The armed response unit is called. And public safety demands rapid and decisive measures. Recently, many young Afro Caribbean English boys have formed a sudden attachment to firearms, but their targets are invariably other young Afro Carribean English boys. It is probably unfair to compare country to country. The UK is quite different to other countries in Europe. The population density is higher. (The population of London is pretty much the same as Australia.) The country is becoming richer, but not everyone is sharing in the wealth. An attempt to make the education system flatter and fairer, has resulted in less social mobility. To conclude, cameras seem the least bad option. They are cheap and effective. The alternatives: agressive policing, harsh sentencing, more legislation, zero tolerance etc. all seem to be more expensive, less effective and require more rights and more liberty to be curtailled. C.
Jail is *really* expensive. It runs to what? $100K per annum per prisoner. And yet - jail on its own fails to deter anyone from offending. Nailing up a few cameras is pretty cheap. Half of them can be dummies. In terms of deterring crime. the fake ones work just as well as real ones.
You are mis-understanding what is happening in the UK. These kids misbehave only when they think no-one is watching. When they think someone in authority is looking - they are as good as gold. The cameras really do solve the kid problem. It does not require police to intervene. It does not require investigation or follow up. Street crime is reduced BECAUSE of the cameras. These crappy kids see the cameras and just decide to behave themselves. When an assault occur, camera footage does improve detection rates. But more importantly it deters the crime from happening in the first place. Right wingers bang on about prison being a deterrent. But prison requires detection and detection requires evidence. Cameras gather evidence. And their effect is to deter. They deter even when they are not switched on. Consequently street crime is *prevented*. The numbers are clear and undeniable. And crime prevention is way better than the comical assertions of "harsher punishment". (Or the even more laughable notion that armed citizens drive down the likelihood of crime. That's as dumb as solving bullying in schools by giving the victims knives.) Yes. I agree that arming the police IS a bad thing. I said this already. Give a policeman a gun, and he will shoot your ass. Give a policeman a camcorder and he will shoot his girlfriend's ass and leave me alone. I have yet to hear what civil liberties are actually reduced by public cameras. Answers please. What is the alternative? The American model of mass-imprisonment clearly does not work. It is more expensive. Less effective. And I suspect the civil rights of the millions of detainees might have been curtailled by detention. If you are interested in facts - see the stats on how cameras actually reduce street crime. It's pretty clear. Undeniable in fact. The funny thing is, I am not a right-wing authoritarian nutcase. I see myself as a liberal. I have the whole compassion thing. Criminals are people too. etc. I just want them to not do so much bad stuff. So you people who are objecting to cameras are who? Exactly? ? Uber-liberals. Human rights fanatics. I don't think so. ? One of you guys thinks he can to solve crime by shooting the perps. I'd say he was right-of-center. ? Are you rapists? ? Graffiti Artists? ? Do you crave for a time when public floggings and hangings provided us with order? Who are you people? Do you have a deep-seated mis-trust of government? I do too. But like I say. A bobby with a 35milimeter is less threatening than a donut-eater with a .45.
Guns make Amerika Safe!!!! Knowledge is Stupidity Thanks for the laugh man! http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.RATES.WORL D.PNG
The police cannot be everywhere. Long ago, before the police, in small communities it was difficult to be anti social in public. People recognized you. You'd get identified and the story would get back to your parents. Back then, street crime was difficult in small towns and villages because you were under constant surveillance by an intelligence network called a community. Nowadays large cities afford the petty criminal the cover of annonymity. No one knows anyone. These kids can offend without fear of identification. Cameras put a stop to that. The majority of petty street crime is carried out by children, who simply do not offend if they think they are being observed. If you remind them they are being observed. They offend even less. You don't even have to have the cameras switched on. Cameras just work. Like I said, in like-for-like cities there is 1/3 of the street crime. Thats not 1/3 less that's 1/3. Yep, I do like them statistics. But think on. When you are in the subway, and three upstanding young men are kicking the living crap out of you. You can reflect on the fact, (as your molar arcs majestically from your mouth) . That no cameras will infringe your rights recording this event. The identities of your assailants will evaporate as quickly as the cash in your wallet. And the red stripes of bloody fingermarks on the tiles, as they kick away at your head, will remind you that you live in a truly free society.
Ever been to school? Remember those kids who beat people up, caused trouble, generally were scumbags. Then the teacher came in and they were as good as gold? These are the ones that cameras stop. They behave themselves - as long as they think someone is watching. That's how cameras work. They do work, it is measurable. When someone rapes. When someone mugs. When someone vandalizes your car. When someone tries to pick a fight. Real honest actual human rights are violated. If you were being mugged, and a policeman choses not to intervene. Would that be wrong? If installing cameras can demonstrably prevent street crime, and your state choses not to. Isn't that the same wrong? When someone is photgraphed in public, from afar, no rights are violated. Not one. When you are in public you expect to be seen by people. That's what "in public" means. If being on camera worries you - I wonder why. What is it that you fear? I suggest you are living in a paranoid delusion where an all-oppressive evil state watches your every move. Faceless men monitor your movements. They watch your feet. They care whether you step on a crack. Good luck. And go buy a new copy of "Enemy of the State". Your copy is wearing thin.
What civil liberties are curtailled? The right to vandalize? The right to snatch handbags? The right to assult? The right to rape or indecently expose? These are not rights we should be protecting. The right to walk the streets without fear of such acts is a more important and significant one. It's an essential human right that we should all defend and cherish. If the state has the power to reduce such crime by 2/3 then it has a moral obligation to do so. Failing to do so impinges on the rights of the majority.
That's exactly my point. Arming the police is dangerous! Give em camcorders! I don't care if they get HI DEF!
Cameras demonstrably reduce street crime. Which is a problem in several cities. They don't, as far as I can tell, restrict anyone's rights to do anything. Unless that is the right to commit crime. My city, which has more cameras than anywhere has 1/3 the street crime rate of a neighboring similar sized city. The cameras record crimes. They use the tapes to prosecute offenders. Now the cameras are a deterrent. I prefer it to that other system. The one with the police as armed militia. Gimme a copper with a camcorder any day. Midnight torture abductions seem more the style of Cheneys America than Blairs Britain.
When alcohol was made illegal is the US did anyone protest? There were no cameras then. Oh, that's right. The Police carry firearms and shoot protestors. On the balance of things. I'd rather be videotaped than shot.
Singapore and Zurich, what fine examples! These are Police States already. Doesn't Singapore have the Death Penalty for drugs. In Swizerland, everyone has to be in bed for 10pm! London is a multi-ethnic, chaotic, 24-hour semi-anarchy. Of course it's not safe. Which is why cameras are good. But a Londoner visiting the US, is shocked to have to produce identity papers to buy a drink.
Being beaten up at night is not a right that I want preserving. Cameras have cut crime. and you know, I like my safe-feeling. I live in the UK but my only experience of mugging was Los Angeles and Paris. The British would get upset if someone tried to take away important rights. If some religion-inspired leader told us that we cannot buy alcohol until the age of 21. We'd say "What is this? Some kind of Police state?".
Reality shows have good viewing figures. Advertisers know that. I watch them too - but I can't ever visualise a circumstance where I would consciously pay for them. Would you personally reach into your pocket and pay for a reality show in order to watch it? Even if the price was $0.50? I can not. I will watch them, but I only watch them because they are "on". They are free. There is no cost associated with them. To pay for TV, without seeing it, requires trust. Trust has to be earned. Shows that are popular in a "free" context might only survive in a free/advertising supported context. Shows which I seek out. Shows which I actively want to see are an entirely different animal. C.
I agree that whatever the model, there will still be crap. At the end of the day, people pay for whatever they like. And some people do like crap. Cinema is a direct-pay model and there's plenty of crap movies.
What I meant was that in a direct-pay model, there will be few people prepared to pay hard cash for filler television. We would at least need a flexible pricing model which reflected demand.
It's interesting, that even in the case of Big Brother, we see advertisers attempting to restrict and control content.
If you take an example of a show like Firefly, It had a modest audience incapable of sustaining advertiser interest and quickly the network dropped the show. But that modest audience was massively passionate and enthusiastic. In a direct-pay world, enthusiastic audiences might pay more per episode. If something like that could happen, then quality and enthusiam could triumph over advertiser demographics. That's got to be a good thing.
C.
Whether you agree that $1.99 or $2.99 per show is a good deal, directly paying for shows allows something amazing to happen. * It allows audiences to pass money DIRECTLY to television creators. * And that model is more honest and fairer than the advertising model which currently dominates broadcasting. It is a way better model, and better TV would be the outcome. It has the power to transform the type of shows being made because it makes television-makers directly accountable to their audience. Program makers would not have to pander to the needs of the network or the advertisers, but would put the audience first. Shows which have a small enthusiastic audience would not be dropped. Reality shows would have to stick in advertising land, because no-one would pay for that crap. Of course the networks and advertisers are fearful of being cut-out of the market. So while they still have power, they'll attempt to drive the prices of download TV ever higher. This is going to get interesting. C
It is wonderful how US citizens love the "Freedom" logo which is sewn invisibly onto every flag. They love it and their country - which is a cool thing. I wish Britons were more patriotic. But the funny thing is - as a European I feel that some freedoms seem noticably absent in the US. Real rights - which I enjoy. For example... The freedom to buy alcohol - as an adult. Denied until the age of 21. Never been "carded" in England. The freedom to have sexual intercourse. (Both heterosexual and homosexual) - the age of consent is 16 in the UK. The freedom to consume soft drugs. The freedom to decline mass immunization programs. And not to mention the fact that most European states no longer execute criminals (especially retartded or child criminals) - It is not just the government - walk into Tesco- the UKs largest retailler and take some photograps - no problem Walk into Walmart with a camera and you will be escorted off the premises. I guess freedom comes in different flavours. Carni
This was a genuinely distubing broadcast - although I think it is too early to base predictions. The essential point is that human activity had two effects: Greenhouse gasses trapped IR and had a warming effect. Pollution (particulates) created clouds and had a cooling effect. This was dramatically demonstrated by the no-fly ban after 9-11. When the absence of contrails caused an astonishing two degree temperature shift in just days. The two effects to some extent are cancelling each other out. Reducing the temperature shift and making things look much better than they are. As fuels get cleaner - the amount of particuate emission is reducing and the warming effect is more profound. So the upshot of the show was this: The models which are being proposed which co-relate CO2 to global warming are probably wrong. They are not nearly sensitive enough. If you model the cooling and heating phenomenon indendently you could have much larger temperature swings much sooner. The show went on to suggest some of the catestrophic effects of a 2 or 3 degree temperature shift over the next thirty years. This was slightly over-dramatic for my tastes. That said I would urge anyone interested in the environmental debate to watch this or read the transcript. Carni