I heard about this earlier today. I thought, wouldn't it be cool to be a fly on the wall when the national sales manager from Fox Home Video sits down with the video buyer for Wal-Mart, the guy who buys 40 percent of all the DVDs these guys and all the others put out -- that would be 40 out of every 100 -- so I'd love to be a little black fly when the national sales guy from Fox clears his throat and says "Joe [pseudonym], here's what we're thinking of doing with Comcast." And I'm thinking the video buyer sits there in the plain meeting room -- I think they have folding chairs and a simple table -- and he's a nice southern boy, so he jus' sits there and listens while this dude from California lays out the whole idea and there's a moment of silence, and then he says: "well Joe, did you have any other ideas you'd like to share with us?"
oooooooh, I'd love to be there for that!
there may be other factors that impact the commercial success of netflix, but video on demand is not likely to be one of them. many vod tests, in this country and england, have failed for lack of consumer support. the vod model of searching titles is totally unsatisfactory to the consumer pattern of search and shop. the vod model is a tree structure, a binary search across categories and sub categories. netflix has done an interesting job of pioneering a non hierarchical recommendation process now available through Macromedia. the other albatross that vod has to bear is the complete inability of cable system operators to market anything.. but that's another story.
My reasoning is that understanding global processes is something that a leader in science and technology ought to be interested in. That's pretty simple. We have floating bouys all over the world reporting to our satellites with information relayed to NASA and NOAA supercomputer centers. Another post talks about the USGS Hawaii office detecting the earthquake in this region. Of course we should have monitors and of course there should be funding for scientific investigations of these matters because of course it's a really important global environmental issue. And if we have the information that can protect and save lives, then we actually do have a moral responsibility to share that information. Others may or may not act and that is in their court. But our failure to act is on us.
I ask you why we should not have an informed, intelligent program of scientific discovery aimed at understanding global processes -- some of which may affect us directly and others of which affect us indirectly, but all of which contribute to a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Other governments and other nations may do other things. But why are we not investing in the science of this matter?
The US has scientific interests all around the globe which are justified based on a broad understanding of how global weather and geological systems work. Of course the US should have had monitoring equipment along the fault line that finally broke! It would have been an appropriate scientific investment for this government to make.
I believe that the network of floating bouys and underwater sensors in the Pacific Ocean is run and operated by NOAA and the USGS. The fact is that most of the world is instrumented by our weather service and the Geological Survey, with reports fed by satellite to various centers for analysis. Hurricane forecasts in the Atlantic, the Caribbean, and the Pacific have all benefitted from this network.
It is totally wrong to say that the financial and technological burden of instrumenting what was well known as the absolute hot spot on the earth's crust belonged to "governments in the indian ocean". We (this country) do these things in the interest of science and humanity.
Those who observe that the US did nothing to mitigate the loss of life in this instance really have only to look at our government's annual budgets to see that their arguments are quite correct. Our leadership would rather kill Iraqi's than contribute to a scientific understanding of global environmental processes that benefit humanity.
I like the sound of this product a lot. Many economic development initiatives -- the distribution of pharmaceuticals in third world countries for example -- are based on retail store designs that have no point-of-sale check/customer-member management system. This sounds like exactly the right kind of product for that kind of application -- which could be critical in improving delivery of health care throughout Africa through existing initiatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard about this earlier today. I thought, wouldn't it be cool to be a fly on the wall when the national sales manager from Fox Home Video sits down with the video buyer for Wal-Mart, the guy who buys 40 percent of all the DVDs these guys and all the others put out -- that would be 40 out of every 100 -- so I'd love to be a little black fly when the national sales guy from Fox clears his throat and says "Joe [pseudonym], here's what we're thinking of doing with Comcast." And I'm thinking the video buyer sits there in the plain meeting room -- I think they have folding chairs and a simple table -- and he's a nice southern boy, so he jus' sits there and listens while this dude from California lays out the whole idea and there's a moment of silence, and then he says: "well Joe, did you have any other ideas you'd like to share with us?" oooooooh, I'd love to be there for that!
there may be other factors that impact the commercial success of netflix, but video on demand is not likely to be one of them. many vod tests, in this country and england, have failed for lack of consumer support. the vod model of searching titles is totally unsatisfactory to the consumer pattern of search and shop. the vod model is a tree structure, a binary search across categories and sub categories. netflix has done an interesting job of pioneering a non hierarchical recommendation process now available through Macromedia. the other albatross that vod has to bear is the complete inability of cable system operators to market anything .. but that's another story.
My reasoning is that understanding global processes is something that a leader in science and technology ought to be interested in. That's pretty simple. We have floating bouys all over the world reporting to our satellites with information relayed to NASA and NOAA supercomputer centers. Another post talks about the USGS Hawaii office detecting the earthquake in this region. Of course we should have monitors and of course there should be funding for scientific investigations of these matters because of course it's a really important global environmental issue. And if we have the information that can protect and save lives, then we actually do have a moral responsibility to share that information. Others may or may not act and that is in their court. But our failure to act is on us.
I ask you why we should not have an informed, intelligent program of scientific discovery aimed at understanding global processes -- some of which may affect us directly and others of which affect us indirectly, but all of which contribute to a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Other governments and other nations may do other things. But why are we not investing in the science of this matter?
The US has scientific interests all around the globe which are justified based on a broad understanding of how global weather and geological systems work. Of course the US should have had monitoring equipment along the fault line that finally broke! It would have been an appropriate scientific investment for this government to make.
I believe that the network of floating bouys and underwater sensors in the Pacific Ocean is run and operated by NOAA and the USGS. The fact is that most of the world is instrumented by our weather service and the Geological Survey, with reports fed by satellite to various centers for analysis. Hurricane forecasts in the Atlantic, the Caribbean, and the Pacific have all benefitted from this network. It is totally wrong to say that the financial and technological burden of instrumenting what was well known as the absolute hot spot on the earth's crust belonged to "governments in the indian ocean". We (this country) do these things in the interest of science and humanity. Those who observe that the US did nothing to mitigate the loss of life in this instance really have only to look at our government's annual budgets to see that their arguments are quite correct. Our leadership would rather kill Iraqi's than contribute to a scientific understanding of global environmental processes that benefit humanity.
I like the sound of this product a lot. Many economic development initiatives -- the distribution of pharmaceuticals in third world countries for example -- are based on retail store designs that have no point-of-sale check/customer-member management system. This sounds like exactly the right kind of product for that kind of application -- which could be critical in improving delivery of health care throughout Africa through existing initiatives.
Somebody should have said that this is really Very Funny! Especially Funny. I'll be they are mostly French Ions, and you know ....