I would like to add that just because you aren't paying the price for a big-name actor, it doesn't mean you're not able to get great acting. I'm not saying that good acting is common, but rather that you don't have to pay "famous-tax" on people who are not famous.
Put good-quality versions on a legit website, and people will watch (especially if it's free). I am in Canada, and I make good use of the CTV and Space websites (both show a selection of their shows that is growing). With every day that passes by, there is less reason to need a broadcast system for television programming. All people want is their favourite shows with availability like any youtube video, and it sounds like SG-U is yet another show to fall to "phantom viewers."
Exec 1: "Well, it looks like SG-U is popular, but only in torrents."
Exec 2: "Yeah, too bad there's no way to make money through some kind of on-line ad-supported video."
(a) Movies on-par with Inception: few people have problems to justify watching these.
(b) Movies on-par with Piranha 3D: most would rather watch youtube videos for 88 minutes.
While movies in category (a) will only compete (for viewer's attention) with other high-budget movies also in category (a), movies in category (b) can easily be replaced by indie filmmakers (e.g. "low" budget); especially when indie filmmakers put actual effort into plot, camerawork, and cinematics (i.e. make good movies).
Though I agree that all movie making ventures need not be huge expenditures, some movies just bleed cash. On one side we have movies that don't need to be expensive (e.g. Clerks, like you have said). On the opposite end of the spectrum are movies like Children of Men, where the pivotal scene just bleeds money. The more real stuff that blows up, the more cash will need to be spent. If you are willing to forgo the "cutting edge 'realism'" in stuff blowing up, a lot of money can be saved (think "B" movie special effects).
On the whole, I do think the industry is primed for some interesting events in the near future.
The problem with your analogy is that a junk musical instrument is not fundamentally different than a high-quality musical instrument (I mean of the same type, barring something like like extra keys). If you're good on a busted up piano, you'd be better on a grand piano; if you're good in MSPAINT, that doesn't mean sh*t in Photoshop, and I think that's MoonBuggy was getting at.
Actually, a net is as harmful to dolphins as it would be to humans. Dolphins are mammals and do breathe air instead of dissolved oxygen, and holding them underwater would prevent them from breathing air; in other words, dolphins are not fish
Nice.. This is how I figured my brain was working. It seemd to be interpreted as some sort of unknown scenery moving behind a rotating plate with a hole pattern in it.
Yeah, there is a ceiling up there somewhere, so "nowhere to go but up" is not quite certain. They are perched on their pedestal through their reputation of products and if they did anything to give themselves a bad enough name in the eyes of their users, then their position could easily be jeopardised.
Truly, it's the ads that support any show, and people need to realise this. Without ads, we wouldn't have had TV. The thing is that most of the money that you pay to get these channels on your box doesn't really go to the shows you want to watch; rather, the ads pay for that. Cutting out this "distribution middleman" and replacing it with "multipurpose internet provider" could kill two birds with one stone: you get your internet *and* also your TV subscription is cheap.
The current problem is that places like TPB have shown people a better content-delivery system: one with a vast amount of content (old and new), good quality, few loopholes, no bundled garbage (unwanted channels in your lineup package), etc. In my opinion, the problem is that a broadcast company is set up to distribute and make money through a certain means that was established and refined over the past 75 years (before the internet); with the advent of the internet, the world has been radically changed and their model threatened. These companies know how they need to change, but it'll take too much money to do so, and so they don't.
It seems like when it gets to this point in a corporation's life, capitalism dictates "hey, let's let someone else figure out the details while we keep making money, then copy them"; that, or "well it doesn't pay off in 5 years at 20% profit, so we're not doing it." This inflexibility and denial is the crux of economic and technological stagnation. The sad thing is that consumers know what they want and they'll try to achieve that as best possible, even if that means the creation and side-stepping of obtuse laws (which is already happening)
This brings me to question why is everyone always so blind with regard to history? These companies seem to be suffering at the hands of "rampant piracy," yet only push control even harder; does no one remember prohibition? Outlawing alcohol did nothing except make gangsters rich. When people want something and it's not available, they'll try to get it by whatever means they can. The best way to curb such illicit behaviour is not through increased "Orwellian" control of aspects of citizen's lives, but by just selling the public what they wanted in the first place. Is it that fu**ing hard to figure out?
Indium is also used in other devices, and known reserve is currently being depleted. If you have a bucket of water with a hole in it, adding a smaller hole won't make it drain any slower.
Gallium arsenide (another III-IV semiconductor) also has some superior properties to silicon-based implementations (for example, its hole mobility). The reason why silicon always finds use is the end cost (ease of fabrication, really). Most of the time, silicon is used unless it lacks characteristics that the device requires (probably centred around its band gap characteristics). I guess the bottom line is whether this type of fabrication could be worked into existing methods, with good fabrication success rates, and a cost that is not prohibitive; otherwise, its use will be only in niche products.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to add that just because you aren't paying the price for a big-name actor, it doesn't mean you're not able to get great acting. I'm not saying that good acting is common, but rather that you don't have to pay "famous-tax" on people who are not famous.
I should have added that I consider it a "never want to see" movie.
Piranha 3D ;)
Put good-quality versions on a legit website, and people will watch (especially if it's free). I am in Canada, and I make good use of the CTV and Space websites (both show a selection of their shows that is growing). With every day that passes by, there is less reason to need a broadcast system for television programming. All people want is their favourite shows with availability like any youtube video, and it sounds like SG-U is yet another show to fall to "phantom viewers."
Exec 1: "Well, it looks like SG-U is popular, but only in torrents."
Exec 2: "Yeah, too bad there's no way to make money through some kind of on-line ad-supported video."
Exec 1: "Yes. Better scrap it."
I think what is happening is like this:
(a) Movies on-par with Inception: few people have problems to justify watching these.
(b) Movies on-par with Piranha 3D: most would rather watch youtube videos for 88 minutes.
While movies in category (a) will only compete (for viewer's attention) with other high-budget movies also in category (a), movies in category (b) can easily be replaced by indie filmmakers (e.g. "low" budget); especially when indie filmmakers put actual effort into plot, camerawork, and cinematics (i.e. make good movies).
Though I agree that all movie making ventures need not be huge expenditures, some movies just bleed cash. On one side we have movies that don't need to be expensive (e.g. Clerks, like you have said). On the opposite end of the spectrum are movies like Children of Men, where the pivotal scene just bleeds money. The more real stuff that blows up, the more cash will need to be spent. If you are willing to forgo the "cutting edge 'realism'" in stuff blowing up, a lot of money can be saved (think "B" movie special effects).
On the whole, I do think the industry is primed for some interesting events in the near future.
The problem with your analogy is that a junk musical instrument is not fundamentally different than a high-quality musical instrument (I mean of the same type, barring something like like extra keys). If you're good on a busted up piano, you'd be better on a grand piano; if you're good in MSPAINT, that doesn't mean sh*t in Photoshop, and I think that's MoonBuggy was getting at.
"If you think your boss isn't paying you enough, it's probably because he's a greedy bastard"
Or because he knows you are worth or will accept less :P
It is well-deserved
Finally, someone gets it!
I think we need some robotic overlords making some decisions, then ;)
Actually, a net is as harmful to dolphins as it would be to humans. Dolphins are mammals and do breathe air instead of dissolved oxygen, and holding them underwater would prevent them from breathing air; in other words, dolphins are not fish
Nice.. This is how I figured my brain was working. It seemd to be interpreted as some sort of unknown scenery moving behind a rotating plate with a hole pattern in it.
One hopes the writer is joking, but it depends how strong the kool-aid is mixed in their case
Yeah, there is a ceiling up there somewhere, so "nowhere to go but up" is not quite certain. They are perched on their pedestal through their reputation of products and if they did anything to give themselves a bad enough name in the eyes of their users, then their position could easily be jeopardised.
Insanity is not stupidity
Truly, it's the ads that support any show, and people need to realise this. Without ads, we wouldn't have had TV. The thing is that most of the money that you pay to get these channels on your box doesn't really go to the shows you want to watch; rather, the ads pay for that. Cutting out this "distribution middleman" and replacing it with "multipurpose internet provider" could kill two birds with one stone: you get your internet *and* also your TV subscription is cheap.
The current problem is that places like TPB have shown people a better content-delivery system: one with a vast amount of content (old and new), good quality, few loopholes, no bundled garbage (unwanted channels in your lineup package), etc. In my opinion, the problem is that a broadcast company is set up to distribute and make money through a certain means that was established and refined over the past 75 years (before the internet); with the advent of the internet, the world has been radically changed and their model threatened. These companies know how they need to change, but it'll take too much money to do so, and so they don't.
It seems like when it gets to this point in a corporation's life, capitalism dictates "hey, let's let someone else figure out the details while we keep making money, then copy them"; that, or "well it doesn't pay off in 5 years at 20% profit, so we're not doing it." This inflexibility and denial is the crux of economic and technological stagnation. The sad thing is that consumers know what they want and they'll try to achieve that as best possible, even if that means the creation and side-stepping of obtuse laws (which is already happening)
This brings me to question why is everyone always so blind with regard to history? These companies seem to be suffering at the hands of "rampant piracy," yet only push control even harder; does no one remember prohibition? Outlawing alcohol did nothing except make gangsters rich. When people want something and it's not available, they'll try to get it by whatever means they can. The best way to curb such illicit behaviour is not through increased "Orwellian" control of aspects of citizen's lives, but by just selling the public what they wanted in the first place. Is it that fu**ing hard to figure out?
The only thing preventing an innovation renaissance is patent squatters and trolls; this is ironic, because patents were meant to promote innovation.
The android platform seems to be gaining a large market share recently, and I don't doubt that this action is a knee-jerk because of it.
you mean minecrack
Indium is also used in other devices, and known reserve is currently being depleted. If you have a bucket of water with a hole in it, adding a smaller hole won't make it drain any slower.
Gallium arsenide (another III-IV semiconductor) also has some superior properties to silicon-based implementations (for example, its hole mobility). The reason why silicon always finds use is the end cost (ease of fabrication, really). Most of the time, silicon is used unless it lacks characteristics that the device requires (probably centred around its band gap characteristics). I guess the bottom line is whether this type of fabrication could be worked into existing methods, with good fabrication success rates, and a cost that is not prohibitive; otherwise, its use will be only in niche products.
*metres per second
Nice. Such a logical and rational viewpoint, and I agree.
Worldwide copper shortage