Today's television advertising consists of several "layers." Typically, the production company gets a few to cover their costs (since unless the show is produced in house, the networks won't pay for most programming, just provide a time slot... Mythbusters-level shows do get money for production, but only after they've proven themselves). The network get the bulk of ad time, since they own the pipe. Then the local cable/satellite company gets a few to help recoup the fees they have to pay the programmer. So out of that 8 minutes or so of ads in a half-hour show, the production company may see 2-3 minutes, the network gets 4-6 and the cable company gets 1-1.5 minutes. Obviously there's room for negotiation and different networks have different deals.
As for quality of programming, I think there's a lot of good stuff out there and it's not all on HBO. I'm certain a lot of it would never get made if the production company could only get financing from the network, or a rich uncle.
Not true. While you are right that HBO didn't carry advertising, most out of market stations were just passed through, with ads. Then WTBS went up on the satellite and started charing their advertisers national rates. When Turner started up his other networks he kept the advertising/subscription model. Soon the other superstations (WGN, etc) started charging national rates too. By the time the channel explosion happened in the 1980s everyone expected to run ads.
But, until the engineers get involved on a real fix I wouldn't bother changing your lifestyle, other than maybe switching to LED lights and turning down the thermostat. Politicians never fix anything.
And most online data was text. You can send pages of text in a few seconds, even over a 9600 Baud link. 128Kbps was considered very fast back then. Heck, even today mostly text based transfers like Twitter updates or WAP web pages are fairly quick on 2G.
Even AOL cached icons and other graphics on the user's PC. Every few weeks they'd send down an update that had any new graphics.
That's right, but the result (not continuing their genetic line due to weak immunity) is the same. It doesn't matter that the weakness was due high level brain functions.
Again, not saying it's right, and yes, the parents need to be tried for infanticide.
This reminds me of how I spent 12/31/1999, sitting in a windowless conference room with a bunch of co-workers, watching the rest of the world have fun.
Meanwhile, because we had all done the legwork months ago, nothing bad happened. If the management has such low faith that their systems will work they should either pay up for the good stuff (hardware, code, etc) or get out of the business. I think you could even keep a Windows 95 machine running for a month.
So do you think our old-media friends will ever point out when a Facebook or other tracking/logging program proves someone wasn't committing a crime because he was at home at the time of the incident?
Well then it makes a lot of sense to standardize on cheap, largely the same hardware. As the article points out:
The switches Google was building typically sat at the top of a rack of servers in the data center, connecting the servers to the rest of the network. As Juniper points out, this is only part of the networking hardware used in the data, but it’s a large part.
So the low level, short haul connections use cheap switches. Makes perfect sense. I'm sure they still need the Ciscos and Junipers to interconnect far-flung data centers and to Tier 1 providers like Level 3 and especially the telcos.
People buy Cisco for 2 reasons: the 4 hour service guarantee and because you can interface just about anything to anything else with them. Two things you don't need in a highly redundant monolithic data center.
I don't think GPS moving map displays are the problem, at least after the first few times you use one. The larger issue is the terrible touch UI. It just isn't a good system when driving. I used to have an N95 that I used for navigation and as an MP3 player. I could easily search/spell using T9 without looking or with just a quick glance to make sure it had the correct spelling while driving. Now that I have an Android phone, I have to look at the screen to do anything because there's no way to feel the keyboard under my fingers. It is FAR more distracting to the point that I often need to pull over just to pick a new album.
I'm really looking forward to next generation systems that don't need touchscreens. The new Audi nav system that lets you draw letters on a console mounted touchpad is a good start. Steering wheel controls that could interface with phone's bluetooth HID protocol and act like a joystick mouse would be better.
Really? Looking down and seeing a big 75 is more taxing that looking at an angle of a pointer, that is pointing at a hash mark between 70 and 80 that is a little bit longer than all the other hash marks between 70 and 80?
It's only because of historical reasons we have analog displays. They all just read all their info from the computer and then generate an analog-like display. It would be much cheaper and simpler for companies to just use LCD flatpanels at this point. They already have hoods over the displays to shield the sun, so washout wouldn't be a big issue.
My new Ford truck has a driver "info center" on the dash. It also displays fuel economy, both as an average (fairly accurate) and a real-time graph (totally useless).
I use my phone's navigation app, mostly because it can update traffic and road conditions ahead. But I position it where it isn't distracting, is easy to get to and I don't mess with it once I enter a detestation.
I seem to remember reading that the driving public loved numerical displays, but car reviewers hated them. Having driven an old GMC Jimmy with a digital dashboard I thought it was a good idea.
It may have been in The Design of Everyday Things but maybe not. Maybe Stewart Brand's "The Media Lab" but again, maybe not.
I love their reactions to me presenting them with the following facts about WTC:
1) It was built on a shoestring budget 2) In the 1970s. 3) Using mob-connected contractors 4) By the (at the time bankrupt) City of New York. 5) Using an untested "open floorplan" design, with over 90% of the building hollow. 6) And some of the first recycled steel.
It's a wonder the damn things stood up at all.
But no, it's much easier to believe they were built to outlast the pyramids and a bunch of CIA types planted detcord throughout.
Back when I climbed telephone poles for a living (and had the body that goes along with it), I regularly climbed towers for our amateur radio repeater network. Once you're in place and tied down, the work is actually fairly easy. But we had a lot of ground support (and ropes and pulleys) to do the heavy lifting. But the first time you go above 50 feet or so it gets a little unnerving.
Slashdot Mirror
Today's television advertising consists of several "layers." Typically, the production company gets a few to cover their costs (since unless the show is produced in house, the networks won't pay for most programming, just provide a time slot... Mythbusters-level shows do get money for production, but only after they've proven themselves). The network get the bulk of ad time, since they own the pipe. Then the local cable/satellite company gets a few to help recoup the fees they have to pay the programmer. So out of that 8 minutes or so of ads in a half-hour show, the production company may see 2-3 minutes, the network gets 4-6 and the cable company gets 1-1.5 minutes. Obviously there's room for negotiation and different networks have different deals.
As for quality of programming, I think there's a lot of good stuff out there and it's not all on HBO. I'm certain a lot of it would never get made if the production company could only get financing from the network, or a rich uncle.
Not true. While you are right that HBO didn't carry advertising, most out of market stations were just passed through, with ads. Then WTBS went up on the satellite and started charing their advertisers national rates. When Turner started up his other networks he kept the advertising/subscription model. Soon the other superstations (WGN, etc) started charging national rates too. By the time the channel explosion happened in the 1980s everyone expected to run ads.
That's Radioactive Man, dingus!
The "Other Planets are Heating up too" hypothesis has been debunked:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
But, until the engineers get involved on a real fix I wouldn't bother changing your lifestyle, other than maybe switching to LED lights and turning down the thermostat. Politicians never fix anything.
And most online data was text. You can send pages of text in a few seconds, even over a 9600 Baud link. 128Kbps was considered very fast back then. Heck, even today mostly text based transfers like Twitter updates or WAP web pages are fairly quick on 2G.
Even AOL cached icons and other graphics on the user's PC. Every few weeks they'd send down an update that had any new graphics.
That's right, but the result (not continuing their genetic line due to weak immunity) is the same. It doesn't matter that the weakness was due high level brain functions.
Again, not saying it's right, and yes, the parents need to be tried for infanticide.
This reminds me of how I spent 12/31/1999, sitting in a windowless conference room with a bunch of co-workers, watching the rest of the world have fun.
Meanwhile, because we had all done the legwork months ago, nothing bad happened. If the management has such low faith that their systems will work they should either pay up for the good stuff (hardware, code, etc) or get out of the business. I think you could even keep a Windows 95 machine running for a month.
Anyone who's more willing to listen to a centerfold model/actress for medical advice deserves what they get.
I do feel bad for their children.
So do you think our old-media friends will ever point out when a Facebook or other tracking/logging program proves someone wasn't committing a crime because he was at home at the time of the incident?
If said poor person lived in Comcast's footprint they can get 1.5Mbps for $10/month:
http://moneyland.time.com/2011/08/10/comcasts-internet-essentials-10-a-month-service-for-low-income-families/
There are some restrictions, like not having an active account for the past 90 days, so shut off the cable and wait a few months.
And east of the prime meridian.
Well then it makes a lot of sense to standardize on cheap, largely the same hardware. As the article points out:
The switches Google was building typically sat at the top of a rack of servers in the data center, connecting the servers to the rest of the network. As Juniper points out, this is only part of the networking hardware used in the data, but it’s a large part.
So the low level, short haul connections use cheap switches. Makes perfect sense. I'm sure they still need the Ciscos and Junipers to interconnect far-flung data centers and to Tier 1 providers like Level 3 and especially the telcos.
People buy Cisco for 2 reasons: the 4 hour service guarantee and because you can interface just about anything to anything else with them. Two things you don't need in a highly redundant monolithic data center.
Circuit City was OK before Best Buy started their expansion. Then CC decided they had to compete on price and the merchandise suffered.
Also, they wear a helmet in case the airbag does go off and fling their arms into their face.
Belt and suspenders, that's the F1 way.
Short commute. (JK) Always use a cigarette lighter adapter if you've got access to one.
I don't think GPS moving map displays are the problem, at least after the first few times you use one. The larger issue is the terrible touch UI. It just isn't a good system when driving. I used to have an N95 that I used for navigation and as an MP3 player. I could easily search/spell using T9 without looking or with just a quick glance to make sure it had the correct spelling while driving. Now that I have an Android phone, I have to look at the screen to do anything because there's no way to feel the keyboard under my fingers. It is FAR more distracting to the point that I often need to pull over just to pick a new album.
I'm really looking forward to next generation systems that don't need touchscreens. The new Audi nav system that lets you draw letters on a console mounted touchpad is a good start. Steering wheel controls that could interface with phone's bluetooth HID protocol and act like a joystick mouse would be better.
Much more distracting was the giant billboard with a picture of a woman's derrière.
Really? Looking down and seeing a big 75 is more taxing that looking at an angle of a pointer, that is pointing at a hash mark between 70 and 80 that is a little bit longer than all the other hash marks between 70 and 80?
It's only because of historical reasons we have analog displays. They all just read all their info from the computer and then generate an analog-like display. It would be much cheaper and simpler for companies to just use LCD flatpanels at this point. They already have hoods over the displays to shield the sun, so washout wouldn't be a big issue.
My new Ford truck has a driver "info center" on the dash. It also displays fuel economy, both as an average (fairly accurate) and a real-time graph (totally useless).
I use my phone's navigation app, mostly because it can update traffic and road conditions ahead. But I position it where it isn't distracting, is easy to get to and I don't mess with it once I enter a detestation.
I seem to remember reading that the driving public loved numerical displays, but car reviewers hated them. Having driven an old GMC Jimmy with a digital dashboard I thought it was a good idea.
It may have been in The Design of Everyday Things but maybe not. Maybe Stewart Brand's "The Media Lab" but again, maybe not.
How about the Off-World colonies? I hear you can get your own Nexus 5.
Involving using the main deflector dish to generate a tachyon field, of course.
I love their reactions to me presenting them with the following facts about WTC:
1) It was built on a shoestring budget
2) In the 1970s.
3) Using mob-connected contractors
4) By the (at the time bankrupt) City of New York.
5) Using an untested "open floorplan" design, with over 90% of the building hollow.
6) And some of the first recycled steel.
It's a wonder the damn things stood up at all.
But no, it's much easier to believe they were built to outlast the pyramids and a bunch of CIA types planted detcord throughout.
You forgot one more bullet point:
- Tablets look a whole lot like their paper counterparts. Rectangular, sized to be hand-held, and used with hands and eyes.
Back when I climbed telephone poles for a living (and had the body that goes along with it), I regularly climbed towers for our amateur radio repeater network. Once you're in place and tied down, the work is actually fairly easy. But we had a lot of ground support (and ropes and pulleys) to do the heavy lifting. But the first time you go above 50 feet or so it gets a little unnerving.