Video Distribution Platform Aiming to Kill TV 207
skaterperson writes "I just read about Downhill Battle's new open source video platform - a publishing tool based off of BattleTorrent and a video player written in Python. They've started a whole new organization to sponsor the project. They say "TV channels" will be made out of RSS feeds and anybody can subscribe to another user's content channel. The system is being designed for the express purpose of putting broadcasting in the hands of individuals. I like this idea of using recent advances in filesharing and syndication to allow aggregated content to be delivered to your desktop. There is a radio show on the project available at echoradio." The project is just getting underway, with a (hopeful) launch date sometime in June of this year.
"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:5, Funny)
Screw that...in the future, everyone will have their own public-access TV show.
Seriously though, where is this going? It sounds like for every person who decides to actually publish something with thought and content, about 100 people will just be publishing their webcam of them going about their day. This impending explosion of mind-numbing neo-reality TV is going to make Survivor look like Shakespeare.
Here's a tip: folks, if you're wondering if your day-to-day existence is interesting enough to make into a reality TVshow, odd are you're WRONG. Keep it to yourself.
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:2)
But there are a lot of people that use google as their gateway to the internet.
Googling for videos might one day get to be easier than buying cable, and using the tv remote + cable box remote.
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:3, Interesting)
In those cases you will find people that provide access to RSS selections. Different people will set up a collection of RSS selections and probably sell that selection to the less knowing. We see that today with News Services. How much of the news from CNN or Times come from Reuters or Associated Press, and then some of their own.
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:3, Interesting)
If this platform takes off with the geeks then the content will be out there and the geeks will make a knoppix distro that you control with a remote. Now all grandma has to do is buy an E-machine at wallmart, pick up a supported remote and plug her computer into the TV and internet. Pick up the remote, subscribe to some shows and drink some tea while she waits for the shows to stream in.
Re:better have lots of tea (Score:2)
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:2, Interesting)
but they are
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:5, Insightful)
First -- textual blogs. Then -- foto blogs (Flikr, FotoLog). Next -- video clips, then continuous video-streaming, and so on with the possible future technologies (3D-video, avatars, etc.)
Not everyone has a blog today -- most people never will. This hobby (or profession) is not for all. Some prefer hiking, cars, computers...
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:5, Insightful)
That hasn't stopped pod casting has it?
All of these personal communication technologies, from email, through web sites, the evolution into blogs, podcasting and now this are full of crap. Really. After all, how many web sites of the ones you've surfed have you found interesting enough to check on a regular basis? 10%? And how many of those were personal sites?
Most of the net content is ego based, not quality based, and unless someone is prepared to put quality content on there it will remain as marginalised as the current ego trip hyped as pod casting.
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:2, Funny)
Of course, it would only be pay per view. I've already started writing the business plan and will be submiting the plan for financing to a local group of investors. Wish me luck! I'll be famous one day!
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:2)
Mod parent down, -1 Depressing.
Fifteen minutes of LAME. (Score:2, Funny)
I can see it now..."Tune in at 3AM and watch me troll some obscure PHP BB in my own special mini series called "Troll that board!"
Uggg.
On the other end of the spectrum, it would be nice to get an all-tech television channel going again, like the early days of ZDTV (Tech TV)
Re:Fifteen minutes of LAME. (Score:2)
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is it going? (Score:3, Interesting)
No more religious-right influence on content.
No more psy-ops programs at weekday prime-time.
Girlfriend, you've got your own TV show...
I for one welcome our self-producing-TV-show overlord masters. The previous ones were crap!!
Re:Where is it going? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't look tilted to the left if you're already on the left. The reason it looks so right-slanted in the first place is that there's nothing much to the left of them except grumpy soviet-era communists, and they often leftists consider themselves "centrists". To me (as a small-L libertarian), the media looks like it's tilted towards Authoritarianism, with a (to me irrelevant) wide array of left-to-right positions on which particular liberties they want curtailed. It's really a pointless argument to pursue, because everyone has a tendency to see themselves as being more "centrist" than they actually are, and from their point of view things will always seem to slant the other direction.
Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (Score:3, Interesting)
This is about the lowering of cost on broadcast and near broadcast quality production me
Fifteen minutes of Slashdot" (Score:2)
Seriously though, where is this going? It sound like for every person who posts a comment with thought and content, about 100 people will just be posting the first thing that comes into their head. This impending explosion of mind-numbing neo-comments is going to make Hemos look like Shakespeare.
Here's a tip: folks, if you'er wondering if your thought is interesting enough to make a worthwhile comment, odds are you're WRONG. Keep
We're all famous! (Score:2)
What's not serious? Everybody already has their own radio show [ipodder.org]. And according to NPR [onthemedia.org], one of the most popular podcasts is The Dawn and Drew Show [dawnanddrew.com], which is nothing but an ordinary couple discussing their day before going to bed. Not something I'd bother with, but I have to admit that it's better programming than, say, Extreme Makeover.
My own opinion is that the technology isn't there yet for anybody to k
Ten Commandments Be Damned (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (Score:3, Funny)
This scares me. (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, there is talent out there, but is the way to find them to give everyone a tv show and then filter out the bad ones?
Re:This scares me. (Score:2)
Granted, live-action videos are different than cartoons. But I'll be willing to bet that there will be at least something interesting to come out of this.
Re:This scares me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This scares me. (Score:2)
Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama. (Score:4, Insightful)
My point is that you can have all sorts of fancy delivery systems and video on demand stuff. Most real people will continue to turn on the TV and flip channels looking for "Reba" reuns for a long, long time. Don't throw out those rabbit earrs quite yet.
Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (Score:2)
Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (Score:2)
Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (Score:2)
Rabbit ears? Rabbit ears? Rabbit ears? What sort of nerd poseur are you? You should make your own antenna out of coaxial cable!
Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (Score:2)
They can always have this stuff built in to a settop or something.
But what hardware company would make it (no profit in selling shows, therefore
no hardware subsidy, therefore $499 settops instead of $49 one-offs) and what
content company would subsidise the bandwidth required to allow it?
Zero.
Really this kind of effort needs to be organised in cooperation with existing
networks and NOT a hippy open-source movement. Public access cable is the PITS,
people want Star Trek, they want Desperate Housewives, they
Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had some kind of measurable brain function, I was not speaking elitist. My point was that people are wrong to declare an embedded technology like TV dead. People in our business (tech) tend to forget the vast majority of people still like the simplicity of free TV and it's nice little remote control.
Feel free to shift that chip over to the other shoulder....it must be getting heavy.
Content is king (Score:5, Insightful)
One such example is sports. I'm not interested in a low quality broadcast of the SuperBowl. I'll take the commercial production of the SuperBowl any time.
Re:Content is king (Score:5, Insightful)
People thought everyone would publish their own magazines when desktop publishing came around, and it would transform the world. Ditto with cheap video cameras, audio recording equipment, etc. The truth is, digestible content is expensive and labor intensive to produce, no matter what the technology involved.
Re:what about rendered content (i.e. Red vs Blue) (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure the image quality of rendered content right now is such that no one is going to mistake it for live action. BUT, when you take a look at what engines like Unreal Engine 3 are capable of and you extrapolate out a few more years then you
Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (Score:3, Interesting)
This does sound like a really cool thing though. One thing I'm wondering about is whether this will actually work or not. I'm sure they must have done a fair bit of testing to have gotten this far with it but I have to wonder if something like BitTorrent would actually work for streaming video at consistently acceptable speeds. Don't get me wrong, BitTorrent is awesome and very often gives me great speeds but it just as often goes incredibly slow. As in 1-2KB/s slow.
Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (Score:2)
Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (Score:2, Insightful)
Popular channels = Great quality, great speeds
Crap = Crap speeds
Of course, let's hope that the original seed has a good connection.
Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (Score:2, Interesting)
crappy popular shit like Survivor and American Idol = Great speed! HDTV quality!!
Educational shows, documentaries, GOOD sci-fi/drama with good plots and stories without pandering to the masses and LCD = Shitty speed and quality
Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (Score:2)
Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
Putting publishing/broadcasting in the hands of The People has shown us one thing: The People are perverts.
Re:Great... (Score:2)
Hmm, pr0n with carrots? And Wesson Oil? Sub-SCRIBE!
TV is harder than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
At best this will create a lot of 640x320 webcam videos being viewed by noone, and a couple semi-pro's showing their content before going "big time."
Re:TV is harder than you think (Score:4, Insightful)
having a million dollars in equipment will not make bad acting, bad writing and bad direction better.
your lighting kit can be built at home depot for less than $100.00. audio equipment can be low end lapel microphones or a cheap shotgun mic ducttaped to a broom handle. and the camera can be any DV camera made.
Examples? Blair witch was made with what I just mentioned to you. And many other indie films that are pretty darn good are also... check out rewindvideo.com for some more.
YOU DO NOT NEED EXPENSIVE GEAR.
Good Thing You Won't Be Leading the Charge (Score:2)
Re:TV is harder than you think (Score:2)
Re:TV is harder than you think (Score:2)
Payment? Are you crazy?! Artists who want money to support their work are merely tools of the evil **AA elitist coporate Combine overlords! As we all know, art produced for pay is worthless, pandering, lowest-common-denominator swill aimed at the mindless, sheep-like masses. The only good art is that which is obtainable for free and aimed at social groups so tiny they're bordering on extinct. And as long as I have you here, migh
BlogTorrent, not BattleTorrent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BlogTorrent, not BattleTorrent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BlogTorrent, not BattleTorrent (Score:2)
(I'm ignoring the storage and bandwidth costs associated with
Duh.
Content? (Score:3, Insightful)
TV is good because it assumes that I watch the commercials and endure some content I'd rather not. That's the current model that pays for things.
In a choose your own feed senario advertising becomes pruned. So, who makes new content and who pays for it?
Re:Content? (Score:2)
Re:Content? (Score:2, Informative)
Sometimes we have a message, sometimes a new rendering technique, and sometimes we just want to entertain, but we're not s
Content, content, content. (Score:2, Insightful)
Content - MY WAY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaning the networks are better at deciding what content the masses want rather then the masses is rediculous! It may be true in the sense that the networks are the only ones who can control the distribution of said content, good or otherwise.
What is happening now is more and more passive viewers are not plopping their arses down for several hours a night to watch advertising saturated "primetime" content. More and more are using technology to record and view what the want when they want.
Primetime and the telelvision advertising model is rapidly disappearing. That is the PRIMARY reason the industry is fighting so hard for the broadcast flag. They must control the hardware or the user will decide when and where the content is consumered not the network and their advertising model goes out the window.
What the Broadcast Flag is really protecting is the networks advertising model not content. Once users can no longer freely record and watch content the way they want, they will simply find alternatives or find another source of entertainment.
Don't laugh. This GARBAGE the networks call content is also drastically shrinking the "masses" that tune in at primetime. There is an ever growing list of more stimulating alternatives that do not require the user to sit through hours and hours of advertising. And that is what everyone is trying to protect... the MONEY!
Locking down shitty content will only cause viewers to find alternative content. Locking down good or better content will only PISS OFF and alienate an ever-shrinking audience!
Re:Content - MY WAY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Given a chance at something different, I think a surprising amount of people will jump on it.
Re:Content - MY WAY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning the networks are better at deciding what content the masses want rather then the masses is rediculous! It may be true in the sense that the networks are the only ones who can control the distribution of said content, good or otherwise.
I don't think that is what it means. I think what it means is the networks are better at making content. This is because they have money and employ lots of people who make TV professionally. Doesn't mean it is all good, but it has a better chance of being something
Nope (Score:2, Interesting)
Podcasting is beginning to creep into this, but there aren't more than about a dozen "real" (i.e. not produced originally as a podcast) programs being podcast (e.g. BBC 'In Our Time', Virgin Radio 'Pete and Geoff Show', WGBH Morning Stories), and these aren't otherwise commercially a
Maybe (Score:2)
For this to kill TV, (or even groovily coexist as an alternative) it would require current producers of worthwhile content (e.g. battlestar galactica rather than survivor) to be willing to publish their content by these means.
Were copyright terms reasonable, this would be a great way to publish collections of works that have entered the public domain. As it is, this could still be a good forum for playing the few old movies and films that are now public. Add on to that, some cheaply produced, but inter
Re:Nope (Score:2)
In the US alternative language shows say from Russia, China, Mexico, and Korea could be bought cheap and broadcast here.
Swarmcast, Opencola be damned (Score:2)
Re:Swarmcast, Opencola be damned (Score:2)
BT is easier and came at a time when a new carrier was needed. Thus it reached a larger audience and took off.
Re:Swarmcast, Opencola be damned (Score:2)
Delightful. How long until Mr. Chapweske decides to hire a few lawyers to go after the infrigners..? I wonder if our Bittorrent Friends are
Why.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe this is a bit off topic, but it has to be said.. Why is every other new tech story on slashdot about one technology/software/whatever trying to KILL another one? I think the appropriate word is "competition". Headlines like the above have lost their sensationalism through over use. Everyone take one step backwards towards reality.
That said.. unless your average 'other user' can spend millions to put together quality and/or entertaining programming, I don't see television leaving the picture anytim
Who wants the MBONE, huh? huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
But the MBONE broke down. Because there weren't enough multicast addresses to go around. Because multicast had scaling issues with the way feeds got pruned when the # and size of data sources grew large.
Now, even today, multicast is the forgotten cousin who sits alone under the tree. Corporate networks rarely run PIM or enable multicast. It doesn't even get enabled in small ponds, despite lots of books from guys like Beau Williamson on how to configure it. It gets ignored in the face of a plethora of multicast client and multicast capable encoders.
Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, got rich selling broadcast.com. The idea was something akin to Rob Glaser and Real, bring streaming video to the masses. Except we have to use unicast and spend our time making tweaks to UDP at the application layer, because that's the only way it will work. Because we can't even create a central organization to manage DNS correctly, much less be issuing and retrieving a scare commodity of multicast IP addresses. People will hog them! The television networks will get the FCC! Boo hoo!
Shame really. The promise of watching community produced tv from any garage in the world now falls to projects like these, which fall back on bitTorrent to recreate the essential function of a multicast routing protocol: to overlap a node tree map on the internet.
Perhaps this reinvention of the wheel one more time will get it working. But this problem comes up every so often, and I think it will take Internet 2 and IPv6 to solve it correctly. Until then, it's just sharing rips of tv shows off cable and sat, and not the net population ignoring the traditional mediums and making their own shows. It'll be another decade before that shift happens.
Re:Who wants the MBONE, huh? huh? (Score:2)
The funny thing is, this shift could probably be faster than you think, especially if "the masses" get involved as soon as possible. After all, who doesn't enjoy someone else's kid clubbing daddy in the balls with a baseball bat or someone setting themselves on fire for a stunt. "The Internet's Funniest Videos" you could call it, and the content will mail itself to yo
It lives on in Internet2 (Score:5, Informative)
http://multicast.internet2.edu/ [internet2.edu]
At the University of Wisconsin, our new 10Gbps ethernet backbone and all associated equipment in a major network upgrade initiative [wisc.edu] supports multicast to the desktop. We're operating an IP-based television distribution system exclusively via multicast distribution (using locally scoped addresses, so it's only available internally).
So we can still go to 224.2.231.45, and get a live stream of NASA TV from the University of Oregon.
For the uninitiated, multicast essentially allows any number of clients to "listen" to the same stream: multicast-aware network equipment just handles when a network gets traffic. If a user on the University of Wisconsin campus decides to watch the broadcast from the University of Oregon, one stream's worth of bandwidth will enter our network. If a hundred - or a thousand - people decide to watch it, it's still that same one stream's worth of bandwidth coming in, that everyone else is simply "listening" to. So for each network segment, whether you're looking at an individual subnet or in a whole-internet sense, there is either:
- 0 streams
- 1 or more streams, but all with the equivalent network usage of 1 stream
It's really a fantastic way of distributing video. Not only is there no additional load beyond the one stream on the network, but there is also *only the load of one stream* on the server.
If multicast were enabled on the internet-at-large, individual people really could distribute video to the world: all they'd need is essentially enough bandwidth to distribute one stream, and one, or one million, could listen in.
(And yes, there are ways this can break down, but I'm just trying to give a simplified explanation here.)
Re:It lives on in Internet2 (Score:2)
Relevant? Depends on the timeframe (Score:3, Interesting)
And where is it going? I haven't a clue - and frankly analyzing the impact of this requires a proper timeframe.
How long will it take to get off the ground? What kind of content will be produced and what kind of content production tolls will evolve in the next few years? Will there be an overwhelming amount of crap - and if so, will there then be a die-off-pull-back effect that leaves better content, or what?
My wife is a ad designer who does video editing as a hobby and as a professional. She's watched the tools for broadcast and video editing change radically in the seven years she's done it, watched companies rise and fall. Communication is an odd, tricky, unpredictable business, and this initaitive will be just as hard to assess.
But it also SOUNDS damn cool.
Lowering the bar, lowering the quality (Score:2)
If one thing the internee has done is lower the bar for people to get their creative works out to people.
If Sturgeon's Law of 90% of everything is crap was true before, as you lower the bar the percentage of crap goes up and finding the good stuff harder.
I can't help but think TV like this will suffer the same problems, but made worse that it requires more technical skills and money (or at least access to equipment) than say writing or making music. Look at public access TV and fan films.
This is as li
Manhattan (Score:3, Informative)
"Anybody can submit a show to MNN for air as a series or special. It should be 28 or 58 minutes long. Manhattan residents and non profits get priority. Find out more at questions. "
If Manhattan of NYC is this easy, image how easy it is in any other town...
Re:Manhattan (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say your show is on a subject that will be interesting to one person in a million. If you're broadcasting throughout NYC, there might be eight people who would enjoy your show if they saw it. And I guarantee you, unless it's a documentary on people who are addicted to public access TV, none of them will be watching when your show
Hmmm.... (Score:2)
Never going to happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, there's something to be said about content but not nearly as much as all this. And when it comes to content, people don't want ten million Internet broadcasters clogging up the Internet with pointless vanity crap t
Re:Never going to happen (Score:2)
First, they're not proposing using "streams", but publishing the video as files swapped over BitTorrent. So as the demand increases, so does the supply.
The comparison to cable seems specious, because there isn't any need to watch more than one show at a time. Cable needs monstrous bandwidth precisely because it's pushing all 500 channels into your living room simultaneously. With this system, you don't need to be able to download faster than you
P2P Radio? (Score:2)
-paul
diamonds in the rough... (Score:5, Interesting)
While this is true, for the most part, there WILL be lots of good stuff coming out of this too, and you can't disregard it.
Look, if this catches on, it will be exactly what happened to music with the advent of home computers... suddenly, everyone and their mother could write tracks. People started publishing them. Yes, there was a LOT of crap. BUT -- there was still a good proportion of awesome music being made by people who otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity. You had to look for it.. but then along came netlabels, who filtered it all for you... then you just have to find the good netlabels... but my point is that the MORE, the BETTER. the more opportunity for crap, means more opportunity for GOLD, too.
there might be some really good stuff coming out of this, and I'm sure you'll all be subscribing to the best "channels" of it.
But how will the content producers get paid? (Score:2, Insightful)
the redeemers (Score:2)
Great idea. Shame it'll never get any shows. (Score:2)
What self-respecting TV network would donate shows to it? Considering it's all
GPL, what self-respecting cable network would risk throwing their entire cable
settop firmware (including the PPV encryption stuff
addition to a few lame-ass Wayne's Worlds?
This is no better than public access cable shows - your freedom to make shows and
have them distributed is subordinate only to the freedom of the cable subscribers
not to watch the inane bullshit that you produce.
Therein lies the rub!
Nek
You are forgetting the "Power of Collaboration." (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is the scripts for these public access failures. But when amateur content creators really start adopting the open source software creation model, where hundreds of content creators start using internet software to collaborate and create scripts, find public domain and creative commons video footage, and using cheap digital cameras to film events and interviews from all over world, and then divide up the work a la open source software, edit the video using hundreds of different computers using cheap or even free editing software, then, THEN it blow even Hollwood out of the water.
And the main thing that this copylefted content will offer is something that the TV industry is in REALLY short supply of--a more real worldview and a wider range of philosophical and sociopolitical viewpoints. For example, every friggin day on TV you see celebrities, politicians and other famous people being treated with kid gloves, like the alpha animals they are. But on internet tv, they are gonna get trashed. And people are gonna like that.
Wow, the RIAA's gonna like this... Not. (Score:3, Interesting)
A compromise... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The program is provided in original format WITH Commercials and credits as originally broadcast. If someone paid money to make something you either pay for it or respect the way they earn their money(ie commercials). You can always fast forward.
2) No wildfeeds...no broadcasting programs here before they are broadcast by the original distributor unless the original distributor is defunct or does not intend to air the program in that area.
The right of first broadcast ought to mean something. The people who made the program ought to have the right to broadcast it first.
Tivos FUTURE! (Score:4, Interesting)
Its been hinting at this for awhile with service providers moving from one delevery type to a information delevery type. For example phone companies are changing from specifically phone use, to high speed providers that can do phone among other things.
Just think that at some point in the future, TV companies will not be associated with a channel, but more related to a website. For example, instead of going to channel 23 for Cartoon Network to watch Anime, you may go to their website and get a feed to watch the shows you like. No "TV" channels will even exist. That downloadable chunck will have a small set of ads with it so they can get their revenue. Ads targeted a bit more directly at their consumer as well.
Its like a SUPER Season Pass for the Tivo crowds. If Tivo is smart they will jump at this immediately. Even extend this to SUPER Season Pass podcast radio shows. Wicked cool.
Tons and tons of mediocre crap (Score:2)
As we all remember some 5 years ago when the Net was becoming popular people used to send via email all kind of shitty attachments - ads, home videos, etc. - it's all gonna be on Google in the future. In that sense it's a good thing.
However, considering the 80/20 rule, I expect to see top 2% of videos get a h
How This WILL work (Score:3, Interesting)
But thats not what its going to be. Sure Napster gave everyone in the world the ability to distribute their own Music over p2p. Sure Shoutcast gave everyone a change to run a radio station playing legal unprotected music. Sure, Bittorent gives everyone the ability to easally share large legal files, such as home videos or GNU software. Sure, Winamp's Shoutcast TV gives people the ability to stream there own telivision shows Right Now (yes there are technical diferences bear with me).
But did they?
No. Napster was at the top of its game because people shared copywritten mp3s. Shoutcast worked because everyone could take the mp3 collections they got from Napster, build up there own playlist, and stream music for their friends. BitTorrent make it easy to get Everything people wanted, epecially Movies and TV Shows. Winamp's TV has well Porn, Crap, and People breaking the law. Just open it up, look at the streams. The streams running say 24/7 South Park or 24/7 Scrubs, are they legal? Do you really think any money is going to the copywrite holders?
This will work because it will make it so ANYONE with a halfway decent connection will be able to seed what ever they want, their personal selection of digital media constantly. Say Joe Kid with his 7mbit/1mbit dsl starts a Sapranoes all day every day. Or Jane Kid starts Her own version of The Movie Channel, using her favorite XVID releases she got from bittorent. Shoutcast didnt get popular because it gave people a place to my thier own music, it got popular because it gave people a place where they could play the DJ. This will get popular because it will give everyone with a halfway decent upload the ablity to play Zero Cool his first "hacking" at the age of 18, Running the tv STATION, not the production.
Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (Score:2)
Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (Score:2)
Re:Oh, dear God... (Score:2, Insightful)
A reality-TV show that's actually useful? (Score:3, Interesting)
But with this tech, and a comm-link of some sort, existing development teams could broadcast their own shows. Might help out with recruitment and dona
Re:A reality-TV show that's actually useful? (Score:2)
I don't have any mod points, but you are right. I would actually look forward to watching something like that. Not to mention that since the producers don't have to pay actors, they could actually spend some of that money on the effort write it off and yet still make money do
Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (Score:2, Interesting)
Much of business strategy, especially the vernacular, is based on warfare. Chief executive officers. War rooms. Strategy itself. And so on.
You know I started reading this interesting book called Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant [amazon.com] which talks about this a little bit. The book basically makes a metaphor between Red Ocean which is traditional competitive markets aggressively competing ag
Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (Score:2)
Seems to depend on the goal, and whose it is. For example, my company wants to win customers, gain marketshare, etc. Some of our smaller competitors talk in terms of killing us. I think the larger question involves wondering why people get so resentful of success or status quo that they emotionalize their take on it to the degree that speaking in violent metaphors actually feels appropriate. To me, it sounds more like a lack of maturity. It's
Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (Score:2)
No, the disturbing part is that a lot of people enjoy eating meat, and pay other people to kill it for them, and have no clue what it's all about. I don't kill animals I don't intend to eat. Except maybe mosquitos, and that sort of thing, or when an animal is destructive (say, groundhogs destroying crops), threatening, or suffering from injury or illness (say, a deer with broken legs on the side of the r
Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (Score:2)
So, eating meat doesn't fall within your idea of civil rights? We'll have to see how many pepperoni pizzas are consumed at civil rights sit-ins this year.
If you don't like hunting because it involved the death of an animal, then you're really addressing the wrong subject. Hunting will go away just fine as soon as you persuade the population that they can't make use of animals for meat at all. Also, be sure to take the stand that no earthworms can be killed while tilling soy
Re:podcasting for video (Score:2)
Re:podcasting for video (Score:2)