Last year it looked obvious that we were heading to streaming of on-demand digital video as the primary means of delivery. Although that may still be where we are heading, I see dark clouds in our future.
The "TV vs. On-Demand" comparison (if that was what Mr. Graham was referring) is less an issue now. I propose that what few saw then as a problem, is a looming one now. In other words, it's not so much "TV vs. Streaming/On-demand/digital/or whatever." It's that the old players, "TV", are now positioning (and are by far in the lead) to control the digital streaming of video from the internet.
Huge, deep pocket, long established trades, corporations, and/or markets are not supposed to gain control of emerging trades and markets. That is for new business to handle, and by which new business come into their own. (by advantage of being more lean, fast, knowledgeable about new tech/markets, better in-tune, etc) So that eventually the greatest of those new business's themselves become dinosaurs and are so replaced. This way business, knowledge, and technology progress.
Not to say that a "dinosaur" could not have this effect. Just less likely, and the likelihood I suspect will mathematically decay over time. (as the corporation becomes larger and less agile)
This happens every time: new technology disrupts existing players, which in turn try to use their money / influence to do something about it. Then skilled people fight back with newer innovations.
News at 11.
For example, do you know how easy it is to bypass China's firewall?
(1) setup free usage tier AWS account
(2) start a new instance with one of the official Ubuntu images
(3) ssh -D 2000 ubuntu@<instance-ip>
(4) enjoy personal US-based SOCKS5 proxy ;)
The only problem with DRM is that you're prohibited by law to reverse engineer it, which means totally-legit software can be baned if not following certain guidelines (like security by obscurity) ... otherwise I'm all for DRM because it's fundamentally flawed and it's keeping them busy (like a dog chasing its tail).
Netflix is responsible for about 1/5 of peak internet traffic in the US, and it's growing much faster than TV viewership. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out how that equation ends up.
"I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?"
Because humans can only observe the universe from Earth's point of view, our perception is that we are in the middle of the cosmos. Yet we are only in the middle of what we can observe from our point of view at any angle. As you said, we can only observe so far in either direction or any direction as it were.
Remember, there was a huge strain of aggressive pacifism in the US in the 1930s, which is how the US stayed out of World War 2 until 1941. Come to think of it, there was a pretty huge strain of aggressive pacifism in England as well, which is how Hitler got as far as he did.
The 1930s was pretty much peak hour for pacifism. We'd just had World War 1 to remind us that war was a terrible thing, and hadn't yet had World War 2 to remind us that war wasn't the worst possible thing.
One could argue that the more popular pacifism gets the more likely war becomes, but it would be overly trite and based on an insufficient sample. It's a good line though.
I'm not so sure about the Aggressive Pacifism. From the Wikipedia article about the book -->
The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese.
"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."
Well, I didn't say that everyone in the 1930s was a pacifist. Obviously plenty of people weren't.
Wikipedia on 1930s pacifism: The British Labour Party had a strong pacifist wing in the early 1930s and between 1931 and 1935 was led by George Lansbury, a Christian pacifist who later chaired the No More War Movement and was president of the PPU. The 1933 annual conference resolved unanimously to "pledge itself to take no part in war". "Labour's official position, however, although based on the aspiration towards a world socialist commonwealth and the outlawing of war, did not imply a renunciation of force under all circumstances, but rather support for the ill-defined concept of 'collective security' under the League of Nations.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was of the mind that the 30's were a poor time for a person to speak out against their government, with reprimands handed out in full. Maybe, because that is my impression of today's reality and I am projecting that onto my vision of the 30's.
Genius. Yep, I said it. But the initial video showed confused me when I did a new search and the video stayed the same. Shouldn't the most relevant video load instantly?
I would agree, it is probably confusing initially. It would make sense to follow the heuristics of other instant search sites. However, when I experimented with auto updating the video it just didn't "feel" right. For some reason I think a user selection model is a better UX in this case.
The "TV vs. On-Demand" comparison (if that was what Mr. Graham was referring) is less an issue now. I propose that what few saw then as a problem, is a looming one now. In other words, it's not so much "TV vs. Streaming/On-demand/digital/or whatever." It's that the old players, "TV", are now positioning (and are by far in the lead) to control the digital streaming of video from the internet.
Huge, deep pocket, long established trades, corporations, and/or markets are not supposed to gain control of emerging trades and markets. That is for new business to handle, and by which new business come into their own. (by advantage of being more lean, fast, knowledgeable about new tech/markets, better in-tune, etc) So that eventually the greatest of those new business's themselves become dinosaurs and are so replaced. This way business, knowledge, and technology progress.
Not to say that a "dinosaur" could not have this effect. Just less likely, and the likelihood I suspect will mathematically decay over time. (as the corporation becomes larger and less agile)