I have seen Zeitgeist. I did enjoy it. I liked the myth stuff more than the current events, but I liked it nonetheless.
I tend to over use the triple period thing... what is that called again? ;-) Certainly not hesitation, just an incomplete thought. I've noticed it cropping up more and more in my internet correspondence. Bad, bad writer. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 8, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > Ironically, though the PERIOD expressed strong hidebounded certainty, > the trailing "..." seemed to show doubt and hesitation. Just being > silly. ;) > > Ron, have you seen the internet flick Zeitgeist? You would > thoroughly enjoy it. > > http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd totally agree with you adrian, IF, and that's a serious if, the > > same multimedia companies (lets not kind ourselves that they are > > simply bandwidth providers) were not ramping up their own multimedia > > streams that make ours look silly. > > > > I've no doubt that the bandwidth constraints will have no > > relationship to this content, and in fact, I'd bet we'll have to pay > > for each separately. > > > > Point is that they are doing this shit to make their plans work out. > > > > If it were only as altruistic as saving energy, and having a smaller > > footprint... > > > > It's not it's about profit and control of information, PERIOD... > > > > peace, > > Ron > > > > On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: > > > >> Not sure I have tthis right but if it is a monthly cap then this is > >> the norm here in Australia and always has been. Has been one of the > >> reasons why I argue very strongly for proper compression and also > >> other aesthetic requirements in videoblogging. I get 8GB a > month, but > >> have the advantage of a university job during the day. A feature > film > >> is around 500MB, so that's 16 features a month, which if you're > a AV > >> professional is not much, but for the majority is probably in > the ball > >> park. > >> > >> However, I am going to poke the possum here (colloquial Australian > >> expression, stir up things if you like). > >> > >> I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is > treated > >> as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. > Data > >> and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but > transferring > >> that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the > >> majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my > >> work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter > parts of > >> rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is > >> constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does > have a > >> width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated > costs. > >> Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local > >> agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might > >> make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. > >> > >> Treating it as infinite leads to what I teach my students is > >> "bandwidth pollution". Emails with stupid large attachments, videos > >> that run to gigabytes. First industrialised world bandwidth > arrogance > >> is the internet equivalent of cheap oil (the analogy is simply > if oil > >> is finite, but cheap, then there is little incentive not to use > it, in > >> spite of it's inevitable disappearance and of course the > pollution it > >> is causing). The solution then becomes simply adding more. More > >> cables, more electricity to run it all, and presumably more time > for > >> us to actually view all this extra material (I know, that's > >> facetious). Here in my state we used to (20 years ago) think that > >> water was infinite, and you pretty much got it for free. Then they > >> started charging for it, on the reasonable basis that a) some > people > >> used more than others so if you had a swimming pool and fancy > garden > >> why shouldn't you pay more? and b) it required expensive > >> infrastructure which needed to be paid for and c) it might > encourage > >> water conversation. We are now in a major and prolonged drought > with > >> substantial water restrictions. The governments response is to > spend > >> billions on desalination and pipelines (bigger fatter pipes) > instead > >> of spending the same money on ways to reduce our demand for > water. I > >> live on the driest continent on earth yet outside my window > right now > >> are English style gardens with roses, azaleas and fuschias. > >> > >> The point? Bigger pipes is like cheap oil is like infinite > bandwidth. > >> It supports an economy (of mind, of practice and of institutions) > >> which thinks the answer is simply more, not less. Compress > properly, > >> think about length. Sustainability applies here as much (if not > more > >> given the energy demands of the net) as the real world. And the > model > >> of "I should have as much as I want" translates poorly outside > of very > >> specific cultural and political economies. > >> > >> On 05/11/2008, at 7:42 AM, Heath wrote: > >> > >> > I just did another post about this from another communications > >> > company but now another big dog in the US is going to start > limiting > >> > bandwidth....AT & T...I am telling you all, this is going to > stiffle > >> > most video on the web, at some of these limits watching one movie > >> > over Netflix will put you over for the month. Things like VloMo, > >> > will go away....it's scary.....its real scary.... > >> > >> cheers > >> Adrian Miles > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> bachelor communication honours coordinator > >> vogmae.net.au > >> > >> > >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
