Friday
Jun132008
Top 10 Reasons Why There's No TWiT Live Today
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 9:53AM
10. I did 20 hours of video in the past two days and I'm exhausted.
9. It's time to give someone else a chance on Stickam.
8. My Energizers finally ran out.
7. There's no more room under my desk to store the pee.
6. It's been a month since I've answered my email.
5. My wife is coming home and I've got some 'splaining to do.
4. I'm paraskevidekatriaphobic and I'm planning to run for the cure.
3. It's half-price day at Keny's Donuts.
2. Metal Gear Solid 4 beckons.
and the number one reason I'm taking today off...
Sometimes a guy's just got to sit around naked.
Reader Comments (95)
Leo to you and the other TWiTs - Have a Happy Father's Day
The REAL top ten reasons:
10. Realized that Twit Live is an anagram of little vw and spent hours flashing back to your hippie days.
9. Someone on Gizmodo called someone else an idiot, and you spent the rest of the day researching Apple's new Diot.
8. Sat in the studio, drunk and dejected, because Sumi Das won't return your calls.
7. Sick of coming in the studio and having to clean up the Giz Wiz.
6. Got stuck in the Badlands with your level 11 Warlock, and a guy's gotta have priorities.
5. Intern was sick, and you couldn't find "On."
4. An especially gut-wrenching episode of Tyra made you come to grips with your feelings for Dvorak.
3. Still bitter over having not been chosen the new Mahalo Girl.
2. Spent day continuing to strategize for Hillary.
1. Checked all of your sources, read all of the blogs, scanned all of your notes and came to realize that there was absolutely nothing that you needed to say!
Leo, you're awesome. Teh Enz.
Sounds like its time to sit on the bean bag chair on the floor, eating some Cheetos, and play some video games! :)
LOL @ "...you come to grips with your feelings for Dvorak."
Seesmic video reply from Disqus.
We will miss you. I will see you on my ppc wm6 mogul mobile phone via skyfire browser tomorrow. http://skyfire.com">skyfire.com check it out Leo please it has been the best.
Leo, on the last TWiT it came to my attenzione that your accent Italiano needs a piccolo bit of help...
If you screen this I'm sure it'll improve:
"Mafioso" a film by Alberto Lattuada (criterion collection) four stars - in Italian - Milan Sicily & NY
Everyone needs a naked room
While you took the day off, I did this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC4wK3QLCnQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC4wK3QLCnQ
Enjoy...
-Agenator
Leo,
just listed to the debate on metering the internet. John's argument is much more accurate than your claim that there is no cost to bits. There are limited bits. Your enterprise makes use of a significant amount of bandwidth on the consumer and producer end. You said' "I'm putting out high bandwidth content" and you don't want that limited.
Fortunately or unfortunately, a higher number of bits moving about will have fees attached to them. Why shouldn't those who use more pay more.
John briefly, finally after a long debate realized that indeed you are in a conflict of interest. Face it. You can't be neutral, when the issue affects you. I know you defend the internet and want few limits on it. It can be transformative on the content distribution side because let's face it, your cost of distribution approaches $0. You compete against content creation schemes that have significantly higher costs.
The business development model of amazon has the same advantages over bookstores. Shouldn't amazon users pay the cost of almost free access to the resource?
Jerry Pournelle is painful to listen to! Please don't have him back.
Are you kidding? Even Jerry Pournelle's flem is wicked smart. I love the guy. I wish I had a living grandpa with that kind of wisdom and insight. More, more, more
For some reason my Firefox 3 hates loading http://leoville.com">leoville.com... :(
JCD makes one crucial mistake (which even the Leo didn't get): bandwidth problems are not due to the few heavy users but due to the failure of ISPs to keep up with the technology. If they provided us with the state of the art system, everyone would be able to use Internet at the rate of few todays heavy users without any issue. If ISPs provided us with the up-to-date system, we still wouldn't notice any issue with the few existing heavy users. But, they provide us with the outdated system and blame any problems on advanced users who do keep up with the modern technology and its capabilities...
Technology develops fast. Still, technology develops FIRST and than people make use of it. First, the small number of first adopters. Than, others follow and it becomes a mainstream. ISPs can't sit idle (as they do) and must match their capabilities with the technological advancement. They have first adopters as a warning "canary in the mine". If first adopters experience problems, ISPs better fix it or soon the majority of us will have the same problems.
Now to the cost issue. ISPs in many countries worldwide (with varying social, economic, political and geographical issues) already provide the state-of-the-art Internet access to their customers. At reasonable cost. Most importantly: WITH PROFIT. If they can, so can the USA ISPs. But, they are lazy dinosaurs who unfortunately presently hold necks of both the Govt. and users in their monopolistic mouths. It will take a new and clever provider to make "killing" from this situation by providing modern Internet access at reasonable rates. Some are already growing "out there"... Market is merciless and if profit is possible someone will emerge to get it.
Finally, "Why shouldn't those who use more pay more": As I mention technology is developing fast. Say, today normal users maybe get 30-40GB per month. In few months I can bet it will be 60-80GB. And so on. So, in few months, if charged by amount you'd pay double for same "class" of usage. Or prices would need to be adjusted monthly... (Which they won't be. The whole "need" for charge by the byte is stemming from the ISP greed, not from real need or lack of profit). Also, there are some crucial Internet structure issues: ex. huge part of the bandwidth is in the ads... Make user pay by the byte and he is the one who'll pay for all those fancy Flash ads and such. Can I as such user go to the ad producer and say: I didn't want this, give me my bandwidth money back? Also the spam... If I receive a gig' of spam - who pays for it? Internet is simply not structured for "by the bit" consumption. And the technology is such that it is not needed.
JCD makes one crucial mistake (which even the Leo didn't get): bandwidth problems are not due to the few heavy users but due to the failure of ISPs to keep up with the technology. If they provided us with the state of the art system, everyone would be able to use Internet at the rate of few todays heavy users without any issue. If ISPs provided us with the up-to-date system, we still wouldn't notice any issue with the few existing heavy users. But, they provide us with the outdated system and blame any problems on advanced users who do keep up with the modern technology and its capabilities...
Technology develops fast. Still, technology develops FIRST and than people make use of it. First, the small number of first adopters. Than, others follow and it becomes a mainstream. ISPs can't sit idle (as they do) and must match their capabilities with the technological advancement. They have first adopters as a warning "canary in the mine". If first adopters experience problems, ISPs better fix it or soon the majority of us will have the same problems.
Now to the cost issue. ISPs in many countries worldwide (with varying social, economic, political and geographical issues) already provide the state-of-the-art Internet access to their customers. At reasonable cost. Most importantly: WITH PROFIT. If they can, so can the USA ISPs. But, they are lazy dinosaurs who unfortunately presently hold necks of both the Govt. and users in their monopolistic mouths. It will take a new and clever provider to make "killing" from this situation by providing modern Internet access at reasonable rates. Some are already growing "out there"... Market is merciless and if profit is possible someone will emerge to get it.
Finally, "Why shouldn't those who use more pay more": As I mention technology is developing fast. Say, today normal users maybe get 30-40GB per month. In few months I can bet it will be 60-80GB. And so on. So, in few months, if charged by amount you'd pay double for same "class" of usage. Or prices would need to be adjusted monthly... (Which they won't be. The whole "need" for charge by the byte is stemming from the ISP greed, not from real need or lack of profit). Also, there are some crucial Internet structure issues: ex. huge part of the bandwidth is in the ads... Make user pay by the byte and he is the one who'll pay for all those fancy Flash ads and such. Can I as such user go to the ad producer and say: I didn't want this, give me my bandwidth money back? Also the spam... If I receive a gig' of spam - who pays for it? Internet is simply not structured for "by the bit" consumption. And the technology is such that it is not needed.
Yes, please have Jerry Pournelle back ! (phlem or not.)
Keep up the good work.
I just re-found you and I have some podcasts to catch up on.
nice life man!
regards,
Editor
HYPERNOISE WEBMAG
http://www.twitter.com/hypernoise">www.twitter.com/hypernoise
good one
I am wondering why you have written these 10 funny points in descending order..??