Category: Q & A

This question is kinda like "will Microsoft Office ever die out completely, and be replaced with an alternative office suite delivered via the Internet?"

In most literal terms, the answer has to be NO.

But, that's not to say that both things won't happen, and that there may well be a long period of overlap, which effectively makes the existence and rise of one basically unrelated to the death of the other. No, broadcast TV is going to die, because it will choose death over evolution, after a long and bloody protectionist fight.

Newspapers were heavily damaged financially by upstart free internet classifieds like craigslist. Broadcast TV has seen the rise not only of "internet tv", but also general non-video internet usage, as well as other video-centric entertainment sources like videogames as threats to viewership, and ultimately income.

Still, the greater threat isn't in "taking away marketshare/revenues", its in new solutions that create whole new markets that broadcast TV has a much harder time adapting to/incorporating. Take, say, CNN's use of Twitter(*) as an example. Craigslist isn't killing newspapers. A huge narrowing of the quality/performance gap between traditional newspapers and web journalism/blogging is what's killing newspapers.

In a similar manner, I expect that with TV, it's going to be less about "how long until they transition to Internet Broadcasting?", and much more about "how long until something new usurps Broadcast TV's central role in delivering news and entertainment?"

Not going to guess at an answer to that, but as I alluded to earlier, I fully expect that broadcast TV will not need to "fully die" first to allow such solutions to arise, and both solutions will coexist for so long it will be impractical or even disingenuous to call it a 'transition'. The US Post Office is still fending off email at a few cents per year, after all – but their organizational strengths in end to end delivery never led them to dream such a thing up, nor to imagine (or really even compete with) the likes of Fedex and UPS.

(* No really, take it. Take it far away, and burn it. At sea. A Viking's death for CNN's Twitter account. It's the only way.)

Will broadcast TV die out completely and be replaced by internet based streams and VOD?

In a word? No.

The question completely mis-frames the practical use case and outcome – that "cable TV" itself will instead be replaced by more efficient/flexible Internet delivery, which can then route as closely as possible via cables, only switching to wireless for "last mile" or even "on premise" transmission.

Of course, this is not necessarily desirable on the part of cable networks, who would like to stand up a separate wireless infrastructure for a variety of reasons. But due to the difficulty in obtaining spectrum, and rights to tower placement within communities, it's far more likely that the consumer-side pressures will finally force the abstraction of tv content from delivery mechanisms and telecom providers.

Put even simpler: it's much more likely that what a consumer imagines as "cable over wireless" looks like an AppleTV 3, or a Roku-HD-1080-ng+ sitting on a "smartdumb" IPv6 pipe, than it does like a contemporary cable/telecom subscription package.

Will telecom companies ever be able to deliver cable television to consumers homes wirelessly, instead of over a wired connection?

Well let's see… In reverse order, the top ten are empirically known to be:

• #10 Adric – died, and stayed dead – definitely cool points for a time travel series. I think he also wins for whiniest by a large margin, as well…
• #9 Jo Grant – stood toe to toe against the Master himself, and defeated his hypnosis technique with nursery rhymes. Bad. Ass.
• #8 Tegan Jovanka – If Crocodile Dundee and David Bowie had a daughter*, it would be Tegan. Longest continuous series run, at 3 years 1 month. Also possibly the "longest running" companion in terms of chronological presence in the timeline (from the big bang to Earth's 26th century). The only flight attendant ever to qualify for a spot in the TARDIS crew. Think about it. Also, the inspiration for the Mel Gibson film, Braveheart.
• #7 Captain Jack Harkness – bringing back the Emo Trenchcoat to sexuality-questioning teen boys everywhere. Pure win! Also wins for largest hat size of any companion. Eventually.
• #6 Leela – the noblest of savages, with enough bravado to go back into an about-to-explode lighthouse for her hunting knife. Killed the most people onscreen of any companion. Every Rose Has Its Janis Thorn…
• #5 Romana II – onscreen and offscreen chemistry in action. Hubba-yow! Plus, extra points for anyone who gets to keep a K-9 at the end of their run. If you include the books and audio, she eventually becomes Lady President of Gallifrey!
• #4 Jamie McCrimmon – You thought trenchcoats were sexy? Kilts are the real sexy. Most episodes for a single companion. Didn't take no guff, nor any of that "color television" nonsense. A real man's man.
• #3 Amy Pond – why yes, I would like fries with that shake, Officer Pond. Purest form of "distilled sex per cubic centimeter" on the show, ever. Not that any of it is actually cubic…
• #2 K-9 – Honest and loyal to a fault, armed to the teeth (or, er, nose, anyway), and unkillable – as evidenced by his own "4 regenerations" thus far. That's more than KITT!
• #1 Sarah Jane Smith – Rode with the best of the best. Another K-9 Award winner. Brought the Kastrian race back from extinction (briefly). Only companion (with K-9) to have her own ongoing series. What more could you ask for? We'll miss you, Lis!

* I'll pay $10,000 for filmed footage of any attempts, successful or otherwise.

Who is the best companion to The Doctor? Why?

In a word, No.

I wouldn't recommend reading the book Game of Thrones or the entire series before watching the HBO drama, for the following reasons:

• By reading the book first, there may be a natural blunting of the immersiveness of the TV series, as you start to notice small or even significant changes in plot, characters, etc.
• If you don't enjoy the book, you may have a harder time appreciating the vastly different format and medium required for a TV series.
• If you do enjoy the book, you may find fault with the execution of the series in whole or in part (similar, but distinct from my first point).
• If you continue reading past the first book, you will be engaging with content that may not show up on TV for several more years – the "availability differential" of both formats of the second book A Clash of Kings will be much greater than GoT, so the further you go, the less "fresh" things will be in your head when the TV series catches up.

In addition, I'd like to offer up the following counter-suggestion: watch the TV series first, then read the book.

• By reading the book later, you can revive memories of the TV show as you read, and since reading itself is generally slower pace and more thought-provoking, there should be less of a feeling of being "taken out" of the story. Indeed, by having clear visuals of specific characters and places, you'll expend less mental energy pausing to reflect on architectural details or overly-elaborate descriptions, and be able to "flow" better with the narrative.
• If you don't enjoy the TV series, you can save yourself a SERIOUS pagecount with even just the first book (835 pages for the paperback edition).
• Alternately, you can ditch the show for the book series, and never look back… So long as you can do so without being smug to friends, no one will think the less of you for it.
• If you do enjoy watching Game of Thrones, then you can continue to read the book, and subsequent volumes of the series as a way to bridge the gap in TV series production. If you're the type of person who agonizes between seasons, this will be an especially good prescription.

Regardless of what you choose to do, keep this in mind: George R.R. Martin is nowhere near completing this epic saga. He has encountered an incredible bout of writer's block while creating this series, with an enormous gap in production between A Feast for Crows and A Dance With Dragons that currently clocks in at almost 7 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_D…

Long story short (heh), there's a real question over whether the series will ever be completed, and if so how long we'll have to wait. Feelings of artistic imperative aside, it's an important consideration for someone who hasn't started the series – if you can enjoy each page without hope for another, then go for it!

If reading 4164 pages (and counting!) of fantasy fiction that doesn't come to any meaningful conclusion would in any way upset you, there are a lot of alternative epic book series of similar quality to enjoy… And plenty of opportunity to start the Song of Ice and Fire (via video or book) when it's a little further along.

Should I read the Song of Ice And Fire book series before watching the HBO series Game of Thrones?

As someone who answers a fair number of questions with more questions, I'd surprisingly say it would be a vastly different experience:

Jeopardy! is not really about responding with actual questions, but rather

• "Questions" phrased as statements on some trivial topic almost always with a single clear-cut correct answer, and
• "Answers" which are usually one word or a short phrase, rephrased as a short "who, what, when, where, why"-style question.

This arrangement does not provide for nearly the same the breadth and depth of questions and answers that already exist on-site, and the requirement for a "correct" answer would also dramatically reduce the total addressable user market for the service – when opinions (or for that matter, things like humor) are completely sucked dry from answers, then only highly-educated obsessives would spend much time even trying to participate – as bad answers or even ill-phrased ones would be chastised at a level much higher than exists today – and even the existing "lower" bar turns many people off, if you search for discussions about Quora online.

On the pro side, it is possible that given the rush to enter the single correct answer, some members would gain additional skills in typing, proper question phrasation, or lateral thinking/multitasking. Still, they would be the minority, and probably would treat each other in a far more hostile/competitive manner than the real world "Quora Elites" seem to behave.

So, long story short: it would be a lot more boring, with a lot fewer regular users/community members. I love Jeopardy!, but the unique construction of this gameshow is not something that readily translates to the specific dynamic that makes Quora successful.

What would it be like if Quora met Jeopardy and you had to respond with a question?