iTunes plays anything that is in Quicktime Format, and Quicktime will happily store MPEG-4 video. Once you install the DivX Codec for Quicktime (a free download), you can play your DivX movies in Quicktime. All you have to do is save the new file with the Quicktime wrapper (that stores the meta-information) and copy it into iTunes. Remember, Quicktime is Apple's media playing system. The Quicktime Player is just a small front-end for playing Quicktime moves (on Mac), or an embedded Quicktime + Player for Windows.
I've been debating ditching my DirecTV + Tivos system, because I can't get the new HD content without MPEG-4, and once I go MPEG-4, I can't use my HD Tivo, and the new software seems crappy. The Wife and I realized that the amount of non-network television we watch is miniscule (the 6 networks, even pretended MyNetworkTV is a Network) cover 90% of our viewing... add Battlestar Galactica, Daily Show, and Colbert Report, and that's pretty much hit, save a one-two shows a year on HBO/Showtime that come out on DVD later anyway.
This raises the Question: instead of Satellite boxes all over the place, could a MythTV recorder with a nice fat RAID Array + 6 HDTV cards that record EVERY OTA prime time show in HDTV (why bother selecting programming when you can grab them all), with a Mac Mini running an Automator Script and/or a simple Applescript running hourly to add the Quicktime Wrapper + Meta Data get all my Content into nice and happy iTunes, for easy playback on Apple TVs in the house... doesn't sound far fetched, does it?
The common explanation for Y2K is that dates were stored with room for 2 digits, and would roll over when hitting 100... This completely ignores a VITAL fact... computers are binary, NOT decimal. The number 100 is significant and moves to 3 digits in decimal space, but is UNINTERESTING in binary. In binary, if you store things as 1 byte, you can go up to 127 (signed) or 255 (unsigned). In no way were dates routinely stored as two byte characters (99 being the max) when 1 byte would get you to 255 easily. Remember Legend of Zelda on the NES... that's why you could have 255 rupees, it was a single byte, not 99 (two digits).
Now, did we have Y2K problems. Absolutely, anyone that created a four digit date by String Concat: "19" + String(date) would have problems, I had a few minor software packages that reported the date as January 2, 19100, instead of 2000.
There WERE things to check, because anything that uses the string output and reported the date as two characters would have a problem. However, the news media made it sounds as if computers everywhere were going to think it was the year 1900 and collapse. Anywhere that numbers were stored in bytes and compressed to "years from 1900" to save space did NOT have a problem. It was things that parsed the output.
This made the Y2K problems MUCH smaller in scope that widely reported, and much easier to handle. The biggest issue with Y2K is the piles of 30 year old code, where the programmers long since retired, and nobody knew how they worked. Now, there is no running code that deals with dates that hasn't been updated in the past 10 years, so things are better under control.
Uh, 20% of the Democratic Caucus is conservative democrats right now... and Sen. Webb is a Republican, or at least was until he got annoyed with Bush and the Iraq war, and it's unclear where he'll stand after the Iraq war. Dean did an AMAZING job of turning the Democratic Party back into a national party (read Zell Miller's book for how bizarre they got at writing off the South -- don't attack him, he makes a LOT of good points), but it's not a 99.8% string up the Republicans party... if it was, it wouldn't win many elections...
But the comment you've misreading isn't "punish Bush," it's the "punish Bush states."
The Daily Kos crew, and other "politics isn't a contact sport, it's a battle to the death sport" wants the Democratic Party to ATTACK government funding goals that help Republican states. You wouldn't be very happy if the Democrats first action was to pull all highway funding, social spending, etc., for the state of Georgia, while leaving it for the rest of the states.
The implication that Uncle Ted can't deliver the bacon because he's in the minority and all his projects will be cut is probably wrong, and somewhat dangerous. I'd love to see the corruption rooted out of Washington with ALL appropriations, but punishing your opponents and rewarding your friends TOO extremely is just a bad scene.
Okay, Myspace is a business, which operates under different rules than a non-business entity, largely because of what the assumption are. If I walk into a store front, either corporately owned or not, there is an expectation of safety, non-discrimination, etc., and other things that govern businesses open to the public. If I walk into a private club (whether it is a tree house or a rented building), there is less of an expectation that they are operating like a business would. Negligence and contributory issues depend on reasonable actions.
It is REASONABLE for me to assume that Wal-Mart's bathrooms are reasonably clean, and if they aren't and that causes problems, they are arguably negligent. It is NOT reasonable for me to knock on your door, ask to use the bathroom, and assume that your bathroom is up to health code.
It's not a matter of "they'd lose money," it's a matter of, is it reasonable to assume that they do, and if not, is it reasonable for them to do so?
It is reasonable to expect an open-to-the-public business to properly illuminate their building for safety reasons. It isn't reasonable to expect every citizen to always have sufficient lighting (bulb/fixture burns out, etc.). It is reasonable to expect a bank for verify identity, it isn't reasonable to expect a small website to do so. If I am running an adult book store or liquor store, it is reasonable to expect me to ID possible children at the door, it isn't reasonable for a corner book store to be expected to do so.
Myspace.com's business depends upon users being able to easily create accounts anonymously, therefore it isn't reasonable to expect them to verify identity, because it would compromise their business. If they needed to verify accounts for OTHER reasons, so it wouldn't be a burden upon their business, then it WOULD be reasonable to verify identities. Likewise, if it was a private club, the expectations of reasonable behavior are even lower. It isn't reasonable for me to expect the private club to be up to "open to the public" businesses if I knock on the door and ask to use the bathroom, OTOH, it is reasonable for me to expect that the bathroom isn't booby trapped or mined... if it was an ACTUAL death trap, they would be liable for letting me use it, while if it wasn't up to my standards, they shouldn't be liable, make sense?
But the point is, bio-equivalence plus the 20% rule leads to generics being sometimes effective, sometimes not. The Wal-Mart example that you gave was the point I was making, often the generics come off the SAME line and are stamped/labeled differently... in those cases, the generic is JUST AS GOOD because it's the SAME.
In other cases, it's reverse engineered, and done well enough that it is just as effective. There is the 20% wiggle room, but no reason that it won't work.
In other cases, that 20% difference is enough to make the generic appear to be totally worthless, or at least worthless for SOME patients, yet they are stuck with it because the law allows substitution, and HMOs require it.
It's a crap shoot with anything... when it comes to OTC stuff, try the generic, see if it works for you, if so, great, use the generic, otherwise, switch back to the brand. When it comes to prescriptions, check with your doctor. Somethings are handled find by the generic, others not so much... if you don't trust your doctor, find a new doctor that you trust.
But blindly attacking me and all doctors (like the other response I got) doesn't change the fact that sometimes all isn't how it seams.
1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.
That's probably true on "big" issues, but not appropriations. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats don't really have a majority right now, one of their members is out recovering, so it's 49 + Lieberman (50), vs. 49... and any ties go to the GOP... and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (but budgets can't be filibustered).
The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.
2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.
Not to dismiss the out of control corruption that the GOP brought in over the past 5 years (as a conservative, I was aghast), but I don't really believe that the Democrats freeze is real. Basically, the GOP didn't pass a budget, didn't during a lame duck session, and the Democrats choose to fund the year via continuing resolutions. This has messed up some agencies (NASA in particular), has given Bush an opportunity to crow about the budget (spending increases won't happen because no budget is being passed), and whatever earmarks were in there will stay.
The K-Street project got a lot of play, but it's important to realize that the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years before the 1994 change, and the Senate for the majority of those years. The Democrats (and most of the GOP) never considered the Republicans anything but an opposition party, and the first few years of the GOP, they still acted like the opposition (that's how silly things like the government shutdown happened). Basically, the Washington establishment had been a Democratic-only land because the growth in government (FDR-onward) had coincided with a nearly permanent Democratic government (in terms of Congress and therefore spending). While we hoped that the GOP would start dismantling the Democrat-built government, the alternative of feeding corruption to their people was the more likely scenario. And as corruption rarely shrinks, all the crap the Democrats built stayed while the GOP built their own.
I find it unlikely that the Democrats will try to take down GOP pork/corruption, because if they do and the GOP regains power, they will retaliate, and hard.
The unwritten rule of politics is to never attack your enemy's backers, especially when all they want is to feed at the public trough. Better to pay everyone with OPM than risk getting hurt when you are out of power.
Otherwise, you could never explain how the entertainment industry wasn't decimated by the 5 years of total GOP control, considering HOW left-wing and democratic the Hollywood/New York crowd is... it's not a bunch of liberal Democrats, this crew borders on the left wing extremist crowd... yet the GOP NEVER attacked them... just like the Democrats will never REALLY attack the Wall Street crowd... too risky... If the Democrats REALLY take shots (excess profits tax on oil, etc.... things that they harped about in opposition but would never do), they risk a GOP response of declaring war on the trial lawyers and entertainment industry... which would cut off their funds.
With all due respect, that was rude. Some of the generics are fine, others are... problematic. I don't want to go into specifics, I mentioned one anecdote. I know with several medications my father has said that the generics are fine, and with others, he recommends going with the name brand.
You suggest that I ignored the line: you would have noticed this FDA requirement "Generic drug manufacturers must show that a generic drug is bioequivalent to the brand-name drug, in fact, I specifically addressed that as their standard, and why I think that it is problematic.
All your issues with drug sales reps, etc., are legit, and doctors being "really fucking ignorant" is really an overstatement for people that have extensive educational requirements, testing, and achievement levels. There are many things that doctors lack (sufficient education in statistics and access to up to date literature with the ability to apply in a clinical setting come to mind), but being "really fucking ignorant" of people that are certainly intelligent, and documented as intelligent, is just trolling with venom.
In reality, most doctors DON'T recommend the brand over the generic, because the pharmacist will substitute anyway and the patients don't want to pay more of a co-pay, also many HMO drug plans will NOT COVER a brand drug when the generic is available.
Doctor recommendations are not heavily made by sales reps, free gifts, or most recent literature. It is generally driven by whatever decision that can demonstrate in court was the "standard recommended treatment" and preferably a confusing regime (multiple drugs over different time frames) so that if the patient rolls snake eyes, the insurance company can dispute the malpractice case by blaming the patient, instead of having to risk showing a jury that a 98% efficacy rate still leaves 1 in 50 people losing.
Doctors push whatever solution is recommended by their board, because if they don't they get sued. Our medicine is determined by case law, not scientific studies.
In my opinion, some generics are as good as the brands, some aren't... You believe that they are all the same, okay, good for you.
Asking for double-blind tests proving that the generics aren't as good... where are the double-blind tests showing that each generic is just as good... hint, they AREN'T done. No double-blind is EVER performed on generics, they show bio-equivalence in the lab and go to market. That's my point, if the "inactive" ingredient change or OTHER changes in the generic cause differences in small segments of the population, then for some people, they may not work as well. Sometimes, bio-equivalence in the lab doesn't mean equivalent results in the field.
Newsflash, for lots of our medicine, we know the outcome, and we know what they do in the blood stream, but we don't always understand WHY they work, and for that, bio-equivalence may be meaningless.
The most amazing thing is to go and see speakers come to a university talking about the entertainment industry. The industries brought people in to discuss DRM, and the experts all explained to them that what they wanted was mathematically uncertain. Cryptography is designed to get a message from Alice to Bill where only Bill can read it, and Bill knows that it was sent by Alice. Cryptography CANNOT be used by Alice to make certain that only Bill can get a message, but that Bill can't make a copy of the message.
The data HAS to be unencrypted at the end source, and the industry knows this. They have been told this. Congress has been told this.
The people working on the DRM solutions told them that they are attempting the mathematically impossible. They don't care, they just keep trying this solution.
In Apple's case, the quasi-solution is that they can require you to update your player (iTunes) when things get compromised. They can't stop the old system from being used, but they can agree to only sell new material. I'm sure that some WANTED to require phone/Internet access to all HD/BR DVD players... which would have KILLED ANY chance for adoption, as DVD players, like VHS decks before them, get used all over the place where that is impractical... in cars, on airplanes, embedded in televisions that get thrown in little used guest rooms, converted garages, finished basements, etc.
But the executives were all WELL informed that it was a waste of money, they simply felt that they could get "secure enough" and that the experts were pointed headed academics.
Clever. I think you're on the right track here. This solution gets back to the intent and purpose of patents while improving competition and capitalistic ideals while thwarting cartels.
Bingo. I think that Patents do serve to advance the useful arts and sciences. I think that especially in the case of Pharma, patents encourage extensive R&D spending and are critical. I will un-popularly suggest that even in Internet-land, some of the patents served to encourage investment in building the commercial Internet.
My concern is that once an industy gets established, cross-licensing keeps new comers out and makes it an old boys network, which is NOT the purpose of patents. Perhaps Amazon.com should be rewarded for their one-click solution, and a RAND policy would have allowed that... If they wanted to license the patent to Apple, they should have had to make it available to ALL comers at the same rate. Perhaps they could have extracted 1%-2% of all Internet sales for their patent, but their "innovation" of one-click shopping would have then benefited all of society... instead we have to wait 13 more years or whatever to benefit from this useful art...
What is to stop Intel and AMD from deciding to license each of those 50 patents to each other and under RAND terms. Is it the dollar amount (the R)? How could you define reasonable?
Absolutely nothing. The reality is that many large industries have many patents involved, the days of one-single patent for something basic like the light-bulb are over. You still get them in screwball areas (watch what gets hocked on infomercials), but semi-conductors, etc., will have many minor patents involved.
My suggestion would be that patent-holders can do one of the following: A) refuse to license to anybody and therefore USE the monopoly B) sell the patent, or enter an exclusive licensing arrangement (basically, the only difference is whether the original holder or new holder has the right to sue others for damages) C) license the patent, but the TERMS of any agreement MUST be disclosed via the PTO within 90 days and must be made available to any new comer
Basically, I would eliminate the cartelization of industries with cross licensing. When Intel develops a new patent, they can horde it, and make AMD work around, or they can license it to AMD. However, ONCE Intel licenses it to AMD, then Motorola, IBM, and anyone else can license it under the same terms.
This won't be an overnight fix, but in time, the days of establishing oligopolies where a few players hold key patents and keep everyone else out will come to an end... even if it is only for new players.
Note: I wouldn't suggest that nobody else can negotiate. Let's say AMD agrees to pay a one-time fee of $5m to license the patent, and then FPGA player comes and offers $5/chip and Intel allows it... I would suggest that BOTH must be published, and a third party, JoeChips, has the right to license the patent for $5m (AMD terms), $5/chip (FPGA terms), or attempt to negotiate with Intel.
I wouldn't eliminate the premiums available to patent holders, just stop them from picking and choosing their competition.
The generics are manufacturing companies that focus on low costs, but the drugs aren't as effective (don't need to be, just 80% similar or something stupid). Unfortunately, except for targeted drugs, where the brand making company can supply the entire generic market as well, the generic market is filled with crappy knock offs...Generics open the drugs up to the masses, which is good, but don't prevent wealthy people from getting better medicine that works correctly if willing to pay the premium.
I've never heard this before - do you happen to know of any studies about this? The FDA should be shutting down factories if this is true. You're not referring to imported internet-sold drugs, right?
I'm overstating it. Sometimes the generic works fine, sometimes it doesn't. A Z-pack (prescription 3-day antibiotic) always wiped out my wife's sinus infections... The generic one she got when pregnant... didn't do anything. It could be the pregnancy, but I've had bad luck with many generics... One of the advantages of being the son of a Doctor, you know when a generic is just as good and when it's crap.
Check this article out on perscription drugs, Greater Access to Generic Drugs, scroll down to the bottom: FDA Requirements for Generic Drugs, and ask yourself which of those rules are easy to game.
Generics get approval within 20 months... they have to show bio-equivalence in a lab setting, not the real world. They SHOULD be the same, but they aren't. The big pharma companies research delivery methods to get EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE percentage of efficacy, because 1% - 2% could be the difference between becoming the new gold standard or being an also ran. For example, if I have a drug that helps in some aspect of surgery, if the existing, long generic, etc., solution is 97% effective and costs $8/dose, and I want to become the new hot drug and charge $400/dose, I need to be 98.5%, well, focusing on every half percent is important.
Once my new wonder drug owns the market, the generic players need to demonstrate (not prove) bio-equivalency. Talk to a Doctor off the record, they'll tell you that plenty of the generics don't work well. On the record, they say it's the same, but plenty of times things that routinely worked when the drug was under patent protection just don't work as well once the generics hit the market. The abbreviated approval process, requiring only proof in a lab, and the fact that the "active" ingredients are the same but the non-active ingredients can differ... well, if the inactive ones affect absorption rate, etc., or how they handle people with unusual chemistry (and if you add up each unusual case that covers 2.5% of the population, you probably get 20% of people that have something abnormal), etc., and you have inferior drugs.
No risk, no reward. Expected return = Beta * (Market) + Alpha
Higher risk firms have a higher rate of return required (Beta). Better firms have Alpha, but as the market becomes efficient, Alpha goes to zero... eventually out performing companies are priced higher and Alpha goes away.
People get wiped out all the time. However, most people with 401(k)s consistently put money in. Over time, the market moves up... Sure, the weekly contributions in Sept '87 were wiped out in October, but the ones in Nov '87 funded their retirement.
Someone who entered in 1998 is sitting here in 2007 right where they started, that sucks, but they will probably make money in the future, and any money that they put in in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 has done well. Sure, they are BACK to 1998 on the pre-1998 dollars, but guess what, the 1992 dollars are still worth more than they were in 1992, even if 1999 - 2006 were a wash.
When a drug goes off patent, the name brand drug price INCREASES, not decreases. Why? Well, the price sensitive part of the market will go with generics, and the wealthy consumers that will pay full price for the better drug will often do so with a price increase.
Patented drug: priced in negotiation with HMOs and others to fit entire market Post-patented drug: priced based upon the small sliver of the market that isn't price sensitive...
Different demand curve, different pricing. Why don't they drop prices to generic prices? Because it is FAR more profitable to sell the drug at a HUGE premium to a small section of the market, than at low profits everywhere. The "Big Pharma" industry is based upon HUGE R&D, then HUGE margins on drugs. They are NOT super-effecieint producers. The generics are manufacturing companies that focus on low costs, but the drugs aren't as effective (don't need to be, just 80% similar or something stupid). Also, often the company that made the branded version will ALSO create a generic version. If you're set up to service 100% of the market, and the market only increases 50% when you go off patent and prices plumet, then you can serve your 10% premium market, plus a third of the generic market WITHOUT changing production at all, so you stamps some group of them differently.
Unfortunately, except for targeted drugs, where the brand making company can supply the entire generic market as well, the generic market is filled with crappy knock offs.
You can always ask your Dr. to write "do not substitute" on the prescription. If you have a drug plan, you'll just pay the higher co-pay. If you don't have a drug plan, you'll just pay more, and get medicine that works mostly. Generics open the drugs up to the masses, which is good, but don't prevent wealthy people from getting better medicine that works correctly if willing to pay the premium.
Without patents, then the "little guy" develops an idea, attempts to bring it to market, and big TNF (trans-national firms) copy the idea, move production costs around, avoid R&D, and come to market 60% below and put the little guy out of business.
With patents, the little guy develops an idea, attempts to bring it to market, gets undercut and destroyed by TNF, then sues and collects money from TNF.
However, the downside to patents is that most new "innovations" stand on the shoulders of giants, and while I can patent my improvement, I need the patents held by incumbent players. Sure I can build a better mouse trap, but if I can't build it without using patents from the older mouse trap, that the status quo players get to decide if I can play.
The biggest issue is that cartelization effect of cross-licensing. Intel and AMD had cross-licensed their innovations, which let them compete on R&D, process, and marketing, not lawyering... the sounds pro-competitive, but it's not. Nobody else could attempt to compete in the market (look at all the failed attempts) because even with patents on their innovations, Intel & AMD held patents that they needed to use, which essentially granted AMD & Intel a cartel to keep new players out (although you could eventually cash in when AMD or Intel stepped on your patent in their fight with each other... that doesn't help push innovation, just redirect money).
Right, we're in agreement. What if cross-licensing deals were illegal. I mean, what if ALL non-RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing deals were illegal. In other-words, 3 incumbent firms can't create a cartel by cross-licensing, each patent would have to be negotiated, find, but once it is licensed, it must be available to EVERYONE at that price. It must be reasonable, meaning you can either use the patent for the monopoly, or license under reasonable terms.
This prevents AMD and Intel from lining up 50 patents each, licensing them to each other for $10/chip, and walking away paying zero, and continuing. It needs to be done in such a way that AMD and Intel fight for new patents to collect money from each other. Sure, a player with fewer patents pays more than they collect, but at least it would stop the current stupidity... where patents block new entrants, and all new entrants can do is collect money, not actually enter.
I know it's all a conspiracy, and the people that actually put money in the stock market over the past few decades and live off of their investments are a myth. I also know that only rich people have money, and they have everything, which is why the people in the big houses and fancy cars are often leveraged to the hilt, and their neighbors with smaller homes and cars aren't seen as wealthy, but may or may not have more wealth.
However, your understanding of the VC market is illusionary. The real rate of return from VC funds, compared to the risk assumed, is no higher than the stock market as a whole. There is no "alpha" to VC investing.
Do people get rich, absolutely. VC investing is much more of a crap shoot, there is MUCH more variance in the returns than in an S&P 500 fund, so some people get fabulously wealthy, and others lose the investment. Who makes money in VC land? Generally the partners of the VC fund, because they raise a series of funds, and give the investors a preferential rate of return, after which, the VC's tae 20%. Let's assume that it is double in 5 years, well, if the VC firm has 10 funds, it's very likely that in 5 years, the OVERALL performance of their investments is up 50%-60%, but to get there, some funds have probably collapsed, but if one increased by 10x (had a Google or similar super star), well they may not collect on the double, put 20% of 10x the fund, if the fund was $250m... that's a $500m management fee for the VCs.
Pension Funds and other institutional investors use hedge funds, venture funds, LBO funds, stock funds, overseas funds, and bond funds to diversify. In some years different asset classes do better, and institutional investors aim for consistency, hence the package of funds. It's true that when the early Internet companies went public, the VCs that backed them (and their investors) made tremendous amounts of money. But after that the system was flooded by money chasing hot returns, and the returns dropped.
The overall market may go up 10% per year, but an investor who rode out the 70s stagflation made nothing, while someone that started investing right have the 1987 crash made out like a bandit. Markets are rarely steady, and generally drift for stretches then shoot up for stretches, just the way markets work.
I'm really not up on most adult "websites," but from my interactions with those in the space, there is all sorts of stuff going on. The big players have different Internet divisions, one handling their studio stars (the original article mentions the interesting affect of how the old Hollywood studio system, or exclusive contracts, remains with the big adult players), one handling Internet only stuff, etc. The "amateur porn" is different levels of amateurism. There probably are small time people (the good webcam stuff), but most of it is small-medium Internet porn businesses, they will run anywhere from a few sites to dozens of sites.
Also, at least 5 years ago, their were content selling companies, that would sell royalty free "content" of adult material. Independents could purchase this "content" and create their own adult websites.
I would assume like all industries, the market has consolidated. I would also assume that since 10 years ago amateur sites were generally a poor single mother getting paid cash for each photo shoot by someone that wanted to run an amateur site, and those sites are probably still floating around, I would guess that most of those sites were purchased by aggregating adult sites that want the link-pop and residual click-over traffic from years of running the sites.
My comment about small time players wasn't so much about the adult industry. If you look at the numbers in the article, the big players like Vivid were moving $100m/year in DVDs. There are 3-4 major players. If there are between 700m and 2.1b in DVD sales (depending on the estimates, AVN said 2.1b, experts said it's probably a third of that), then even with 5 players moving 500m, we have between 200m and 1.6b in revenues not accounted for here.
Who are those players? What resources do they have?
If I am in charge of strategic planning at a porn company, the threats to my industry appear to be: commodization by free porn, or increased costs from technical changes. Look at the video game industry, free entertainment canibalizes some things from the bottom, but the biggest risk is the escalating costs of producing a video game, which squeezes out FAR more players from making games than free tetris sites squeeze out the puzzle game market.
If I am sitting in the CEO's office evaluating BR/HDDVD, if I'm a minor (DVD was risky, because DVD's cost less to produce (on the margin), but creating a master was much more expensive. That's why Anime and other niche products took so long to migrate, you needed mastering costs to come down. Now anyone with a Mac and some cheap software (the Apple Pro stuff, not iLife) can crank out a DVD, you move to HD because then only people with real resources can plan.
If you watch porn move to DivX instead of HD Codecs, you may do well in the beginning, but all your advantages of being a big player count for less in online PPV than they do in HD Discs/PPV.
Right, or in other words: learn to use the f'ing equipment... The "art" or "craft" of movie making or other cultural creations is working with the appropriate technology and limitations to tell your story. If you are writing music for a traveling bard, a small group of musicians to tour, a studio setting for vinyl, or a studio setting for digital audio in 5.1, you have different limitations.
You don't see bardic tunes being popular as modern music, because the technology and economics changed. Similarly, when music was cut to vinyl, you have to master it differently than CDs, because you had physical grooves in vinyl describing the music, there are physical limitations, if you go to extreme in any direction of the music, then vinyl can't handle it because the needly would pop everywhere. With CD, it's binary, digital, and no similar issues exist. That means that you adapt to the new technology. Similarly, if you are cutting music to SA-CD in 5.1 24-bit, 96 khz, you have much more range in both volume and the ability to capture rapid shifts with higher sampling rates. You want to record and master it differently.
Remember, porn was once "cut" to be seen on those little pop a quarter, learn in and watch the video booths, or small screens, etc. Home porn, born with the VHS, was cut for the small bedroom television, not the family room "big screen" (then the difference between 13" and 20", now 27" and 40+"). The fact is, HD is different. Extreme zooms don't make sense. If you are moving to video, well, you need to light differently than film. You are also moving to 60 fps (1080p60, even if displayed at 720p60 or 1080i60), from film's 24, that requires differences in the rate at which you can move the camera, etc.
New technology means new techniques. You used to need to zoom in to the body part to "show" it, that isn't necessary in HD. When I watched MNF last year (ABC's 720p60 broadcast was amazing), I saw bladed of grass in detail. In SD, if they wanted to show you the quality of the field, they had to zoom in. Likewise, in HD, the artificial turn looks AWEFUL. In SD, it looks a bit strange but you don't notice it, in HD it looks like they are playing in the gym. As HD becomes the norm (when every game is broadcast in HD, and most or at learn a good portion of viewers enjoy it), expect all the domes and artificial fields looking into turf that looks less silly in HD.
Same thing for porn. It'll happen, if you'd been watching normal HDTV for the past few years, the video productions have ALL been getting better as people are learning to work with the new medium, it just takes time. The first CDs were straight transfers from vinyl masters, now we do all digital masters and convert to the output format needed. Look at the latest DVDs, even if the production quality is now "crap" they are MUCH better than the good stuff in the early days. Give it time, the tools will get better, and the craftsmen will learn the tools. The first cars looked like the old buggies, but modern cars don't.
Really simple. When Apple sells a machine, there is $0 spent on the OS. The cost to Apple of the OS is a fixed cost.
To Microsoft, the cost of developing the OS is a fixed cost.
To the Computer Reseller, the cost of the Windows OS is a COGS, a marginal cost of selling that machine. Their gross margin is: price of product - COGS. To Dell, COGS includes an OS. To Apple, COGS does NOT include an OS.
Therefore, buying a OS-less PC from Dell SHOULD lower the cost of the machine. If Dell collects a 10% margin, and pays $50 for OEM Windows, then getting a Windows-less machine should be $55 cheaper. Alternatively, if they decide they want to make the same $/machine on the Windows-less machine, then the computer should be $45 cheaper.
So, a Windows-less PC should be $25 - $55 cheaper than a Windows PC depending on the OEM deals, because Windows is a per-unit COGS. The fact that Microsoft's deals often require a "per-computer" pricing model, or intimidate into one implying that OS-less machines are used with pirated Windows is WHERE the Microsoft Tax phrasing comes from. I am buying a computer for Vendor X, but $30-$50 goes to Microsoft WHETHER I WANT THEIR PRODUCT OR NOT, hence the Tax comparison. Linux users are forced to buy MS Windows OEM because of the deal structure that the monopolist has established, essentially creating a computer tax.
If you order an Apple with OS X, the COGS contribution of OS X is $0. If you were to order an Apple computer WITHOUT OS X, the cost is the same.
There is NO Apple Tax. Since there is no impact on the cost model to Apple, Apple can "throw in" OS X, OS X Server, iWork, iLife, or whatever other software that they want to help move machines. There is no Tax, because there is no money involved.
That's the main purpose. If I buy a Dell to run Linux, there is a Windows license implicitly paid for that is priced into my machine. If I buy an Apple to run Linux, there is no "tax" paid, as the software costs Apple $0 to install on my hard drive, while it cost Dell ACTUAL cash to install the software that I am deleted. If Apple were to sell "bare bones" computers, there would be ZERO savings to the consumer, because it costs Apple ZERO to install the software. Hence why the Media-less Windows costs the same as normal Windows, it doesn't "save" MS money to not include some of their software, which is why anything that they can't charge for gets bundled with the OS, to add value since they can't sell it anyways.
And eventually, a new crop of porn directors will come up, who have learned their craft on HD Video (I can't believe I'm carrying on this conversation). The extreme close-ups make sense in a VHS 480i world, but not in an HD world.
It's no different then the rest of television adapting. Most shows are show on film, and I the last time I read about the "technology of porn" was 5 years ago discussing HD adaption, and at the time, Vivid and Wicked were shooting their "movies" on film like a normal movie (multiple angles, stationary cameras, etc.), and everyone else was doing video (amateur style zoom-ins, etc., single camera, limited audio editing).
Today, a pro Audio/Video editing rig is pretty powerful and straight forward, HD Video cameras cheap and powerful, so unless you have a preference for film (I personally do for movies, and I'll take a film transfer, grains and all, over an HD Video shot any day, but for porn, I have no idea, ask porn aficionados). I mean, watch an HD Net football or hockey game some time, since they are only shooting for HD, they pull the camera back, letting you see more action. Then watch an NFL HD broadcast, the camera is set for SD, so despite the greater resolution, most of the sides of the screen is wasted (you NEVER need the edge of the shot to go more than 2 yards beyond the deepest back, but if you have centered for SD, you just have grass behind them), etc.
Some directors, rather than whining about Pan-and-Scan videos, shoot their movies with a cinematic 2.15:1 box and a television 4:3 box on the camera. When they set their shots up, they set them up for the movie experience and the television experience they want. In that case, you aren't "loosing image to go pan-and-scan" or even worse, shooting 4:3 and zooming in for the theatrical release, you have setup the movie to be shown in two ways, two experiences.
No reason that HD porn isn't shot on video, multiple cameras, multiple mics (actual set mics, not the built in on the camera one), like a real movie, not heavily zoomed in, and editing for a 16x9 field. There is no need in HD land to do major close-ups, and you can watch the people engaged in the behavior, not just the genitalia. You might have to cut back on looping and reusing footage, but so what.
In the age of amateur/quasi-amatuer Internet porn, where anyone can take nude pictures, put them online, or get them discretely printed at CVS, and home camcorders are small and $300-$500, I would think that the professional adult industry would WANT to move up market. They need to compete with the amateur offerings, and real production values could no doubt help.
Compare HD Net's HD Video productions to the Network's film conversions. The film vs. video choice is a personal choice, there is no wrong choice. However, HD Net is SHOT for HD, it is shot assuming that you have a large, detailed screen. The Network are shot for 20" SD televisions. HD Net's production shows you the set and what's going on, the networks zoom in to a lot of head shots, ask yourself which looks better on an HD setup. The same rules apply for porn.
On the plus side, one of the complains from the adult veterans was that all the imperfections show... they don't mean pimples and normal skin imperfections, EVERY actor and actress is complaining about that, mainstream or porn, and until they stop zooming in for the HD shots, it will remain a complaint. They mean all the plastic surgery scars, weird stretch marks from enhancement, etc. If HD shows all of that, while it may not eliminate plastic surgery in the adult space, it will force people to focus on quality (a well done augmentation), not just get the biggest your body can support... and that's not a bad thing.
Sorry, but you just demonstrated yourself wrong. If Apple didn't develop OS X it wouldn't have to up the prices of the hardware to make up for it, ie. the plain hardware would be cheaper. I *am* paying extra for the OS.
When you buy the computer from Dell, $35, $50, $75 or whatever OF that price goes to Microsoft. Not theoretically, actually... At the end of the week, if Dell moved 100,000 machines at a $50 OEM price (average business + consumer and rounded to something simple), Dell writes a check for $5,000,000 to Microsoft. (Actually, the probably do estimated monthly payments, with a quarterly reconciliation, but the point is, an ACTUAL cash payment went to Dell to cover YOUR copy of the OS).
When you buy the computer from Apple, $0 goes to Microsoft for the OS. Apple may internally transfer $50 from the hardware division to the OS X division, but managerial accounting rules like that are for executive bonus structure.
If Apple spends $250m developing the OS, Apple spends that $250m regardless of how many computers they sell. If Apple sold you the hardware with no operating system, the price would be the same. It costs Apple $0 to install the OS on the drive. They don't charge for it (they do charge you to upgrade it later), because it would be insane to.
If Apple didn't develop OS X, then they would have to buy an OS from Microsoft or do something else. They need an operating system.
The reason for the "tax" question...
Dell buys a Windows license, sticks it on a computer, charges you some price (of which the Windows license is more or less included -- without going into convoluted economic models, it may increase the price by more or less than the license). You then put Linux on it. You bought a copy of Windows, because the money was transfered out of Dell (whose goods and services you wanted) and handed to Microsoft Corporate (whose goods and services you did not want).
Apple does NOT buy an OS X license. Putting OS X on the hard drive costs 0. Selling you an OS X-less computer WOULD NOT lower their COGS (cost of goods sold) by $35 (Dell's would if there deal doesn't cover every machine shipped), therefore, there is no hidden Tax. Now, does Apple charge a slight premium price because of their OS? Whenever a similar/identical machine was priced out on Dell/HP's website, with the same specs as the OS X Computer (much easier to do now that the hardware is more similar), the Apple computer has been priced lower... this makes perfect sense, Apple is ZERO per-user OS licensing fees. Their internal software (iLife, iWork, OS X), while expensive to produce, cost $0 to duplicate, so throwing them in as sweeteners to move products makes sense (normally iLife + OS X, but I could see iWork starting to come new with certain Apple computers).
Apple's premium is that they have limited customizability and limited types of machines. In the Windows world, you can normally buy EXACTLY the features you need, while in Apple world you have to buy the lowest priced computer that meets OR exceeds your requirements (i.e. need quadruple monitors, but 1 hard drive and limited processing power and RAM, you have to buy a Mac Pro to get 4 monitors, while in Windows world you just buy a machine and a second video card, the Mac Pro is premium priced for lots of features that you may not want).
However, you are wrong, Apple doesn't "have to up the prices of hardware to make up for OS X," Apple charges what the market will bare. Whether OS X cost $1 trillion/year to develop or came down from heaven for $0/year, Apple's would still charge what the market will bare. The premium price Apple collects is that people value their machines more highly as a result of OS, it has NOTHING to do with the COST of developing OS X. Now, if OS X cost more to develop than that premium, Apple exists the Macintosh business... if OS X costs less to develop than the premium, Apple makes substantial profits. Right now, the market clearly seems to be saying the latter, but for a while it was the former and Apple had to shut down their OS development division (Copland) and ended up buying an Operating System (Next) for $400m.
Well, the problem with implying that "Buy a Mac = OS X Tax, Buy a PC = Windows Tax" is that their isn't ACTUALLY an OS X tax.
If I buy a Dell or other company that does not sell bare bones machines, they sell it to me for what the market will bear, and their costs are: hardware + OS license. Assuming that supply and demand set the "what the market will bear" price, than the cost of the OEM license affects the supply curve, which raises the price on the computer. If you assume that if OS software was free, this cost goes away, and the market price adjust accordingly, the price of computers would drop. So far I've said nothing earth shattering other than apply high school level micro-econ terms to how everyone understands the computer market. However, not that to Dell, they may pay $30 for Windows, $70 for the Mobo, and $50 for the processor (plus other parts), to Dell, EACH computer has a marginal cost associated with the OS. While it costs $0 to install the OS image onto the hardware, they pay MS per-computer-sold, which makes the cost no different from other hard costs.
Now, we walk over to Apple. Apple does NOT pay a per-computer fee to an outside agency. They MAY use transfer pricing for internal metrics/bonus structure, but when Apple sells "1 more Apple computer", they don't pay for the OS. They buy the mobo, CPU, hard drive, case, etc., but they do not buy 1 more copy of the OS. Sure, Apple needs to recover the R&D/other costs of developing the OS, but that's Apple's problem. If Apple spends $250m/year developing OS X, they will spend $250m/year whether they sell 1m Apple Computers or 10m Apple computers. While they WANT to recover those costs from the profitable sale of hardware, because of the nature of the software, they actually have an advantage in some ways.
When Dell sells that last computer, they need to recover the A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, C) cost of Windows OS, plus make D) some gross margin that makes the proccess worthwhile.
When Apple sells that last computer, they need to recover A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, plus C) some gross margin that makes the process worthwhile.
When Dell moves an extra 100,000 computers in the quarter, their check to Microsoft increases with those computers. When Apple moves an extra 100,000 computers, they don't have that costs. Amortizing the cost of the OS across the computers sold is an accounting fiction. Ultimately they can sell the computers at the same price as Dell MINUS the cost of Windows, and if they pay the same for hardware, have the same gross profit margins in their hardware division.
When Apple puts out financials, the R&D costs come out as expenses and take away from profits. But when economically deciding whether to move that last machine, Apple is at a cost advantage because they do NOT pay an OS cost when they sell one more machine. I have no idea how many shrink wrap copies of OS X they sell for OS upgrades, but given how much nimbler Apple is plus their leverage of Free and Open Source software packages, I wouldn't be shocked if the shrink wrapped copies actually cover their development costs (or close to it), essentially giving them a free OS to include in new computers.
Remember, software is HIGH fixed costs, ZERO marginal costs... that's what lends itself to the natural monopoly status that Microsoft enjoyed for years. However, as Microsoft's PRICING scheme to OEMs is set, to the OEM, software is LOW fixed costs (testing), plus HIGH marginal costs, which keeps prices higher in the short run. Remember, Microsoft's pricing has been pretty constant since the Win95/NT4 days (only now there is one NT6-based OS, but priced for Consumer/Business), but while inflation has lowered their prices 3%/year, hardware has plummeted. In 1995, computers were around $1500-$2000 for mid-range, by the year 2000, it was down to $1000-$1500, and today, it's $500-$1000 for midrange. That $50 MS OEM license was cheap on a $2000 computer (1/40th the price
1) Even if Intel had entered into such contracts,Intel would only be guilty of breach of contract and would be liable for damages. It would still not be an illegal act.
To clarify, I meant illegal as in violating a legal agreement, subject to legal action, not criminal behavior.
4) GAAP does not require rebates to be separately disclosed. It is perfectly correct accounting to account for such rebates as a reduction from purchase cost. In fact, if they didnt do so, they would be overvaluing their inventory, thus inflating profits!
The biggest thing that I could see is if the behavior was dishonest, and either materially mistated the company's financials, or mistated costs for something like a cost-based contract, would be the only justification that I could see for the class action lawsuit. However, it only needs enough justifcation to not be thrown out to have an opportunity to blackmail management into a settlement.
One way in which a monopolist controls the market is with public price matching. For example, if Intel publishes all their pricing, and guarantees that anyone going exclusively Intel will not pay more than say, Dell, then if Intel drops the price to Dell, they have to refund money to other all-Intel shops... perhaps Apple or other players that agreed to go all Intel to get price breaks.
If Intel gives Dell a 250m rebate, then they are actually charging below the price, and would have to match it elsewhere. However, by hiding the rebate, they can keep charging Dell a book value and collecting the premium elsewhere.
When big players negotiate big contracts, they often put in protections to not be worse off than the competition. I would expect the deal to be illegal because by not disclosing it, they MAY be in material breach to other companies. Further, Intel has signed consent decrees with the Feds over alleged anti-trust violations, and non-disclosed payments to keep competition out may violate those agreements.
This isn't a local computer shop contracting with a wholesaler, these are two Fortune 50 companies, sometimes they have arrangements covering them.
Also, what if a state government agreed to a deal where Dell was the exclusive provider in exchange for cost-plus accounting. Dell would bill on the reported cost, plus profit margin, and then collect the rebate.
There are a bunch of reasons why this might be illegal because it is potentially defrauding other companies IF their deals are dependent on Intel or Dell's pricing structure.
Linux machines are more complex to setup, but that's IRRELEVANT. A server gets setup once, the time involved isn't too major, and consultants are easily available for that. If Redhat setup local centers, where you buy your RHEL w/ install support, i.e. you either buy hardware from them pre-installed, or bring your Dell/HQ server in (or they come to you) and get it installed, you take the setup issue out. That part is easily solved.
However, the Admin side on Linux is horrid. While the Admin'ing a local workstation is easy, and pulling configuration out of LDAP is easy, the network management sucks.
If I am a mostly Windows shop but want to add 10-20 Macs for a design department, or any other department, the process is straightforward.
Buy my OS X Server, hook it into the MS Domain, and then manage my Macs from there. I could assign the Macs straight to the MS Active Directory, and Admin the Mac stuff from Mac land, but that means convincing the Active Directory people to let me use Apple's Admin stuff and not break things. But running a section of the Directory on Apple is straight-forward.
However, on Linux, I have a collection of How-to's, and a lot of manual work to get the centralized control into the LDAP Directory. All the pieces are there Kerberos-Workstation, OpenLDAP, Automount, etc., everything is easy to do for one machine, but when it comes to rolling out 10-15... well, it's manual. I got my auto-mount settings into my Mac LDAP server, and doing it on Windows would be the same, but it's a manual process.
Unix and MS Admin's are VERY different. A Unix admin is comfortable shell scriptings, installing software, configuring from a command line, etc. MS Admin's are NOT. The guys that do that stuff on MS exist, but they are generally consultants, because you hire them to set things up, then your in-house Admin's do it all from a mouse-click.
The Linux Enterprise players (Novell and RedHat) need to develop easily Admin tools for basic changes, not the setup... so much focus on setup, where a consultant easily solves the problem, and not enogh on maintenance.
Most MS Shops have a low-paid Admin, 40k-50k, that adds user accounts, rotate backup tapes, etc., and then use a consultant (or BIG shops have a senior guy or two) that do the BIG stuff. Linux has lots of solutions for the BIG stuff, but not day to day. Adding a User in MS land is straight-forward... a new person gets hired, you create the account in one place, setting up the User Account, Group Policies, and Email. In Linux land, these MAY be integrated, or they may not. Apple showed how to write a useful interface (the reliability is another manner).
To sell Linux as a workgroup solution... i.e. limited functionality users, is easy. Save money, save help desk, easy lock-down, no viruses/spyware, it's an easy sell. You need to integrate into the MS Active Directory structure, but only for user accounts. Nobody would object to adding a Linux workgroup server that had the NFS Mounts/Workstation Policies all pulled from there, but the tools need to be there.
In a Linux network (no MS involved), adding a user means rolling your own script that: A) adds them to the LDAP domain, B) adds them to the Kerberos system (if using it, and why shouldn't you, it's there, and MS does it as well), C) adds them to the email system. Changing their password on their end in one of those systems may or may not update the rest.
Linux has lots of options for everything, but no EASY way to mass configure. Sure you can build a custom-install, but that isn't the way small/medium/enterprise businesses necessarily want to use them for a small workgroup.
For YEARS Apple has held small chunks of the business market, and by playing nicely with the rest of the infrastructure, they make it easier to hang there. There is no reason for Linux not to be in the same place. No reason that I can't buy a Redhat-branded machine from the likes of Penguin Computing the same way I can buy an Apple server and run my Apple desktops. Workgroup servers don't scare businesses if they are set and forget and use the same User accounts as the rest of the network. Offer a whole package, and let it play well with upstream stuff.
Fiat currency represents people's willingness to accept it. Your house is a real asset, you own it. You also have it secured by a liability, a mortgage, that is denominated in US dollars. If they inflation rate goes up, your house value INCREASES in dollars. If a 2010 dollar is worth half a 2007 dollar, then your house should be worth roughly twice what it is now in 2010, but your mortgage, denominated in dollars, is now half what it is now...
for example:
buy house for 200k, secure with 200k mortgage
in 2010, we're proposing a major inflation halving the currency
house worth 400k, secured with mortgage for 200k
In 2007 dollars, that house would still be worth 200k, but the mortgage is now comparatively small, 100k
Real estate is one of the best hedges against inflation. Real estate bubbles, are somewhat fictional (localized happen when a local area's economy heats up, then falls, like the gold rush and oil booms) because we have had 3 major run-ups in property... post-Civil War, post-WW2, post-Reagan/Clinton bull market (for lack of a better term for the 80s-90s bull market).
Overall, housing prices go up around inflation, usually inflation +.5% over the past 150 years, but in most years, it actually lags inflation by a bit. However, like ALL markets, it's not a steady rise, and happens in a few small runs, which looks like bubble, especially because after a large climb, there is normally a correction.
Most massive housing "wealth" is from A) people that bought RIGHT before the run up... Housing prices are roughly where they were 25 years ago after adjusted for inflation, plus a little bit, but it ALL game in the past 7 years... If you bought a house 8 years ago, you made a killing, if you bought it 25 years ago and sold 8, you got creamed.
However, people ignore inflation, because 3% is kinda unnoticeable in 1 year, but over 15-20 it adds up.
You wrote, "Yes, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the vast majority of the neoconservatives who avoided the draft would agree with you. Let's see what John Kerry and John Murta (both of whom were wounded in combat) think of global warming, eh? Al Gore served in the military, if I'm not mistaken. You're loony if you think that global warming advocates are just a bunch of cowards who couldn't face Vietnam in the 60s/70s, and now are too chicken to face the "tough evidence" on global warming out of a deep character flaw. Is that really an argument you find persuasive? That IS an argument I haven't seen before, I'll admit.
Back to attacking me by attributing my observations to someone else that you can attack on a personal level. My comment was on the overall state of American institutions of higher education. Talk to people from that generation. The 6/7/8 year combo undergrad/medical school programs were established then to let people defer through their medical school program. Educational deferrments were one of the most reasonable to get (though John Kerry's was denied, which is why he signed up for the Navy to avoid the Army, and signed up for Swift Boat duty because they were patrol missions, not combat, a role changed right after he got his assignment... John Kerry, post-Yale, threw a string of snake eyes, and remarkably came out relatively unscarred compared to most accidental soldiers).
I found many professors that admitted they stayed in school because they didn't want to enter the service, despite lacking a passion. Having obtained a Ph.D, doing a post-doc and entering the academy was the logical career move, but these were people who didn't have a calling to be researcher/professors. It has left an extremely jaded and angry group of baby-boomer professors. It has also warped the employment field... not only are the boomers larger that successive generations, but they are disproportionately represented in fields that require advanced education because of how the draft was set up. As a result, there was no room for new Ph.D's to enter the academy in the numbers that they were produced (glut of professors => glut of Ph.D students => glut of unemployed Ph.Ds), and we're going to have massive simultaneous retirements, which may radically change career opportunities for new-Ph.Ds. In fact, UNTIL the Vietnam War, professors were never the near-100% Ph.D rate that we have now, you had many professors with Masters Degrees. The Ph.D or else phenomenon was a result of SO MANY Ph.D's graduating, compared with fewer opennings for Professors, that a Ph.D became a requirement for the job. While top-tier schools always aimed for near-100% levels, the fact that local teaching colleges were requiring Ph.Ds (somewhat unnecessary if you are a lecturer first, with limited research at a local commuting school, especially for teaching undergraduate coursework) warped the market.
I am suggesting the University Professors have a clear agenda: Get more grant money. Grants come from the government/non-profits. Government bureacrats and Non-profits are filled with paper-pushers that just want cushy benefits and don't want to rock the boat, so grants only cover research that is similar to other research.
It's not JUST climate science, look at how cancer research is funded. We conduct millions of trials on nude mice, because they are somewhat similar to humans, and easy to observe... mostly the latter. Many things that work on mice DO NOT work on humans, yet we don't test on humans until after mice... makes sense, you can mass produce mice, people are a valuable commodity and have human rights... HOWEVER, if things that work on mice DO NOT work on humans, it stands to reason that there will be things that WORK on humans but DO NOT work on mice, so how many promissing treatments are lost because of an obsession with nude mice. Look at how cancer research dollars flow to experiments that don't really help us look for a cure, because that isn't what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
iTunes plays anything that is in Quicktime Format, and Quicktime will happily store MPEG-4 video. Once you install the DivX Codec for Quicktime (a free download), you can play your DivX movies in Quicktime. All you have to do is save the new file with the Quicktime wrapper (that stores the meta-information) and copy it into iTunes. Remember, Quicktime is Apple's media playing system. The Quicktime Player is just a small front-end for playing Quicktime moves (on Mac), or an embedded Quicktime + Player for Windows.
I've been debating ditching my DirecTV + Tivos system, because I can't get the new HD content without MPEG-4, and once I go MPEG-4, I can't use my HD Tivo, and the new software seems crappy. The Wife and I realized that the amount of non-network television we watch is miniscule (the 6 networks, even pretended MyNetworkTV is a Network) cover 90% of our viewing... add Battlestar Galactica, Daily Show, and Colbert Report, and that's pretty much hit, save a one-two shows a year on HBO/Showtime that come out on DVD later anyway.
This raises the Question: instead of Satellite boxes all over the place, could a MythTV recorder with a nice fat RAID Array + 6 HDTV cards that record EVERY OTA prime time show in HDTV (why bother selecting programming when you can grab them all), with a Mac Mini running an Automator Script and/or a simple Applescript running hourly to add the Quicktime Wrapper + Meta Data get all my Content into nice and happy iTunes, for easy playback on Apple TVs in the house... doesn't sound far fetched, does it?
The common explanation for Y2K is that dates were stored with room for 2 digits, and would roll over when hitting 100... This completely ignores a VITAL fact... computers are binary, NOT decimal. The number 100 is significant and moves to 3 digits in decimal space, but is UNINTERESTING in binary. In binary, if you store things as 1 byte, you can go up to 127 (signed) or 255 (unsigned). In no way were dates routinely stored as two byte characters (99 being the max) when 1 byte would get you to 255 easily. Remember Legend of Zelda on the NES... that's why you could have 255 rupees, it was a single byte, not 99 (two digits).
Now, did we have Y2K problems. Absolutely, anyone that created a four digit date by String Concat: "19" + String(date) would have problems, I had a few minor software packages that reported the date as January 2, 19100, instead of 2000.
There WERE things to check, because anything that uses the string output and reported the date as two characters would have a problem. However, the news media made it sounds as if computers everywhere were going to think it was the year 1900 and collapse. Anywhere that numbers were stored in bytes and compressed to "years from 1900" to save space did NOT have a problem. It was things that parsed the output.
This made the Y2K problems MUCH smaller in scope that widely reported, and much easier to handle. The biggest issue with Y2K is the piles of 30 year old code, where the programmers long since retired, and nobody knew how they worked. Now, there is no running code that deals with dates that hasn't been updated in the past 10 years, so things are better under control.
Uh, 20% of the Democratic Caucus is conservative democrats right now... and Sen. Webb is a Republican, or at least was until he got annoyed with Bush and the Iraq war, and it's unclear where he'll stand after the Iraq war. Dean did an AMAZING job of turning the Democratic Party back into a national party (read Zell Miller's book for how bizarre they got at writing off the South -- don't attack him, he makes a LOT of good points), but it's not a 99.8% string up the Republicans party... if it was, it wouldn't win many elections...
But the comment you've misreading isn't "punish Bush," it's the "punish Bush states."
The Daily Kos crew, and other "politics isn't a contact sport, it's a battle to the death sport" wants the Democratic Party to ATTACK government funding goals that help Republican states. You wouldn't be very happy if the Democrats first action was to pull all highway funding, social spending, etc., for the state of Georgia, while leaving it for the rest of the states.
The implication that Uncle Ted can't deliver the bacon because he's in the minority and all his projects will be cut is probably wrong, and somewhat dangerous. I'd love to see the corruption rooted out of Washington with ALL appropriations, but punishing your opponents and rewarding your friends TOO extremely is just a bad scene.
Okay, Myspace is a business, which operates under different rules than a non-business entity, largely because of what the assumption are. If I walk into a store front, either corporately owned or not, there is an expectation of safety, non-discrimination, etc., and other things that govern businesses open to the public. If I walk into a private club (whether it is a tree house or a rented building), there is less of an expectation that they are operating like a business would. Negligence and contributory issues depend on reasonable actions.
It is REASONABLE for me to assume that Wal-Mart's bathrooms are reasonably clean, and if they aren't and that causes problems, they are arguably negligent. It is NOT reasonable for me to knock on your door, ask to use the bathroom, and assume that your bathroom is up to health code.
It's not a matter of "they'd lose money," it's a matter of, is it reasonable to assume that they do, and if not, is it reasonable for them to do so?
It is reasonable to expect an open-to-the-public business to properly illuminate their building for safety reasons. It isn't reasonable to expect every citizen to always have sufficient lighting (bulb/fixture burns out, etc.). It is reasonable to expect a bank for verify identity, it isn't reasonable to expect a small website to do so. If I am running an adult book store or liquor store, it is reasonable to expect me to ID possible children at the door, it isn't reasonable for a corner book store to be expected to do so.
Myspace.com's business depends upon users being able to easily create accounts anonymously, therefore it isn't reasonable to expect them to verify identity, because it would compromise their business. If they needed to verify accounts for OTHER reasons, so it wouldn't be a burden upon their business, then it WOULD be reasonable to verify identities. Likewise, if it was a private club, the expectations of reasonable behavior are even lower. It isn't reasonable for me to expect the private club to be up to "open to the public" businesses if I knock on the door and ask to use the bathroom, OTOH, it is reasonable for me to expect that the bathroom isn't booby trapped or mined... if it was an ACTUAL death trap, they would be liable for letting me use it, while if it wasn't up to my standards, they shouldn't be liable, make sense?
But the point is, bio-equivalence plus the 20% rule leads to generics being sometimes effective, sometimes not. The Wal-Mart example that you gave was the point I was making, often the generics come off the SAME line and are stamped/labeled differently... in those cases, the generic is JUST AS GOOD because it's the SAME.
In other cases, it's reverse engineered, and done well enough that it is just as effective. There is the 20% wiggle room, but no reason that it won't work.
In other cases, that 20% difference is enough to make the generic appear to be totally worthless, or at least worthless for SOME patients, yet they are stuck with it because the law allows substitution, and HMOs require it.
It's a crap shoot with anything... when it comes to OTC stuff, try the generic, see if it works for you, if so, great, use the generic, otherwise, switch back to the brand. When it comes to prescriptions, check with your doctor. Somethings are handled find by the generic, others not so much... if you don't trust your doctor, find a new doctor that you trust.
But blindly attacking me and all doctors (like the other response I got) doesn't change the fact that sometimes all isn't how it seams.
That's probably true on "big" issues, but not appropriations. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats don't really have a majority right now, one of their members is out recovering, so it's 49 + Lieberman (50), vs. 49... and any ties go to the GOP... and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (but budgets can't be filibustered).
The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.
Not to dismiss the out of control corruption that the GOP brought in over the past 5 years (as a conservative, I was aghast), but I don't really believe that the Democrats freeze is real. Basically, the GOP didn't pass a budget, didn't during a lame duck session, and the Democrats choose to fund the year via continuing resolutions. This has messed up some agencies (NASA in particular), has given Bush an opportunity to crow about the budget (spending increases won't happen because no budget is being passed), and whatever earmarks were in there will stay.
The K-Street project got a lot of play, but it's important to realize that the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years before the 1994 change, and the Senate for the majority of those years. The Democrats (and most of the GOP) never considered the Republicans anything but an opposition party, and the first few years of the GOP, they still acted like the opposition (that's how silly things like the government shutdown happened). Basically, the Washington establishment had been a Democratic-only land because the growth in government (FDR-onward) had coincided with a nearly permanent Democratic government (in terms of Congress and therefore spending). While we hoped that the GOP would start dismantling the Democrat-built government, the alternative of feeding corruption to their people was the more likely scenario. And as corruption rarely shrinks, all the crap the Democrats built stayed while the GOP built their own.
I find it unlikely that the Democrats will try to take down GOP pork/corruption, because if they do and the GOP regains power, they will retaliate, and hard.
The unwritten rule of politics is to never attack your enemy's backers, especially when all they want is to feed at the public trough. Better to pay everyone with OPM than risk getting hurt when you are out of power.
Otherwise, you could never explain how the entertainment industry wasn't decimated by the 5 years of total GOP control, considering HOW left-wing and democratic the Hollywood/New York crowd is... it's not a bunch of liberal Democrats, this crew borders on the left wing extremist crowd... yet the GOP NEVER attacked them... just like the Democrats will never REALLY attack the Wall Street crowd... too risky... If the Democrats REALLY take shots (excess profits tax on oil, etc.... things that they harped about in opposition but would never do), they risk a GOP response of declaring war on the trial lawyers and entertainment industry... which would cut off their funds.
With all due respect, that was rude. Some of the generics are fine, others are... problematic. I don't want to go into specifics, I mentioned one anecdote. I know with several medications my father has said that the generics are fine, and with others, he recommends going with the name brand.
You suggest that I ignored the line: you would have noticed this FDA requirement "Generic drug manufacturers must show that a generic drug is bioequivalent to the brand-name drug, in fact, I specifically addressed that as their standard, and why I think that it is problematic.
All your issues with drug sales reps, etc., are legit, and doctors being "really fucking ignorant" is really an overstatement for people that have extensive educational requirements, testing, and achievement levels. There are many things that doctors lack (sufficient education in statistics and access to up to date literature with the ability to apply in a clinical setting come to mind), but being "really fucking ignorant" of people that are certainly intelligent, and documented as intelligent, is just trolling with venom.
In reality, most doctors DON'T recommend the brand over the generic, because the pharmacist will substitute anyway and the patients don't want to pay more of a co-pay, also many HMO drug plans will NOT COVER a brand drug when the generic is available.
Doctor recommendations are not heavily made by sales reps, free gifts, or most recent literature. It is generally driven by whatever decision that can demonstrate in court was the "standard recommended treatment" and preferably a confusing regime (multiple drugs over different time frames) so that if the patient rolls snake eyes, the insurance company can dispute the malpractice case by blaming the patient, instead of having to risk showing a jury that a 98% efficacy rate still leaves 1 in 50 people losing.
Doctors push whatever solution is recommended by their board, because if they don't they get sued. Our medicine is determined by case law, not scientific studies.
In my opinion, some generics are as good as the brands, some aren't... You believe that they are all the same, okay, good for you.
Asking for double-blind tests proving that the generics aren't as good... where are the double-blind tests showing that each generic is just as good... hint, they AREN'T done. No double-blind is EVER performed on generics, they show bio-equivalence in the lab and go to market. That's my point, if the "inactive" ingredient change or OTHER changes in the generic cause differences in small segments of the population, then for some people, they may not work as well. Sometimes, bio-equivalence in the lab doesn't mean equivalent results in the field.
Newsflash, for lots of our medicine, we know the outcome, and we know what they do in the blood stream, but we don't always understand WHY they work, and for that, bio-equivalence may be meaningless.
The most amazing thing is to go and see speakers come to a university talking about the entertainment industry. The industries brought people in to discuss DRM, and the experts all explained to them that what they wanted was mathematically uncertain. Cryptography is designed to get a message from Alice to Bill where only Bill can read it, and Bill knows that it was sent by Alice. Cryptography CANNOT be used by Alice to make certain that only Bill can get a message, but that Bill can't make a copy of the message.
The data HAS to be unencrypted at the end source, and the industry knows this. They have been told this. Congress has been told this.
The people working on the DRM solutions told them that they are attempting the mathematically impossible. They don't care, they just keep trying this solution.
In Apple's case, the quasi-solution is that they can require you to update your player (iTunes) when things get compromised. They can't stop the old system from being used, but they can agree to only sell new material. I'm sure that some WANTED to require phone/Internet access to all HD/BR DVD players... which would have KILLED ANY chance for adoption, as DVD players, like VHS decks before them, get used all over the place where that is impractical... in cars, on airplanes, embedded in televisions that get thrown in little used guest rooms, converted garages, finished basements, etc.
But the executives were all WELL informed that it was a waste of money, they simply felt that they could get "secure enough" and that the experts were pointed headed academics.
Bingo. I think that Patents do serve to advance the useful arts and sciences. I think that especially in the case of Pharma, patents encourage extensive R&D spending and are critical. I will un-popularly suggest that even in Internet-land, some of the patents served to encourage investment in building the commercial Internet.
My concern is that once an industy gets established, cross-licensing keeps new comers out and makes it an old boys network, which is NOT the purpose of patents. Perhaps Amazon.com should be rewarded for their one-click solution, and a RAND policy would have allowed that... If they wanted to license the patent to Apple, they should have had to make it available to ALL comers at the same rate. Perhaps they could have extracted 1%-2% of all Internet sales for their patent, but their "innovation" of one-click shopping would have then benefited all of society... instead we have to wait 13 more years or whatever to benefit from this useful art...
Absolutely nothing. The reality is that many large industries have many patents involved, the days of one-single patent for something basic like the light-bulb are over. You still get them in screwball areas (watch what gets hocked on infomercials), but semi-conductors, etc., will have many minor patents involved.
My suggestion would be that patent-holders can do one of the following:
A) refuse to license to anybody and therefore USE the monopoly
B) sell the patent, or enter an exclusive licensing arrangement (basically, the only difference is whether the original holder or new holder has the right to sue others for damages)
C) license the patent, but the TERMS of any agreement MUST be disclosed via the PTO within 90 days and must be made available to any new comer
Basically, I would eliminate the cartelization of industries with cross licensing. When Intel develops a new patent, they can horde it, and make AMD work around, or they can license it to AMD. However, ONCE Intel licenses it to AMD, then Motorola, IBM, and anyone else can license it under the same terms.
This won't be an overnight fix, but in time, the days of establishing oligopolies where a few players hold key patents and keep everyone else out will come to an end... even if it is only for new players.
Note: I wouldn't suggest that nobody else can negotiate. Let's say AMD agrees to pay a one-time fee of $5m to license the patent, and then FPGA player comes and offers $5/chip and Intel allows it... I would suggest that BOTH must be published, and a third party, JoeChips, has the right to license the patent for $5m (AMD terms), $5/chip (FPGA terms), or attempt to negotiate with Intel.
I wouldn't eliminate the premiums available to patent holders, just stop them from picking and choosing their competition.
I'm overstating it. Sometimes the generic works fine, sometimes it doesn't. A Z-pack (prescription 3-day antibiotic) always wiped out my wife's sinus infections... The generic one she got when pregnant... didn't do anything. It could be the pregnancy, but I've had bad luck with many generics... One of the advantages of being the son of a Doctor, you know when a generic is just as good and when it's crap.
Check this article out on perscription drugs, Greater Access to Generic Drugs, scroll down to the bottom: FDA Requirements for Generic Drugs, and ask yourself which of those rules are easy to game.
Generics get approval within 20 months... they have to show bio-equivalence in a lab setting, not the real world. They SHOULD be the same, but they aren't. The big pharma companies research delivery methods to get EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE percentage of efficacy, because 1% - 2% could be the difference between becoming the new gold standard or being an also ran. For example, if I have a drug that helps in some aspect of surgery, if the existing, long generic, etc., solution is 97% effective and costs $8/dose, and I want to become the new hot drug and charge $400/dose, I need to be 98.5%, well, focusing on every half percent is important.
Once my new wonder drug owns the market, the generic players need to demonstrate (not prove) bio-equivalency. Talk to a Doctor off the record, they'll tell you that plenty of the generics don't work well. On the record, they say it's the same, but plenty of times things that routinely worked when the drug was under patent protection just don't work as well once the generics hit the market. The abbreviated approval process, requiring only proof in a lab, and the fact that the "active" ingredients are the same but the non-active ingredients can differ... well, if the inactive ones affect absorption rate, etc., or how they handle people with unusual chemistry (and if you add up each unusual case that covers 2.5% of the population, you probably get 20% of people that have something abnormal), etc., and you have inferior drugs.
No risk, no reward. Expected return = Beta * (Market) + Alpha
Higher risk firms have a higher rate of return required (Beta). Better firms have Alpha, but as the market becomes efficient, Alpha goes to zero... eventually out performing companies are priced higher and Alpha goes away.
People get wiped out all the time. However, most people with 401(k)s consistently put money in. Over time, the market moves up... Sure, the weekly contributions in Sept '87 were wiped out in October, but the ones in Nov '87 funded their retirement.
Someone who entered in 1998 is sitting here in 2007 right where they started, that sucks, but they will probably make money in the future, and any money that they put in in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 has done well. Sure, they are BACK to 1998 on the pre-1998 dollars, but guess what, the 1992 dollars are still worth more than they were in 1992, even if 1999 - 2006 were a wash.
Alex
When a drug goes off patent, the name brand drug price INCREASES, not decreases. Why? Well, the price sensitive part of the market will go with generics, and the wealthy consumers that will pay full price for the better drug will often do so with a price increase.
Patented drug: priced in negotiation with HMOs and others to fit entire market
Post-patented drug: priced based upon the small sliver of the market that isn't price sensitive...
Different demand curve, different pricing. Why don't they drop prices to generic prices? Because it is FAR more profitable to sell the drug at a HUGE premium to a small section of the market, than at low profits everywhere. The "Big Pharma" industry is based upon HUGE R&D, then HUGE margins on drugs. They are NOT super-effecieint producers. The generics are manufacturing companies that focus on low costs, but the drugs aren't as effective (don't need to be, just 80% similar or something stupid). Also, often the company that made the branded version will ALSO create a generic version. If you're set up to service 100% of the market, and the market only increases 50% when you go off patent and prices plumet, then you can serve your 10% premium market, plus a third of the generic market WITHOUT changing production at all, so you stamps some group of them differently.
Unfortunately, except for targeted drugs, where the brand making company can supply the entire generic market as well, the generic market is filled with crappy knock offs.
You can always ask your Dr. to write "do not substitute" on the prescription. If you have a drug plan, you'll just pay the higher co-pay. If you don't have a drug plan, you'll just pay more, and get medicine that works mostly. Generics open the drugs up to the masses, which is good, but don't prevent wealthy people from getting better medicine that works correctly if willing to pay the premium.
Without patents, then the "little guy" develops an idea, attempts to bring it to market, and big TNF (trans-national firms) copy the idea, move production costs around, avoid R&D, and come to market 60% below and put the little guy out of business.
With patents, the little guy develops an idea, attempts to bring it to market, gets undercut and destroyed by TNF, then sues and collects money from TNF.
However, the downside to patents is that most new "innovations" stand on the shoulders of giants, and while I can patent my improvement, I need the patents held by incumbent players. Sure I can build a better mouse trap, but if I can't build it without using patents from the older mouse trap, that the status quo players get to decide if I can play.
The biggest issue is that cartelization effect of cross-licensing. Intel and AMD had cross-licensed their innovations, which let them compete on R&D, process, and marketing, not lawyering... the sounds pro-competitive, but it's not. Nobody else could attempt to compete in the market (look at all the failed attempts) because even with patents on their innovations, Intel & AMD held patents that they needed to use, which essentially granted AMD & Intel a cartel to keep new players out (although you could eventually cash in when AMD or Intel stepped on your patent in their fight with each other... that doesn't help push innovation, just redirect money).
Right, we're in agreement. What if cross-licensing deals were illegal. I mean, what if ALL non-RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing deals were illegal. In other-words, 3 incumbent firms can't create a cartel by cross-licensing, each patent would have to be negotiated, find, but once it is licensed, it must be available to EVERYONE at that price. It must be reasonable, meaning you can either use the patent for the monopoly, or license under reasonable terms.
This prevents AMD and Intel from lining up 50 patents each, licensing them to each other for $10/chip, and walking away paying zero, and continuing. It needs to be done in such a way that AMD and Intel fight for new patents to collect money from each other. Sure, a player with fewer patents pays more than they collect, but at least it would stop the current stupidity... where patents block new entrants, and all new entrants can do is collect money, not actually enter.
I know it's all a conspiracy, and the people that actually put money in the stock market over the past few decades and live off of their investments are a myth. I also know that only rich people have money, and they have everything, which is why the people in the big houses and fancy cars are often leveraged to the hilt, and their neighbors with smaller homes and cars aren't seen as wealthy, but may or may not have more wealth.
However, your understanding of the VC market is illusionary. The real rate of return from VC funds, compared to the risk assumed, is no higher than the stock market as a whole. There is no "alpha" to VC investing.
Do people get rich, absolutely. VC investing is much more of a crap shoot, there is MUCH more variance in the returns than in an S&P 500 fund, so some people get fabulously wealthy, and others lose the investment. Who makes money in VC land? Generally the partners of the VC fund, because they raise a series of funds, and give the investors a preferential rate of return, after which, the VC's tae 20%. Let's assume that it is double in 5 years, well, if the VC firm has 10 funds, it's very likely that in 5 years, the OVERALL performance of their investments is up 50%-60%, but to get there, some funds have probably collapsed, but if one increased by 10x (had a Google or similar super star), well they may not collect on the double, put 20% of 10x the fund, if the fund was $250m... that's a $500m management fee for the VCs.
Pension Funds and other institutional investors use hedge funds, venture funds, LBO funds, stock funds, overseas funds, and bond funds to diversify. In some years different asset classes do better, and institutional investors aim for consistency, hence the package of funds. It's true that when the early Internet companies went public, the VCs that backed them (and their investors) made tremendous amounts of money. But after that the system was flooded by money chasing hot returns, and the returns dropped.
The overall market may go up 10% per year, but an investor who rode out the 70s stagflation made nothing, while someone that started investing right have the 1987 crash made out like a bandit. Markets are rarely steady, and generally drift for stretches then shoot up for stretches, just the way markets work.
I'm really not up on most adult "websites," but from my interactions with those in the space, there is all sorts of stuff going on. The big players have different Internet divisions, one handling their studio stars (the original article mentions the interesting affect of how the old Hollywood studio system, or exclusive contracts, remains with the big adult players), one handling Internet only stuff, etc. The "amateur porn" is different levels of amateurism. There probably are small time people (the good webcam stuff), but most of it is small-medium Internet porn businesses, they will run anywhere from a few sites to dozens of sites.
Also, at least 5 years ago, their were content selling companies, that would sell royalty free "content" of adult material. Independents could purchase this "content" and create their own adult websites.
I would assume like all industries, the market has consolidated. I would also assume that since 10 years ago amateur sites were generally a poor single mother getting paid cash for each photo shoot by someone that wanted to run an amateur site, and those sites are probably still floating around, I would guess that most of those sites were purchased by aggregating adult sites that want the link-pop and residual click-over traffic from years of running the sites.
My comment about small time players wasn't so much about the adult industry. If you look at the numbers in the article, the big players like Vivid were moving $100m/year in DVDs. There are 3-4 major players. If there are between 700m and 2.1b in DVD sales (depending on the estimates, AVN said 2.1b, experts said it's probably a third of that), then even with 5 players moving 500m, we have between 200m and 1.6b in revenues not accounted for here.
Who are those players? What resources do they have?
If I am in charge of strategic planning at a porn company, the threats to my industry appear to be: commodization by free porn, or increased costs from technical changes. Look at the video game industry, free entertainment canibalizes some things from the bottom, but the biggest risk is the escalating costs of producing a video game, which squeezes out FAR more players from making games than free tetris sites squeeze out the puzzle game market.
If I am sitting in the CEO's office evaluating BR/HDDVD, if I'm a minor (DVD was risky, because DVD's cost less to produce (on the margin), but creating a master was much more expensive. That's why Anime and other niche products took so long to migrate, you needed mastering costs to come down. Now anyone with a Mac and some cheap software (the Apple Pro stuff, not iLife) can crank out a DVD, you move to HD because then only people with real resources can plan.
If you watch porn move to DivX instead of HD Codecs, you may do well in the beginning, but all your advantages of being a big player count for less in online PPV than they do in HD Discs/PPV.
Right, or in other words: learn to use the f'ing equipment... The "art" or "craft" of movie making or other cultural creations is working with the appropriate technology and limitations to tell your story. If you are writing music for a traveling bard, a small group of musicians to tour, a studio setting for vinyl, or a studio setting for digital audio in 5.1, you have different limitations.
You don't see bardic tunes being popular as modern music, because the technology and economics changed. Similarly, when music was cut to vinyl, you have to master it differently than CDs, because you had physical grooves in vinyl describing the music, there are physical limitations, if you go to extreme in any direction of the music, then vinyl can't handle it because the needly would pop everywhere. With CD, it's binary, digital, and no similar issues exist. That means that you adapt to the new technology. Similarly, if you are cutting music to SA-CD in 5.1 24-bit, 96 khz, you have much more range in both volume and the ability to capture rapid shifts with higher sampling rates. You want to record and master it differently.
Remember, porn was once "cut" to be seen on those little pop a quarter, learn in and watch the video booths, or small screens, etc. Home porn, born with the VHS, was cut for the small bedroom television, not the family room "big screen" (then the difference between 13" and 20", now 27" and 40+"). The fact is, HD is different. Extreme zooms don't make sense. If you are moving to video, well, you need to light differently than film. You are also moving to 60 fps (1080p60, even if displayed at 720p60 or 1080i60), from film's 24, that requires differences in the rate at which you can move the camera, etc.
New technology means new techniques. You used to need to zoom in to the body part to "show" it, that isn't necessary in HD. When I watched MNF last year (ABC's 720p60 broadcast was amazing), I saw bladed of grass in detail. In SD, if they wanted to show you the quality of the field, they had to zoom in. Likewise, in HD, the artificial turn looks AWEFUL. In SD, it looks a bit strange but you don't notice it, in HD it looks like they are playing in the gym. As HD becomes the norm (when every game is broadcast in HD, and most or at learn a good portion of viewers enjoy it), expect all the domes and artificial fields looking into turf that looks less silly in HD.
Same thing for porn. It'll happen, if you'd been watching normal HDTV for the past few years, the video productions have ALL been getting better as people are learning to work with the new medium, it just takes time. The first CDs were straight transfers from vinyl masters, now we do all digital masters and convert to the output format needed. Look at the latest DVDs, even if the production quality is now "crap" they are MUCH better than the good stuff in the early days. Give it time, the tools will get better, and the craftsmen will learn the tools. The first cars looked like the old buggies, but modern cars don't.
Really simple. When Apple sells a machine, there is $0 spent on the OS. The cost to Apple of the OS is a fixed cost.
To Microsoft, the cost of developing the OS is a fixed cost.
To the Computer Reseller, the cost of the Windows OS is a COGS, a marginal cost of selling that machine. Their gross margin is: price of product - COGS. To Dell, COGS includes an OS. To Apple, COGS does NOT include an OS.
Therefore, buying a OS-less PC from Dell SHOULD lower the cost of the machine. If Dell collects a 10% margin, and pays $50 for OEM Windows, then getting a Windows-less machine should be $55 cheaper. Alternatively, if they decide they want to make the same $/machine on the Windows-less machine, then the computer should be $45 cheaper.
So, a Windows-less PC should be $25 - $55 cheaper than a Windows PC depending on the OEM deals, because Windows is a per-unit COGS. The fact that Microsoft's deals often require a "per-computer" pricing model, or intimidate into one implying that OS-less machines are used with pirated Windows is WHERE the Microsoft Tax phrasing comes from. I am buying a computer for Vendor X, but $30-$50 goes to Microsoft WHETHER I WANT THEIR PRODUCT OR NOT, hence the Tax comparison. Linux users are forced to buy MS Windows OEM because of the deal structure that the monopolist has established, essentially creating a computer tax.
If you order an Apple with OS X, the COGS contribution of OS X is $0. If you were to order an Apple computer WITHOUT OS X, the cost is the same.
There is NO Apple Tax. Since there is no impact on the cost model to Apple, Apple can "throw in" OS X, OS X Server, iWork, iLife, or whatever other software that they want to help move machines. There is no Tax, because there is no money involved.
That's the main purpose. If I buy a Dell to run Linux, there is a Windows license implicitly paid for that is priced into my machine. If I buy an Apple to run Linux, there is no "tax" paid, as the software costs Apple $0 to install on my hard drive, while it cost Dell ACTUAL cash to install the software that I am deleted. If Apple were to sell "bare bones" computers, there would be ZERO savings to the consumer, because it costs Apple ZERO to install the software. Hence why the Media-less Windows costs the same as normal Windows, it doesn't "save" MS money to not include some of their software, which is why anything that they can't charge for gets bundled with the OS, to add value since they can't sell it anyways.
And eventually, a new crop of porn directors will come up, who have learned their craft on HD Video (I can't believe I'm carrying on this conversation). The extreme close-ups make sense in a VHS 480i world, but not in an HD world.
It's no different then the rest of television adapting. Most shows are show on film, and I the last time I read about the "technology of porn" was 5 years ago discussing HD adaption, and at the time, Vivid and Wicked were shooting their "movies" on film like a normal movie (multiple angles, stationary cameras, etc.), and everyone else was doing video (amateur style zoom-ins, etc., single camera, limited audio editing).
Today, a pro Audio/Video editing rig is pretty powerful and straight forward, HD Video cameras cheap and powerful, so unless you have a preference for film (I personally do for movies, and I'll take a film transfer, grains and all, over an HD Video shot any day, but for porn, I have no idea, ask porn aficionados). I mean, watch an HD Net football or hockey game some time, since they are only shooting for HD, they pull the camera back, letting you see more action. Then watch an NFL HD broadcast, the camera is set for SD, so despite the greater resolution, most of the sides of the screen is wasted (you NEVER need the edge of the shot to go more than 2 yards beyond the deepest back, but if you have centered for SD, you just have grass behind them), etc.
Some directors, rather than whining about Pan-and-Scan videos, shoot their movies with a cinematic 2.15:1 box and a television 4:3 box on the camera. When they set their shots up, they set them up for the movie experience and the television experience they want. In that case, you aren't "loosing image to go pan-and-scan" or even worse, shooting 4:3 and zooming in for the theatrical release, you have setup the movie to be shown in two ways, two experiences.
No reason that HD porn isn't shot on video, multiple cameras, multiple mics (actual set mics, not the built in on the camera one), like a real movie, not heavily zoomed in, and editing for a 16x9 field. There is no need in HD land to do major close-ups, and you can watch the people engaged in the behavior, not just the genitalia. You might have to cut back on looping and reusing footage, but so what.
In the age of amateur/quasi-amatuer Internet porn, where anyone can take nude pictures, put them online, or get them discretely printed at CVS, and home camcorders are small and $300-$500, I would think that the professional adult industry would WANT to move up market. They need to compete with the amateur offerings, and real production values could no doubt help.
Compare HD Net's HD Video productions to the Network's film conversions. The film vs. video choice is a personal choice, there is no wrong choice. However, HD Net is SHOT for HD, it is shot assuming that you have a large, detailed screen. The Network are shot for 20" SD televisions. HD Net's production shows you the set and what's going on, the networks zoom in to a lot of head shots, ask yourself which looks better on an HD setup. The same rules apply for porn.
On the plus side, one of the complains from the adult veterans was that all the imperfections show... they don't mean pimples and normal skin imperfections, EVERY actor and actress is complaining about that, mainstream or porn, and until they stop zooming in for the HD shots, it will remain a complaint. They mean all the plastic surgery scars, weird stretch marks from enhancement, etc. If HD shows all of that, while it may not eliminate plastic surgery in the adult space, it will force people to focus on quality (a well done augmentation), not just get the biggest your body can support... and that's not a bad thing.
When you buy the computer from Dell, $35, $50, $75 or whatever OF that price goes to Microsoft. Not theoretically, actually... At the end of the week, if Dell moved 100,000 machines at a $50 OEM price (average business + consumer and rounded to something simple), Dell writes a check for $5,000,000 to Microsoft. (Actually, the probably do estimated monthly payments, with a quarterly reconciliation, but the point is, an ACTUAL cash payment went to Dell to cover YOUR copy of the OS).
When you buy the computer from Apple, $0 goes to Microsoft for the OS. Apple may internally transfer $50 from the hardware division to the OS X division, but managerial accounting rules like that are for executive bonus structure.
If Apple spends $250m developing the OS, Apple spends that $250m regardless of how many computers they sell. If Apple sold you the hardware with no operating system, the price would be the same. It costs Apple $0 to install the OS on the drive. They don't charge for it (they do charge you to upgrade it later), because it would be insane to.
If Apple didn't develop OS X, then they would have to buy an OS from Microsoft or do something else. They need an operating system.
The reason for the "tax" question...
Dell buys a Windows license, sticks it on a computer, charges you some price (of which the Windows license is more or less included -- without going into convoluted economic models, it may increase the price by more or less than the license). You then put Linux on it. You bought a copy of Windows, because the money was transfered out of Dell (whose goods and services you wanted) and handed to Microsoft Corporate (whose goods and services you did not want).
Apple does NOT buy an OS X license. Putting OS X on the hard drive costs 0. Selling you an OS X-less computer WOULD NOT lower their COGS (cost of goods sold) by $35 (Dell's would if there deal doesn't cover every machine shipped), therefore, there is no hidden Tax. Now, does Apple charge a slight premium price because of their OS? Whenever a similar/identical machine was priced out on Dell/HP's website, with the same specs as the OS X Computer (much easier to do now that the hardware is more similar), the Apple computer has been priced lower... this makes perfect sense, Apple is ZERO per-user OS licensing fees. Their internal software (iLife, iWork, OS X), while expensive to produce, cost $0 to duplicate, so throwing them in as sweeteners to move products makes sense (normally iLife + OS X, but I could see iWork starting to come new with certain Apple computers).
Apple's premium is that they have limited customizability and limited types of machines. In the Windows world, you can normally buy EXACTLY the features you need, while in Apple world you have to buy the lowest priced computer that meets OR exceeds your requirements (i.e. need quadruple monitors, but 1 hard drive and limited processing power and RAM, you have to buy a Mac Pro to get 4 monitors, while in Windows world you just buy a machine and a second video card, the Mac Pro is premium priced for lots of features that you may not want).
However, you are wrong, Apple doesn't "have to up the prices of hardware to make up for OS X," Apple charges what the market will bare. Whether OS X cost $1 trillion/year to develop or came down from heaven for $0/year, Apple's would still charge what the market will bare. The premium price Apple collects is that people value their machines more highly as a result of OS, it has NOTHING to do with the COST of developing OS X. Now, if OS X cost more to develop than that premium, Apple exists the Macintosh business... if OS X costs less to develop than the premium, Apple makes substantial profits. Right now, the market clearly seems to be saying the latter, but for a while it was the former and Apple had to shut down their OS development division (Copland) and ended up buying an Operating System (Next) for $400m.
Alex
Well, the problem with implying that "Buy a Mac = OS X Tax, Buy a PC = Windows Tax" is that their isn't ACTUALLY an OS X tax.
If I buy a Dell or other company that does not sell bare bones machines, they sell it to me for what the market will bear, and their costs are: hardware + OS license. Assuming that supply and demand set the "what the market will bear" price, than the cost of the OEM license affects the supply curve, which raises the price on the computer. If you assume that if OS software was free, this cost goes away, and the market price adjust accordingly, the price of computers would drop. So far I've said nothing earth shattering other than apply high school level micro-econ terms to how everyone understands the computer market. However, not that to Dell, they may pay $30 for Windows, $70 for the Mobo, and $50 for the processor (plus other parts), to Dell, EACH computer has a marginal cost associated with the OS. While it costs $0 to install the OS image onto the hardware, they pay MS per-computer-sold, which makes the cost no different from other hard costs.
Now, we walk over to Apple. Apple does NOT pay a per-computer fee to an outside agency. They MAY use transfer pricing for internal metrics/bonus structure, but when Apple sells "1 more Apple computer", they don't pay for the OS. They buy the mobo, CPU, hard drive, case, etc., but they do not buy 1 more copy of the OS. Sure, Apple needs to recover the R&D/other costs of developing the OS, but that's Apple's problem. If Apple spends $250m/year developing OS X, they will spend $250m/year whether they sell 1m Apple Computers or 10m Apple computers. While they WANT to recover those costs from the profitable sale of hardware, because of the nature of the software, they actually have an advantage in some ways.
When Dell sells that last computer, they need to recover the A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, C) cost of Windows OS, plus make D) some gross margin that makes the proccess worthwhile.
When Apple sells that last computer, they need to recover A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, plus C) some gross margin that makes the process worthwhile.
When Dell moves an extra 100,000 computers in the quarter, their check to Microsoft increases with those computers. When Apple moves an extra 100,000 computers, they don't have that costs. Amortizing the cost of the OS across the computers sold is an accounting fiction. Ultimately they can sell the computers at the same price as Dell MINUS the cost of Windows, and if they pay the same for hardware, have the same gross profit margins in their hardware division.
When Apple puts out financials, the R&D costs come out as expenses and take away from profits. But when economically deciding whether to move that last machine, Apple is at a cost advantage because they do NOT pay an OS cost when they sell one more machine. I have no idea how many shrink wrap copies of OS X they sell for OS upgrades, but given how much nimbler Apple is plus their leverage of Free and Open Source software packages, I wouldn't be shocked if the shrink wrapped copies actually cover their development costs (or close to it), essentially giving them a free OS to include in new computers.
Remember, software is HIGH fixed costs, ZERO marginal costs... that's what lends itself to the natural monopoly status that Microsoft enjoyed for years. However, as Microsoft's PRICING scheme to OEMs is set, to the OEM, software is LOW fixed costs (testing), plus HIGH marginal costs, which keeps prices higher in the short run. Remember, Microsoft's pricing has been pretty constant since the Win95/NT4 days (only now there is one NT6-based OS, but priced for Consumer/Business), but while inflation has lowered their prices 3%/year, hardware has plummeted. In 1995, computers were around $1500-$2000 for mid-range, by the year 2000, it was down to $1000-$1500, and today, it's $500-$1000 for midrange. That $50 MS OEM license was cheap on a $2000 computer (1/40th the price
One way in which a monopolist controls the market is with public price matching. For example, if Intel publishes all their pricing, and guarantees that anyone going exclusively Intel will not pay more than say, Dell, then if Intel drops the price to Dell, they have to refund money to other all-Intel shops... perhaps Apple or other players that agreed to go all Intel to get price breaks.
If Intel gives Dell a 250m rebate, then they are actually charging below the price, and would have to match it elsewhere. However, by hiding the rebate, they can keep charging Dell a book value and collecting the premium elsewhere.
When big players negotiate big contracts, they often put in protections to not be worse off than the competition. I would expect the deal to be illegal because by not disclosing it, they MAY be in material breach to other companies. Further, Intel has signed consent decrees with the Feds over alleged anti-trust violations, and non-disclosed payments to keep competition out may violate those agreements.
This isn't a local computer shop contracting with a wholesaler, these are two Fortune 50 companies, sometimes they have arrangements covering them.
Also, what if a state government agreed to a deal where Dell was the exclusive provider in exchange for cost-plus accounting. Dell would bill on the reported cost, plus profit margin, and then collect the rebate.
There are a bunch of reasons why this might be illegal because it is potentially defrauding other companies IF their deals are dependent on Intel or Dell's pricing structure.
Linux machines are more complex to setup, but that's IRRELEVANT. A server gets setup once, the time involved isn't too major, and consultants are easily available for that. If Redhat setup local centers, where you buy your RHEL w/ install support, i.e. you either buy hardware from them pre-installed, or bring your Dell/HQ server in (or they come to you) and get it installed, you take the setup issue out. That part is easily solved.
However, the Admin side on Linux is horrid. While the Admin'ing a local workstation is easy, and pulling configuration out of LDAP is easy, the network management sucks.
If I am a mostly Windows shop but want to add 10-20 Macs for a design department, or any other department, the process is straightforward.
Buy my OS X Server, hook it into the MS Domain, and then manage my Macs from there. I could assign the Macs straight to the MS Active Directory, and Admin the Mac stuff from Mac land, but that means convincing the Active Directory people to let me use Apple's Admin stuff and not break things. But running a section of the Directory on Apple is straight-forward.
However, on Linux, I have a collection of How-to's, and a lot of manual work to get the centralized control into the LDAP Directory. All the pieces are there Kerberos-Workstation, OpenLDAP, Automount, etc., everything is easy to do for one machine, but when it comes to rolling out 10-15... well, it's manual. I got my auto-mount settings into my Mac LDAP server, and doing it on Windows would be the same, but it's a manual process.
Unix and MS Admin's are VERY different. A Unix admin is comfortable shell scriptings, installing software, configuring from a command line, etc. MS Admin's are NOT. The guys that do that stuff on MS exist, but they are generally consultants, because you hire them to set things up, then your in-house Admin's do it all from a mouse-click.
The Linux Enterprise players (Novell and RedHat) need to develop easily Admin tools for basic changes, not the setup... so much focus on setup, where a consultant easily solves the problem, and not enogh on maintenance.
Most MS Shops have a low-paid Admin, 40k-50k, that adds user accounts, rotate backup tapes, etc., and then use a consultant (or BIG shops have a senior guy or two) that do the BIG stuff. Linux has lots of solutions for the BIG stuff, but not day to day. Adding a User in MS land is straight-forward... a new person gets hired, you create the account in one place, setting up the User Account, Group Policies, and Email. In Linux land, these MAY be integrated, or they may not. Apple showed how to write a useful interface (the reliability is another manner).
To sell Linux as a workgroup solution... i.e. limited functionality users, is easy. Save money, save help desk, easy lock-down, no viruses/spyware, it's an easy sell. You need to integrate into the MS Active Directory structure, but only for user accounts. Nobody would object to adding a Linux workgroup server that had the NFS Mounts/Workstation Policies all pulled from there, but the tools need to be there.
In a Linux network (no MS involved), adding a user means rolling your own script that: A) adds them to the LDAP domain, B) adds them to the Kerberos system (if using it, and why shouldn't you, it's there, and MS does it as well), C) adds them to the email system. Changing their password on their end in one of those systems may or may not update the rest.
Linux has lots of options for everything, but no EASY way to mass configure. Sure you can build a custom-install, but that isn't the way small/medium/enterprise businesses necessarily want to use them for a small workgroup.
For YEARS Apple has held small chunks of the business market, and by playing nicely with the rest of the infrastructure, they make it easier to hang there. There is no reason for Linux not to be in the same place. No reason that I can't buy a Redhat-branded machine from the likes of Penguin Computing the same way I can buy an Apple server and run my Apple desktops. Workgroup servers don't scare businesses if they are set and forget and use the same User accounts as the rest of the network. Offer a whole package, and let it play well with upstream stuff.
Alex
Fiat currency represents people's willingness to accept it. Your house is a real asset, you own it. You also have it secured by a liability, a mortgage, that is denominated in US dollars. If they inflation rate goes up, your house value INCREASES in dollars. If a 2010 dollar is worth half a 2007 dollar, then your house should be worth roughly twice what it is now in 2010, but your mortgage, denominated in dollars, is now half what it is now...
.5% over the past 150 years, but in most years, it actually lags inflation by a bit. However, like ALL markets, it's not a steady rise, and happens in a few small runs, which looks like bubble, especially because after a large climb, there is normally a correction.
for example:
buy house for 200k, secure with 200k mortgage
in 2010, we're proposing a major inflation halving the currency
house worth 400k, secured with mortgage for 200k
In 2007 dollars, that house would still be worth 200k, but the mortgage is now comparatively small, 100k
Real estate is one of the best hedges against inflation. Real estate bubbles, are somewhat fictional (localized happen when a local area's economy heats up, then falls, like the gold rush and oil booms) because we have had 3 major run-ups in property... post-Civil War, post-WW2, post-Reagan/Clinton bull market (for lack of a better term for the 80s-90s bull market).
Overall, housing prices go up around inflation, usually inflation +
Most massive housing "wealth" is from A) people that bought RIGHT before the run up... Housing prices are roughly where they were 25 years ago after adjusted for inflation, plus a little bit, but it ALL game in the past 7 years... If you bought a house 8 years ago, you made a killing, if you bought it 25 years ago and sold 8, you got creamed.
However, people ignore inflation, because 3% is kinda unnoticeable in 1 year, but over 15-20 it adds up.
You wrote, "Yes, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the vast majority of the neoconservatives who avoided the draft would agree with you. Let's see what John Kerry and John Murta (both of whom were wounded in combat) think of global warming, eh? Al Gore served in the military, if I'm not mistaken. You're loony if you think that global warming advocates are just a bunch of cowards who couldn't face Vietnam in the 60s/70s, and now are too chicken to face the "tough evidence" on global warming out of a deep character flaw. Is that really an argument you find persuasive? That IS an argument I haven't seen before, I'll admit.
Back to attacking me by attributing my observations to someone else that you can attack on a personal level. My comment was on the overall state of American institutions of higher education. Talk to people from that generation. The 6/7/8 year combo undergrad/medical school programs were established then to let people defer through their medical school program. Educational deferrments were one of the most reasonable to get (though John Kerry's was denied, which is why he signed up for the Navy to avoid the Army, and signed up for Swift Boat duty because they were patrol missions, not combat, a role changed right after he got his assignment... John Kerry, post-Yale, threw a string of snake eyes, and remarkably came out relatively unscarred compared to most accidental soldiers).
I found many professors that admitted they stayed in school because they didn't want to enter the service, despite lacking a passion. Having obtained a Ph.D, doing a post-doc and entering the academy was the logical career move, but these were people who didn't have a calling to be researcher/professors. It has left an extremely jaded and angry group of baby-boomer professors. It has also warped the employment field... not only are the boomers larger that successive generations, but they are disproportionately represented in fields that require advanced education because of how the draft was set up. As a result, there was no room for new Ph.D's to enter the academy in the numbers that they were produced (glut of professors => glut of Ph.D students => glut of unemployed Ph.Ds), and we're going to have massive simultaneous retirements, which may radically change career opportunities for new-Ph.Ds. In fact, UNTIL the Vietnam War, professors were never the near-100% Ph.D rate that we have now, you had many professors with Masters Degrees. The Ph.D or else phenomenon was a result of SO MANY Ph.D's graduating, compared with fewer opennings for Professors, that a Ph.D became a requirement for the job. While top-tier schools always aimed for near-100% levels, the fact that local teaching colleges were requiring Ph.Ds (somewhat unnecessary if you are a lecturer first, with limited research at a local commuting school, especially for teaching undergraduate coursework) warped the market.
I am suggesting the University Professors have a clear agenda: Get more grant money. Grants come from the government/non-profits. Government bureacrats and Non-profits are filled with paper-pushers that just want cushy benefits and don't want to rock the boat, so grants only cover research that is similar to other research.
It's not JUST climate science, look at how cancer research is funded. We conduct millions of trials on nude mice, because they are somewhat similar to humans, and easy to observe... mostly the latter. Many things that work on mice DO NOT work on humans, yet we don't test on humans until after mice... makes sense, you can mass produce mice, people are a valuable commodity and have human rights... HOWEVER, if things that work on mice DO NOT work on humans, it stands to reason that there will be things that WORK on humans but DO NOT work on mice, so how many promissing treatments are lost because of an obsession with nude mice. Look at how cancer research dollars flow to experiments that don't really help us look for a cure, because that isn't what they do.
However, with