While I respect Mr. K's optimism and I do think there are interesting things ahead, it seems there is much evidence today that certain things that are f'd up will stay that way. What use is eternal life and supercomputing and nanotech when we can't even make use of the technology we have today to help solve hunger and disease and instead use it to kill people, abuse the natural world, deepen social divides, etc, etc, etc.
If you think I'm being pessimistic, take a trip to the non-tourist areas of India sometime. Then come back and tell me technology will save us. And India already is a utopia compared to some of the places on this planet right now.
Sure, tech will help out the top 10% (like me) live their already easy lives even easier. It'll give me more time to complain about heady issues like copyright extention and promote the legalization of marijuana (which I do). But it isn't going to deliver a utopia to the planet earth. There will always be a huge segement of this planet that is born to suffering. And most of the suffering is brought on by the selfish actions of man. Giving man more power isn't going to help that.
I understand corporations are idiots. And I understand that defending intelletctual property is all the rage these days. But why do they have to do things that make no sense for their business? How can the distribution of free maps cause them any trouble? Don't they normally have to print maps? Isn't this better for them? Are they really saying they don't want subway users to have easy access to how to use the subway? The map isn't a trademark, so it's not like they have to go after everyone for it. And even if it was like that, who cares? It's a friggin' free map that they post all over the place so people will use and PAY FOR their subway access.
That's the secondary effect of all this ridiculous IP chest beating these days. Now everyone thinks they should protect every idea or bit of information they have since that's what everyone else is doing. Even if it makes no sense and it actually hinders their goals, they'll protect their IP to the death.
Um... since when do people buy cars based on economic sensibility? I mean, sure -- some people do, but most buy based on what they like. Do people do studies to determine if any of the countless vanity vehicles make sense? How do you economically justify an SUV or a fancy european luxury car?
I own a Prius. I own it because I like it. When I got it the price of gas was $1.80, and it would have taken 10 years for me to make back the money saved if I had bought a Camry instead. Now, thanks to GW I may actually make it back in 5, but that's not the point and it never was.
I like the idea of the Prius. It represents research, it represents the desire to try and find a better way than just endless resource usage and pollution, it makes me feel better. A bunch of soppy new-age crap? Sure... but tell me you chose your car without considering how it made you feel and whether it matched your self image... and I'll say you're rather rare.
I guess it's just amazing that such a fringe vehicle has nearly become justifiable on purely economic terms, but that's just icing. The main reason to go Hybrid is because you believe in it.
I don't think the acting was any better in Episodes 4-6. The difference was that we were not yet jaded by the setting and story.
No no... I hear this come up as the explanation over and over, but I just don't buy it.
You should watch the casting auditions for Ep IV (there's a bittorrent around somewhere). I'll just mention one thing that stood out to me: Harrison Ford.
In the auditions they're using an early version of the script that includes the line from Luke to Han "They'll never get any information out of her! She's a member of the royal family... she knows the art of 'mind control'". The line is terribly stupid, and it sounds stupid when every actor trying out for Luke says it. And every actor trying out for Han sounds stilted afterwards as they reply.
But Harrison Ford does something great: before he says his next line he mutters "mind control" under his breath and rolls his eyes. It totally sells the scene. Suddenly, instead of a stupid script that jolts the viewer out the moment, Ford turns it into "naive Luke" and "streetwise Han", and the line actually works. And it wasn't even his line! He fixed the script with a little flourish in his response!
That is the difference a good actor can make.
If you watch the rest of the audition reel it's pretty apparent that Carrie Fisher and Mark Hammill are much better than the rest too. The rest read like Portman & Christiansen.
And no offense to them, they've both done great work elsewhere. But under George Lucas you have to have a certain type of skill.
But of course, this only works for commodities. In some cases, the actual market for a product more closely represents a monopoly.
Okay, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It sounds like the first part of your post, while accurate, refers only to a subset of purchases today. There are many companies that behave differently than the simple model would indicate. Nike is an example, and so are most well known brand names. From cars to clothes to computers, many people will pay far more than cost + standard profit for brand names. This is because, as you said, the product is perceived as unique.
I think Intel chips, the original topic of the post, certainly fell into that category at times. AMD and Cyrix tried to undercut them. But for many years consumers did not tust the cheaper products and AMD and Cyrix suffered while Intel was able to charge far more than "standard profit". AMD, over the course of a decade, eventually managed to build a brand name that was cometitive to Intel's and now Intel is finally being forced to compete.
But I still think that a lot of market segements, at least at times, do not obey this cost + standard profit rule. Successful branding has made many commodities into non-commodities again.
I tell myself I'll try it when I'm bored with the straight options. As it is I write down all the things I "figure out" when I'm straight. I read those thoughts the next morning and it amazes me all the detail I go into;)
If it works for you, keep using it. I certainly agree that many intellectuals use pot as a means to get in touch with different ideas. I guess the thing is that they usually seem about as clever from the outside when they're straight as when their high. Thus my comment.
So you don't think there's any failure in our higher education system to inspire students? Your smug reply just doesn't line up with any version of reality I've encountered. I know that my own education failed to teach me many of the things that I later learned on my own with no problem. If you made it through the educational system feeling like a winner, good for you. But there are many types of people and many ways to learn and many are not served well by it.
How do I "know nothing about the subject"? Because I haven't tried it myself? Have you tried being president of the United States? Do you ever give your opinions on the topic?
You are right that I don't smoke, but I am a pro-cannabis activist. Are you? How much money and effort have you put into legalizing marijuana this year? Do you work to present a balanced view of marijuana in the public eye? Or do you just go around calling people "asshole"?
Sorry, I intended it in a facetious manner. You know, like the term was used in high school. I hoped the rest of my post revealed that while I don't think pot is a cure-all as it is sometimes promoted, I also think that it is a safe and should be legalized.
Except that real-world usage rates support the claim that "pot is not harmful at all". Well, at least compared to alcohol, tobacco, sugar, television watching, internet usage, driving cars, talking to religious zealots, not getting enough sleep, and listening to clearchannel radio.
I mean, pot is already used a lot. All over the world. But how often do you hear of someone dying or being seriously hurt solely because of pot? Not often. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but people die occasionally for all sorts of normally "safe" things, as defined by society. People die from eating McDonald's, or taking asprin. And violent behavior? You rarely hear of a pothead on a killing spree. No more common than a killing spree inspired by an angry rock song. These are all anomolies. And pot should be judged, like everything else, by the vast common case: safe recreational use.
It's going on all around you. It's time society moved past this and stopped punishing good citizens.
marijuana gives me brilliant ideas and more creativity for my job.
No, it doesn't. And I have nothing against anyone smoking pot for fun (I regularly donate to both NORML and MPP, in fact). But I know a lot of potheads and a lot of non-potheads. And I can't see any trend that indicates pot makes people more creative. It seems to make people feel more creative, which is great for the person smoking the pot. But the most truly creative people I know are usually drug free.
I suppose you could argue that those creative drug free types would be even more creative with pot. But my creative druggie friends seem about the same level of creativity before and after. They just view themselves as more creative. I guess maybe if your limitation is your own negative view of your work, then it can help eliminate that barrier for you, but your output isn't actually any better, I don't think.
feature film presentation using fully-immersive video in the future
That will suck. First off, I can't really take in more than what's in front of me anyways. Am I going to have to twist around to see the characters and/or action? I remember a 360 movie in Disney world and it was more annoying than neat. Then there's the fact that part of the art of cinema is putting things in a frame -- if there is no longer a choice of what goes in and what doesn't, it's less and less of an art. Then there is the fact that by increasing the cost of filming, set design, distribution and projection, that these films will be even worse than what we are accustomed to.
I think there's a great untapped use for immersive technology, but feature films are not it.
Quieter -- nope, I've seen several two "rail" systems that use rubber wheels and whatnot, like the Paris metro. Nearly silent.
Aesthetically pleasing -- They don't look that much nicer than the BART system in SF Bay area, and they don't look as nice to the surface dwellers as an underground system, though those are admittedly more expensive.
Safer -- nope, they can't derail when on a single track but actually are more likely to derail at switch points since monorail switches have to leave a bit of track hanging into empty air. Plus they are much harder to evacuate if something goes wrong.
Less expensive -- I know that the Las Vegas monorail track was incredibly expensive to produce as it consists of concrete forms in very precise curves and angles. It was hard to make, damages easily, and requires substantial maintenance.
I'm no monorail expert, but they seem to be finnicky things with little to recommend them. As an area of research, perhaps, but with all the great success of well designed rail system using other technologies, I don't see why they keep messing around with monorails on the large scale.
So why do people try to build monorails? What is the goal? Is it just because they have a cool name? Or because they look futuristic? From what I can tell they have nothing but disadvantages over traditional trains. The tracks are much harder to manufacture and maintain, the turning radius is much more limited, they're slow...
I live in Las Vegas at the moment and they put up a monorail last year... nothing but headaches.
BART in the San Francisco area is pretty darn good. It reminds me of the trains in Europe -- both England and France have excellent rail systems. Fast, quiet, smooth and reasonably priced for the most part.
Anyways... I've never heard why people keep building monorails. Is there some theoretical advantage that has yet to be realized?
Our percentage is similar and we pay around 10-15 cents per transaction. But you're right, our average order price is much higher. So maybe it really is that bad for them. Man, they really should come up with some way to improve on that. Paying nearly 30% in fees for the charge processing is pretty rough!
The man is a genius! That would be great if expensive movies cost more, because then they'd flop even harder and Hollywood would have to focus on making a lot with a little so the movies would be at a reasonable price point. Just imagine -- they'd have to invest in the cheaper aspects of the story like good writing and good acting.
Though that actually just makes me more curious -- why does Mercury qualify as the single dominant body in its immediate neighborhood but Pluto does not? If Charon qualifies as a satellite, then wouldn't that mean Pluto was dominating it? What is mercury dominating? And what does Neptune do to Pluto that Venus doesn't do to Mercury? The article says that Pluto crosses Neptunes orbit... are they saying that means that Neptune and Pluto are in the same "immediate neighborhood"? But Pluto and Neptune are always more than 1.6 Tm apart, wheras Mercury and Venus are never more than.6 Tm apart, and are somtimes as close as.05 Tm (if my calculations are correct).
Wait... if Pluto doesn't qualify then why would Mercury? Thee most obvious reason something would be a dominant body would be if it had moons. Neither of those do. So what makes Neptune dominant over Pluto that doesn't make Venus dominant over Mercury? I would have guessed if they were that far apart (i.e. not interacting notably most of the time with any other non-star stuff) then it would be dominant. Which would include both Pluto and Mercury.
I think we must be looking at this from opposite ends. I know that production costs determine the minimum price a company can sell a product for and stay in business. What I'm curious about is the maximum price. So in "Costs + Mark up = Price", assuming that the "Costs" aren't already above what the market will bear, "Mark up" can be pretty much whatever they want.
I mean, to some degree this is what the company I work for does. We mark products up or down until they sell at the rate we want.
I don't like the organized piracy rings either, but I bet if they totally shut them down it would not make a notable difference to their bottom line. Many of the people buying that stuff would not buy a full priced album. Music is not a necessity. It is purchased with disposable income, and even if the people who purchased bootlegged copies now all switched to buying legit copies they'd only be buying 1/5 of what is being pirated anyways.
It reminds me how I'm fairly well off, and how I've had a couple small items stolen. Yeah, it pisses me off, but the fact is I'm still well off and it goes with the territory. The music industry is a bunch of billionaires. They can whine all they want, but they're living large.
You caught me. I'm just an observer. And I get most of what you're saying. But why does Coca cola charge $1 per can now? That doesn't seem tied to production costs. It seems to be a price point. Isn't that how many things work? They company charges whatever they can?
Slashdot Mirror
Your post hits every point dead on. You should be head of a movie studio, my friend :)
Oh, I did come across this the other day and I signed up. I don't know that it would accomplish anything but:
http://www.fireflymovie.com/directdvd.html
Cheers.
While I respect Mr. K's optimism and I do think there are interesting things ahead, it seems there is much evidence today that certain things that are f'd up will stay that way. What use is eternal life and supercomputing and nanotech when we can't even make use of the technology we have today to help solve hunger and disease and instead use it to kill people, abuse the natural world, deepen social divides, etc, etc, etc.
If you think I'm being pessimistic, take a trip to the non-tourist areas of India sometime. Then come back and tell me technology will save us. And India already is a utopia compared to some of the places on this planet right now.
Sure, tech will help out the top 10% (like me) live their already easy lives even easier. It'll give me more time to complain about heady issues like copyright extention and promote the legalization of marijuana (which I do). But it isn't going to deliver a utopia to the planet earth. There will always be a huge segement of this planet that is born to suffering. And most of the suffering is brought on by the selfish actions of man. Giving man more power isn't going to help that.
Cheers.
I understand corporations are idiots. And I understand that defending intelletctual property is all the rage these days. But why do they have to do things that make no sense for their business? How can the distribution of free maps cause them any trouble? Don't they normally have to print maps? Isn't this better for them? Are they really saying they don't want subway users to have easy access to how to use the subway? The map isn't a trademark, so it's not like they have to go after everyone for it. And even if it was like that, who cares? It's a friggin' free map that they post all over the place so people will use and PAY FOR their subway access.
That's the secondary effect of all this ridiculous IP chest beating these days. Now everyone thinks they should protect every idea or bit of information they have since that's what everyone else is doing. Even if it makes no sense and it actually hinders their goals, they'll protect their IP to the death.
Good luck.
Um... since when do people buy cars based on economic sensibility? I mean, sure -- some people do, but most buy based on what they like. Do people do studies to determine if any of the countless vanity vehicles make sense? How do you economically justify an SUV or a fancy european luxury car?
I own a Prius. I own it because I like it. When I got it the price of gas was $1.80, and it would have taken 10 years for me to make back the money saved if I had bought a Camry instead. Now, thanks to GW I may actually make it back in 5, but that's not the point and it never was.
I like the idea of the Prius. It represents research, it represents the desire to try and find a better way than just endless resource usage and pollution, it makes me feel better. A bunch of soppy new-age crap? Sure... but tell me you chose your car without considering how it made you feel and whether it matched your self image... and I'll say you're rather rare.
I guess it's just amazing that such a fringe vehicle has nearly become justifiable on purely economic terms, but that's just icing. The main reason to go Hybrid is because you believe in it.
Cheers.
I don't think the acting was any better in Episodes 4-6. The difference was that we were not yet jaded by the setting and story.
No no... I hear this come up as the explanation over and over, but I just don't buy it.
You should watch the casting auditions for Ep IV (there's a bittorrent around somewhere). I'll just mention one thing that stood out to me: Harrison Ford.
In the auditions they're using an early version of the script that includes the line from Luke to Han "They'll never get any information out of her! She's a member of the royal family... she knows the art of 'mind control'". The line is terribly stupid, and it sounds stupid when every actor trying out for Luke says it. And every actor trying out for Han sounds stilted afterwards as they reply.
But Harrison Ford does something great: before he says his next line he mutters "mind control" under his breath and rolls his eyes. It totally sells the scene. Suddenly, instead of a stupid script that jolts the viewer out the moment, Ford turns it into "naive Luke" and "streetwise Han", and the line actually works. And it wasn't even his line! He fixed the script with a little flourish in his response!
That is the difference a good actor can make.
If you watch the rest of the audition reel it's pretty apparent that Carrie Fisher and Mark Hammill are much better than the rest too. The rest read like Portman & Christiansen.
And no offense to them, they've both done great work elsewhere. But under George Lucas you have to have a certain type of skill.
Cheers.
But of course, this only works for commodities. In some cases, the actual market for a product more closely represents a monopoly.
Okay, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It sounds like the first part of your post, while accurate, refers only to a subset of purchases today. There are many companies that behave differently than the simple model would indicate. Nike is an example, and so are most well known brand names. From cars to clothes to computers, many people will pay far more than cost + standard profit for brand names. This is because, as you said, the product is perceived as unique.
I think Intel chips, the original topic of the post, certainly fell into that category at times. AMD and Cyrix tried to undercut them. But for many years consumers did not tust the cheaper products and AMD and Cyrix suffered while Intel was able to charge far more than "standard profit". AMD, over the course of a decade, eventually managed to build a brand name that was cometitive to Intel's and now Intel is finally being forced to compete.
But I still think that a lot of market segements, at least at times, do not obey this cost + standard profit rule. Successful branding has made many commodities into non-commodities again.
Cheers.
I tell myself I'll try it when I'm bored with the straight options. As it is I write down all the things I "figure out" when I'm straight. I read those thoughts the next morning and it amazes me all the detail I go into ;)
If it works for you, keep using it. I certainly agree that many intellectuals use pot as a means to get in touch with different ideas. I guess the thing is that they usually seem about as clever from the outside when they're straight as when their high. Thus my comment.
In any case, best of luck to you.
Cheers.
So you don't think there's any failure in our higher education system to inspire students? Your smug reply just doesn't line up with any version of reality I've encountered. I know that my own education failed to teach me many of the things that I later learned on my own with no problem. If you made it through the educational system feeling like a winner, good for you. But there are many types of people and many ways to learn and many are not served well by it.
Cheers.
How do I "know nothing about the subject"? Because I haven't tried it myself? Have you tried being president of the United States? Do you ever give your opinions on the topic?
You are right that I don't smoke, but I am a pro-cannabis activist. Are you? How much money and effort have you put into legalizing marijuana this year? Do you work to present a balanced view of marijuana in the public eye? Or do you just go around calling people "asshole"?
Cheers.
Sorry, I intended it in a facetious manner. You know, like the term was used in high school. I hoped the rest of my post revealed that while I don't think pot is a cure-all as it is sometimes promoted, I also think that it is a safe and should be legalized.
Cheers.
Except that real-world usage rates support the claim that "pot is not harmful at all". Well, at least compared to alcohol, tobacco, sugar, television watching, internet usage, driving cars, talking to religious zealots, not getting enough sleep, and listening to clearchannel radio.
I mean, pot is already used a lot. All over the world. But how often do you hear of someone dying or being seriously hurt solely because of pot? Not often. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but people die occasionally for all sorts of normally "safe" things, as defined by society. People die from eating McDonald's, or taking asprin. And violent behavior? You rarely hear of a pothead on a killing spree. No more common than a killing spree inspired by an angry rock song. These are all anomolies. And pot should be judged, like everything else, by the vast common case: safe recreational use.
It's going on all around you. It's time society moved past this and stopped punishing good citizens.
Cheers.
marijuana gives me brilliant ideas and more creativity for my job.
:)
No, it doesn't. And I have nothing against anyone smoking pot for fun (I regularly donate to both NORML and MPP, in fact). But I know a lot of potheads and a lot of non-potheads. And I can't see any trend that indicates pot makes people more creative. It seems to make people feel more creative, which is great for the person smoking the pot. But the most truly creative people I know are usually drug free.
I suppose you could argue that those creative drug free types would be even more creative with pot. But my creative druggie friends seem about the same level of creativity before and after. They just view themselves as more creative. I guess maybe if your limitation is your own negative view of your work, then it can help eliminate that barrier for you, but your output isn't actually any better, I don't think.
All anecdotal, but so are most pot theories
Cheers. Enjoy a bowl.
feature film presentation using fully-immersive video in the future
That will suck. First off, I can't really take in more than what's in front of me anyways. Am I going to have to twist around to see the characters and/or action? I remember a 360 movie in Disney world and it was more annoying than neat. Then there's the fact that part of the art of cinema is putting things in a frame -- if there is no longer a choice of what goes in and what doesn't, it's less and less of an art. Then there is the fact that by increasing the cost of filming, set design, distribution and projection, that these films will be even worse than what we are accustomed to.
I think there's a great untapped use for immersive technology, but feature films are not it.
Cheers.
Quieter -- nope, I've seen several two "rail" systems that use rubber wheels and whatnot, like the Paris metro. Nearly silent.
Aesthetically pleasing -- They don't look that much nicer than the BART system in SF Bay area, and they don't look as nice to the surface dwellers as an underground system, though those are admittedly more expensive.
Safer -- nope, they can't derail when on a single track but actually are more likely to derail at switch points since monorail switches have to leave a bit of track hanging into empty air. Plus they are much harder to evacuate if something goes wrong.
Less expensive -- I know that the Las Vegas monorail track was incredibly expensive to produce as it consists of concrete forms in very precise curves and angles. It was hard to make, damages easily, and requires substantial maintenance.
I'm no monorail expert, but they seem to be finnicky things with little to recommend them. As an area of research, perhaps, but with all the great success of well designed rail system using other technologies, I don't see why they keep messing around with monorails on the large scale.
Cheers.
So why do people try to build monorails? What is the goal? Is it just because they have a cool name? Or because they look futuristic? From what I can tell they have nothing but disadvantages over traditional trains. The tracks are much harder to manufacture and maintain, the turning radius is much more limited, they're slow...
I live in Las Vegas at the moment and they put up a monorail last year... nothing but headaches.
BART in the San Francisco area is pretty darn good. It reminds me of the trains in Europe -- both England and France have excellent rail systems. Fast, quiet, smooth and reasonably priced for the most part.
Anyways... I've never heard why people keep building monorails. Is there some theoretical advantage that has yet to be realized?
Our percentage is similar and we pay around 10-15 cents per transaction. But you're right, our average order price is much higher. So maybe it really is that bad for them. Man, they really should come up with some way to improve on that. Paying nearly 30% in fees for the charge processing is pretty rough!
Cheers.
I question those credit card rates. I work for a much smaller company than Apple and we get better per-transaction rates than that.
Cheers.
The man is a genius! That would be great if expensive movies cost more, because then they'd flop even harder and Hollywood would have to focus on making a lot with a little so the movies would be at a reasonable price point. Just imagine -- they'd have to invest in the cheaper aspects of the story like good writing and good acting.
Cheers.
Thanks for the further info.
Well I'll be! I guess I'm a bit unedjumacated :)
.6 Tm apart, and are somtimes as close as .05 Tm (if my calculations are correct).
Though that actually just makes me more curious -- why does Mercury qualify as the single dominant body in its immediate neighborhood but Pluto does not? If Charon qualifies as a satellite, then wouldn't that mean Pluto was dominating it? What is mercury dominating? And what does Neptune do to Pluto that Venus doesn't do to Mercury? The article says that Pluto crosses Neptunes orbit... are they saying that means that Neptune and Pluto are in the same "immediate neighborhood"? But Pluto and Neptune are always more than 1.6 Tm apart, wheras Mercury and Venus are never more than
I'm confused or ignorant or something.
Cheers.
Wait... if Pluto doesn't qualify then why would Mercury? Thee most obvious reason something would be a dominant body would be if it had moons. Neither of those do. So what makes Neptune dominant over Pluto that doesn't make Venus dominant over Mercury? I would have guessed if they were that far apart (i.e. not interacting notably most of the time with any other non-star stuff) then it would be dominant. Which would include both Pluto and Mercury.
Cheers.
I think we must be looking at this from opposite ends. I know that production costs determine the minimum price a company can sell a product for and stay in business. What I'm curious about is the maximum price. So in "Costs + Mark up = Price", assuming that the "Costs" aren't already above what the market will bear, "Mark up" can be pretty much whatever they want.
I mean, to some degree this is what the company I work for does. We mark products up or down until they sell at the rate we want.
Cheers.
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
I actually own some MS stock, so I hope it works. They've been pretty much sucking recently.
I don't like the organized piracy rings either, but I bet if they totally shut them down it would not make a notable difference to their bottom line. Many of the people buying that stuff would not buy a full priced album. Music is not a necessity. It is purchased with disposable income, and even if the people who purchased bootlegged copies now all switched to buying legit copies they'd only be buying 1/5 of what is being pirated anyways.
It reminds me how I'm fairly well off, and how I've had a couple small items stolen. Yeah, it pisses me off, but the fact is I'm still well off and it goes with the territory. The music industry is a bunch of billionaires. They can whine all they want, but they're living large.
Cheers.
You caught me. I'm just an observer. And I get most of what you're saying. But why does Coca cola charge $1 per can now? That doesn't seem tied to production costs. It seems to be a price point. Isn't that how many things work? They company charges whatever they can?
Cheers.