It's quite possible that machine labor cost more than human labor in China. While on a visit in 2002, I've observed some interesting phenomena. For example, in Beijing, a bowl of freshly-cooked soup-and-rice meal in a restaurant (made by humans) cost 5 Yuan, but a can of coke from a vending machine cost 7 Yuan. Also, in another city, opening up a road for maintenance, which (as could be seen) didn't include any delicate maneuvers - just digging - was done by a group of 20 men over a day's work instead of of 30 minutes of a nearby bulldozer. Makes you wonder..
My wife, like so many others, seems to have a natural sixth (seventh?) sense for all kinds of bargains and sales. Thus, I fail to see the value of purchasing such a device (unless it's part of a bargain)..
Finally. I was browsing the talkback list waiting for someone to explain why would anyone bother to install a second Linux kernel (of the debian distro, in addition to the android distro) on the same device or (even worse) try to have both kernels running together. Now it makes sense.
I believe it would make sense if Sony had something up their sleeves. For example, a battery technology that *guarantees* 8 hours of usage. That would be a sales booster.
Seems to me that Google could simply use its own (quite excellent) spam filters to identify GMail accounts that generate spam. Then, it could send a warning message to those accounts and if no reply is received within 2-3 days, shut down the accounts (or at least disable them)
Anyone ever thought about the EEE models with XP simply having more resources (memory, CPU power, storage space) than the basic (Linux-equipped) ones? If I were a geek (which I am),I'd probably aim for the most powerful toy I can get and then install Linux on it myself.
Outside the hysteria, how about combining the MEDUSA technology with the mind-reading sensors previously discussed here in/. to come up with: 1. a telepathic transceiver? Imagine a completely silent communication system.. 2. maybe we can project images/sounds/feeling? How cool can that be? The ultimate Movie/RPG experience? THE drug killer? The possibilities are endless..
I think that by collapsing the entire chain we get the alligators (or an animal activist acting on their behalf) sue the skin-producing companies for reselling their hides. At least that will get some good out of this.
But if you use secure communication, you still lose bandwidth, because of extra packet bits and processing overhead. If this DPI would cause an increase of secure surfing, then ISPs are still to be blamed.
Agreed. Although Mr. High and Mighty (of the original post) is right about the need to actually read what the case actually is, he is certainly wrong to assume that having a trademark built around a color make the trademark's owner the owner of that color as well. Colors are simply too generic for that.
Oh.. and one last thing, since we're already into blunt preaching (and again, this addresses the original poster of this thread, not the one I'm replying to): Respect thy fellow man, asshole!
See my reply to your predecessor. Technically speaking, P2P is much more efficient for large-scale distribution than client-server schemes. However, as you say, the main beneficiary of the difference is the distributor, with clients eventually gaining only due to the effects of commericializing better technology and free market competition. However, these effects are not unique to P2P. However, the clients willing to help the distributor earn more money, possibly without a proportional reward - is an unfortunate unique consequence of a commercial P2P.
The reason for this unfairness towards the clients lies, I believe, in the difference between the basic economical model and the technical model. The former is a-symmetric - clients paying money to a distributor in both content price and extra bandwidth, and the distributor providing only content. The latter (technical) model of P2P overlay is often symmetric - peers of equal footings sharing files. To make it fair, one needs to prove that at least on an average case, clients get some sort of reward (eg better quality and lower price compared to direct download) for participating.
BTW: The claim of "P2P gives you access to content otherwise unavailable through direct download" looks to me as a simple strategy on the distributor side to effectively force clients into using P2P downloads, without committing to any added value of better quality and/or lower prices. If a distributor takes that strategy and basically monopolizes P2P, then I say - piracy is a proportional response from the clients, while using exactly the same technological foundation.
Basically, you agree with my argument. You have just proposed a financial model which, as you claim, rewards clients that are willing to participate in a P2P distribution of commercial content by allowing them access to higher quality.
At first glance, such a model seems to make sense, but I say - this may not be enough. I'm not an expert in either finances or Game Theory, but it seems to me that the rewards should be proportional to (or, even better, higher than) the actual cost.
Being a consumer myself, I'll be most happy to discover that clients profit from such a model in a sense that the extra bandwidth they spend to support the P2P overlay is lower (in Dollar value) than the price difference of the higher-quality content. However, that remains to be proven, and frankly, I'm almost certain that it's the other way around. In other words, it's very likely that on average, clients help the distributor earn much more money, and in return get something that is only a little more expensive than the original - or that costs the same. After all, recall that no further work is required on the distributor side once both high- and low-quality copies are placed at the servers.
So, I think that until proven otherwise, the bottom line still holds - avoid P2P downloads of commercial content, if you care about what you're paying for.
Economically, it simply does not make sense. Why should customers of a commercial P2P distribution service not only pay for content, but also provide extra bandwidth to help other customers download content? In the simple client-server case, the distributor alone pays for delivery quality by maintaining server farms with large bandwidth. However, in the P2P case (depending on the overlay design), it is very likely that some customers, who pay only the distributor, end up downloading the content from other customers, who do not get rewarded in any way.
Bottom line: unless distributors come up with a financial model that is more suitable for P2P (e.g. that rewards participating clients), don't use commercial P2P - you'll be paying for more than the content!
I don't remember the author's name. Anyway, this book (should be 10 years old at least) has a pseudo sci-fi/apocalyptic plot in which the bad guy, who owns the most powerful software company on earth, uses its latest operating system to take control of all the desktops and collect information on all the people. I won't disclose the ending (but it's groovily psychedelic and dripping with LSD/religious fanaticism). However, I will point out the scenario where bad guy uses a PDA with his devilish OS to hack the pacemaker of one of his rivals and kills him through a fake heart-attack.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite possible that machine labor cost more than human labor in China. While on a visit in 2002, I've observed some interesting phenomena. For example, in Beijing, a bowl of freshly-cooked soup-and-rice meal in a restaurant (made by humans) cost 5 Yuan, but a can of coke from a vending machine cost 7 Yuan. Also, in another city, opening up a road for maintenance, which (as could be seen) didn't include any delicate maneuvers - just digging - was done by a group of 20 men over a day's work instead of of 30 minutes of a nearby bulldozer. Makes you wonder..
First kill all the lawyers!
My wife, like so many others, seems to have a natural sixth (seventh?) sense for all kinds of bargains and sales. Thus, I fail to see the value of purchasing such a device (unless it's part of a bargain)..
I would mod this whole discussion -5 FLAMEBAIT.
Finally. I was browsing the talkback list waiting for someone to explain why would anyone bother to install a second Linux kernel (of the debian distro, in addition to the android distro) on the same device or (even worse) try to have both kernels running together.
Now it makes sense.
I believe it would make sense if Sony had something up their sleeves. For example, a battery technology that *guarantees* 8 hours of usage. That would be a sales booster.
Seems to me that Google could simply use its own (quite excellent) spam filters to identify GMail accounts that generate spam. Then, it could send a warning message to those accounts and if no reply is received within 2-3 days, shut down the accounts (or at least disable them)
Anyone ever thought about the EEE models with XP simply having more resources (memory, CPU power, storage space) than the basic (Linux-equipped) ones?
If I were a geek (which I am),I'd probably aim for the most powerful toy I can get and then install Linux on it myself.
Outside the hysteria, how about combining the MEDUSA technology with the mind-reading sensors previously discussed here in /. to come up with:
1. a telepathic transceiver? Imagine a completely silent communication system..
2. maybe we can project images/sounds/feeling? How cool can that be? The ultimate Movie/RPG experience? THE drug killer?
The possibilities are endless..
I think that by collapsing the entire chain we get the alligators (or an animal activist acting on their behalf) sue the skin-producing companies for reselling their hides. At least that will get some good out of this.
But if you use secure communication, you still lose bandwidth, because of extra packet bits and processing overhead. If this DPI would cause an increase of secure surfing, then ISPs are still to be blamed.
Agreed. Although Mr. High and Mighty (of the original post) is right about the need to actually read what the case actually is, he is certainly wrong to assume that having a trademark built around a color make the trademark's owner the owner of that color as well. Colors are simply too generic for that.
Oh.. and one last thing, since we're already into blunt preaching (and again, this addresses the original poster of this thread, not the one I'm replying to): Respect thy fellow man, asshole!
See my reply to your predecessor. Technically speaking, P2P is much more efficient for large-scale distribution than client-server schemes. However, as you say, the main beneficiary of the difference is the distributor, with clients eventually gaining only due to the effects of commericializing better technology and free market competition. However, these effects are not unique to P2P. However, the clients willing to help the distributor earn more money, possibly without a proportional reward - is an unfortunate unique consequence of a commercial P2P. The reason for this unfairness towards the clients lies, I believe, in the difference between the basic economical model and the technical model. The former is a-symmetric - clients paying money to a distributor in both content price and extra bandwidth, and the distributor providing only content. The latter (technical) model of P2P overlay is often symmetric - peers of equal footings sharing files. To make it fair, one needs to prove that at least on an average case, clients get some sort of reward (eg better quality and lower price compared to direct download) for participating. BTW: The claim of "P2P gives you access to content otherwise unavailable through direct download" looks to me as a simple strategy on the distributor side to effectively force clients into using P2P downloads, without committing to any added value of better quality and/or lower prices. If a distributor takes that strategy and basically monopolizes P2P, then I say - piracy is a proportional response from the clients, while using exactly the same technological foundation.
Basically, you agree with my argument. You have just proposed a financial model which, as you claim, rewards clients that are willing to participate in a P2P distribution of commercial content by allowing them access to higher quality. At first glance, such a model seems to make sense, but I say - this may not be enough. I'm not an expert in either finances or Game Theory, but it seems to me that the rewards should be proportional to (or, even better, higher than) the actual cost. Being a consumer myself, I'll be most happy to discover that clients profit from such a model in a sense that the extra bandwidth they spend to support the P2P overlay is lower (in Dollar value) than the price difference of the higher-quality content. However, that remains to be proven, and frankly, I'm almost certain that it's the other way around. In other words, it's very likely that on average, clients help the distributor earn much more money, and in return get something that is only a little more expensive than the original - or that costs the same. After all, recall that no further work is required on the distributor side once both high- and low-quality copies are placed at the servers. So, I think that until proven otherwise, the bottom line still holds - avoid P2P downloads of commercial content, if you care about what you're paying for.
Economically, it simply does not make sense. Why should customers of a commercial P2P distribution service not only pay for content, but also provide extra bandwidth to help other customers download content? In the simple client-server case, the distributor alone pays for delivery quality by maintaining server farms with large bandwidth. However, in the P2P case (depending on the overlay design), it is very likely that some customers, who pay only the distributor, end up downloading the content from other customers, who do not get rewarded in any way. Bottom line: unless distributors come up with a financial model that is more suitable for P2P (e.g. that rewards participating clients), don't use commercial P2P - you'll be paying for more than the content!
I don't remember the author's name. Anyway, this book (should be 10 years old at least) has a pseudo sci-fi/apocalyptic plot in which the bad guy, who owns the most powerful software company on earth, uses its latest operating system to take control of all the desktops and collect information on all the people. I won't disclose the ending (but it's groovily psychedelic and dripping with LSD/religious fanaticism). However, I will point out the scenario where bad guy uses a PDA with his devilish OS to hack the pacemaker of one of his rivals and kills him through a fake heart-attack.