You say you don't understand; you believe I am wrong, even if my assertions are true; and you have trouble understanding concepts that are either new, or outside your comfort bubble. Basically, all flame-bait and no value.
Ugh. This is the heart of the industrial age Voodoo-Econo-EVIL that keeps the Big Bandwidth Era at bay. The hangup on "always selling all of the inventory at as good a price" simply doesn't apply here. That thinking is like the corpse of 19th century economics cuffed to the leg of the 21st century entrepreneurs trying to swim the channel between dialup and infinite bandwidth.
Very unlike industrial age planes, trains, and automobiles, the capacity of the fiber is a VARIABLE... it grows or shrinks with different devices on the end points. So how much "bandwidth inventory" is there on a fiber? You CANNOT know, because there is so much more innovation to complete in this arena. You can only pretend to know, in order to cook up a spreadsheet that Proves Your Presupposition, by putting some device or another on the ends of the fibers and pretending like that is a constant that won't change in 18 months.
Let's take it another step. Since we know that the capacity of fiber is only limited by the performance of the end devices and we know that devices will continue to improve into the foreseeable future, we must concede that the capacity of the fiber we put in the ground is at least 100X more than we are able to deliver today. That's a future 100X LOSS! Therefore, improving the Internet is the stupidest investment in the world. Is this really the way you want to model the future of communications? I don't think so. Let's not pretend like we are all beholden to some immutable universal law of capacity utilization. We have CHOICES on how to account for all these things. Nineteenth century economics may have kludged us through the twentieth century world of planes, trains, and automobiles, but we're in the quantum world now; and that is going to require some Quantum Economics. Just because you can't conceive of what that looks like, yet, doesn't mean it's any less true.
What we need are MBA's who are as able and willing to innovate as technologists. Instead, as a general rule, they march into the lab with textbook models from P&G in hand and a set of nineteenth century rules etched into their neurons. The economics of communications will either be completely re-written over the next few years, or we truly risk be permanent AOL doom by John Perry Barlow's Death From Above.
Let a Million Napsters Bloom! Thanks, Monkeys-In-Robes! You just fertilized the market to cause a Million Napster to bloom!
I'm a big advocate of evolving Napster into a legitimate means of distribution that rewards individuals as bona fide distributors of entertainment. I'm in the Napster Action Network and I have dutifully phoned and emailed my representatives to "change the system from within."
However, my position is that word of mouth has always been among the most powerful means of advertising and the least compensated, monetarily. Accordingly, the legacy financial models of entertainment distribution seem to violate fundamental principles of economics. Those who are creating value in the form of word of mouth marketing and sales have not ever received their proper cut.
Enter Napster, creating vastly more perfect market information in this regard. I think that it should be incumbent upon the entertainment industry to keep up with the times and create new business models that spur technology rather than defending oligopolies and stifling innovation.
In the meantime, we the community must scatter in a number or random directions now that the feds have effectively shackled Napster.
I feel really bad for Shawn, but the only way to keep the spirit alive is to abaondon Napster altogether and go somewhere else... and we must keep migrating and scattering like this until the feds get the hint that file sharing is not going away simply because the RIAA pays them to prop up their anachronistic institution.
Here are some starter ideas - LET A MILLION NAPSTERS BLOOM!
According to Florida Division of Elections web site, a Runoff
Election is initially indicated, not just a recount. See the
following URL for screen captures and timestamps of my first hand
observations as Florida seemingly changed its rules, literally
overnight. See http://fiberhood.net/election2000/
Carping about stupid people, stupid ballots, or stupid
ratings-pumping-reporting does not matter at this point; but the
rules do matter. Any lawyers out there who can find the real
statutes governing this stuff? After about an hour of superficial
research, my layman's take is that Florida requires a 50% plus one
majority in order to declare a victor in an election. Anything less
than that requires a runoff, not just a recount.
Slashdot Mirror
You say you don't understand; you believe I am wrong, even if my assertions are true; and you have trouble understanding concepts that are either new, or outside your comfort bubble. Basically, all flame-bait and no value.
End Of Line. PLEASE MODERATE.
Very unlike industrial age planes, trains, and automobiles, the capacity of the fiber is a VARIABLE ... it grows or shrinks with different devices on the end points. So how much "bandwidth inventory" is there on a fiber? You CANNOT know, because there is so much more innovation to complete in this arena. You can only pretend to know, in order to cook up a spreadsheet that Proves Your Presupposition, by putting some device or another on the ends of the fibers and pretending like that is a constant that won't change in 18 months.
Let's take it another step. Since we know that the capacity of fiber is only limited by the performance of the end devices and we know that devices will continue to improve into the foreseeable future, we must concede that the capacity of the fiber we put in the ground is at least 100X more than we are able to deliver today. That's a future 100X LOSS! Therefore, improving the Internet is the stupidest investment in the world. Is this really the way you want to model the future of communications? I don't think so. Let's not pretend like we are all beholden to some immutable universal law of capacity utilization. We have CHOICES on how to account for all these things. Nineteenth century economics may have kludged us through the twentieth century world of planes, trains, and automobiles, but we're in the quantum world now; and that is going to require some Quantum Economics. Just because you can't conceive of what that looks like, yet, doesn't mean it's any less true.
What we need are MBA's who are as able and willing to innovate as technologists. Instead, as a general rule, they march into the lab with textbook models from P&G in hand and a set of nineteenth century rules etched into their neurons. The economics of communications will either be completely re-written over the next few years, or we truly risk be permanent AOL doom by John Perry Barlow's Death From Above.
Thanks, Monkeys-In-Robes! You just fertilized the market to cause a Million Napster to bloom!
I'm a big advocate of evolving Napster into a legitimate means of distribution that rewards individuals as bona fide distributors of entertainment. I'm in the Napster Action Network and I have dutifully phoned and emailed my representatives to "change the system from within."
However, my position is that word of mouth has always been among the most powerful means of advertising and the least compensated, monetarily. Accordingly, the legacy financial models of entertainment distribution seem to violate fundamental principles of economics. Those who are creating value in the form of word of mouth marketing and sales have not ever received their proper cut.
Enter Napster, creating vastly more perfect market information in this regard. I think that it should be incumbent upon the entertainment industry to keep up with the times and create new business models that spur technology rather than defending oligopolies and stifling innovation.
In the meantime, we the community must scatter in a number or random directions now that the feds have effectively shackled Napster.
I feel really bad for Shawn, but the only way to keep the spirit alive is to abaondon Napster altogether and go somewhere else ... and we must keep migrating and scattering like this until the feds get the hint that file sharing is not going away simply because the RIAA pays them to prop up their anachronistic institution.
Here are some starter ideas - LET A MILLION NAPSTERS BLOOM!
Hotline
Gnutella
Fidelio - Hotline for Linux
Gnucleus - Another Gnutella for windoze
BearShare - Another Gnutella for windoze
Aimster
And lots more on ZeroPaid
According to Florida Division of Elections web site, a Runoff Election is initially indicated, not just a recount. See the following URL for screen captures and timestamps of my first hand observations as Florida seemingly changed its rules, literally overnight. See http://fiberhood.net/election2000/ Carping about stupid people, stupid ballots, or stupid ratings-pumping-reporting does not matter at this point; but the rules do matter. Any lawyers out there who can find the real statutes governing this stuff? After about an hour of superficial research, my layman's take is that Florida requires a 50% plus one majority in order to declare a victor in an election. Anything less than that requires a runoff, not just a recount.