However, Youtube holds much more data, because videos take up a lot (especially considering that there are more than one verson of a video - 1080/720/480/360/240 and sometimes even two codecs - WebM and h.264).
As for distributed distribution, that can't possibly work if you're relying on smoke-and-mirrors DRM
Oh right, forgot that:) Though each book could be encrypted with a different key, still,it would be easier to break than it is now.
I still cannot believe that if I buy a 5MB ebook, it costs Amazon 20 cents to just send it to me. I guess a 4GB DVD image would cost $164 and a 500MB movie $20? How does Netflix stay in business? As I recall they provide downloads.
Still, it seems strange to me that providing data has an inverse economy of scale - I can upload 22TB/month for 1000 times less than it would cost a large company to do so. So, in theory I could have something like 800 connections and servers (for redundancy) and some backup generators for the same amount of money. That would be quite reliable.
Most folks don't know exactly what the latter costs, and nobody who does know can say, so all I have to go on are rumors and innuendo, which suggest that it's somewhere between twenty and fifty cents to host a 3-5 megabyte download, assuming that it gets a reasonable download rat
20-50 cents for one file or per download? I can believe that it's 50 cents for one file for some time (more than a month), but not per download. Youtube hosts a lot of big video files and has to upload them at a certain minimum speed - it doesn't really matter if the 5MB ebook takes 1 or 20 seconds to download, but it matters when the streaming video stalls. It cannot cost even 20 cents for a 5MB download (not file).
Also, how much space wold ebooks use anyway? 10-20TB? That should not be that a big problem to distribute. And once you sent the initial books, then you only have to send the new additions, that should not take up a lot of space.
And yes, availability - sure, that costs a lot, but it should not cost that lot. If it does, just implement something like a distributed computing project (distributed uploading, something similar to bittorrent) and pay the participants 1 cent per 10MB uploaded (if it really costs 20-50 cents to send me the 5MB ebook I bought). I am sure a lot of people would jump at the opportunity and the network would be at least as stable as their own is now.
for a $100 math textbook that's 200 megabytes in size because of all the figures, it's probably at least six or seven dollars, and maybe as high as fifteen.
Assuming that 5% is a transaction fee, that means that to serve 200MB costs $1-2. That's in the order of what my cellphone provider charges me if I go over the monthly cap (yes, my cell connection is capped because I do not use it a lot). With my wired connection I upload about 22TB/month, so, for me that costs ~$130 (internet connection + electricity for those servers), but for a company like Amazon it would cost at least $120k?
And whatever costs are proportional to the price (like the transaction fee), they do down with the price too.
VISA takes about 25â"30 cents as a transaction fee, plus 2â"3 percent, so almost a third of that goes directly to the credit card processor.
This can be reduced by the store offering me a discount (say 10%, that is, less than the difference between the transaction fee for 10x$1 ebooks and 1x$10 ebook) if I buy their "points" (no less than $10 at a time) which can later be used to buy ebooks. One larger transaction means lower fees.
Similarly, servers require power and take up space.
But vastly less space than it would require to store the printed books in enough quantities. Also, there is no shipping to/from the store required. I am also sure that Amazon sells not only ebooks, so those 40k servers are used for other things too. ebooks do not require a lot of disk space. I could probably store quite a lot of them on a 1TB hard drive in one server. OK, two for redundancy. If the books are not popular then my two servers would be enough. If they are so popular that the two servers cannot handle the load, then most likely I am making enough money for more servers.
What the multi-million dollar talent contracts bring in is not better quality, but rather name recognition and the automatic crowd appeal that comes from that recognition.
CGI also costs a lot. Whether you like it or not, movies with good effects (even those that are pretty much all special effects) are popular. Advertising is important too.
And yes, I would be willing to pay more to see a movie that cost $100M than one that cost $10k to produce. The same way I pay for some physical item made in China less than I would pay for a similar item made in, say, EU or Japan. If it was cheaper for you to make, then do not expect me to pay as much as I would pay for something that took more money to make.
The point is that most of those do not directly contribute to the quality of workmanship; thus, although they may contribute to the cost of a work, they should not contribute to its perceived value.
Of course, just paying for advertising (TV, radio etc) does not make the item worth more.
And before Netflix there were video rentals. The problem with them (and libraries) is that you have to go there to get what you want. Unlike some device, a book or a movie is just bits, I can download it much faster than it would take me to go to library (or a video rental store) and it costs me less (as I do not have to burn fuel/pay for bus ticket to go there).
A new release of a movie gives you two hours of enjoyment for $20. A new release of a hardcover book gives you significantly more than two hours of enjoyment for that same $20 unless you're speed reading (and probably even then).
"Hours of enjoyment" is not a proper measure for worth. Otherwise you would say that, for example, a roller coaster is not worth it because it only gives a few minutes of enjoyment, costs about as much as a (cheap) book and if you want to ride it again you have to pay again (where you can read the book multiple times and even lend it to friends).
A lot of people measure worth by how much they enjoyed it (not how long) and also by the perceived cost of making. A roller coaster needs a lot of electricity, maintenance etc, so the price is justified. The movie costs a lot for the cinema to get (because it costs lots of millions to make), the projector needs electricity, maintenance, the cinema building also requires maintenance and other stuff, so it is possible to justify that (though cinema tickets are a bit overpriced).
So, you are saying that a book costs as much to write and print (or upload to a server) that it is on the same level with the costs associated with running a cinema?
Linux has small market share so there isn't much profit in making a virus for it - make a virus for Windows and it will run on more systems. Because a lot of users are behind NAT (their own router or an ISP grade NAT) usually the virus cannot go in trough the open ports (like blaster did) so they now mostly rely on user downloading and running an executable file or a bug in the browser/flash/etc. It is entirely possible to download and run a malicious file on Linux too and I doubt that Linux browsers are bug-free.
However, if someone wanted to specifically infect those drones and computers controlling them, then they would write a virus that works on whatever OS those computers have.
Of course there is always the possibility that the virus was a common one, then it means that whoever is responsible for security is even more incompetent than i originally thought.
Why? Windows crash and burn all the time, isn't that what a bomb is supposed to do?
Also, I doubt that this virus is just a random one, it most likely was created with the target in mind, so if Linux was used then the virus would have been created for Linux.
Isn't it on by default? Last time I configured a hardware (consumer level) router it had SNMP enabled by default IIRC.
Plugging in two cables works but not for my nonstandard configuration - I use a PC as a router and it also runs uTorrent (one other PC inside the network does it too). I also doubt that their device will be able to pass full gigabit (to/from my router PC).
I would participate but a Cacti graph of my actual usage would be more useful - my connection is almost never idle.
Use SNMP to find out the current upload/download from the actual router. The same way Cacti does. Once the speed drops below pre-set level, try to run the test.
That sucks, I have a 300/300 connection, when I manage to download a very popular torrent shortly after it is put on a public tracker (and does not have that many peer yet), my upload on that torrent alone reaches about 20MB/s, add the other torrents and it comes quite close to the advertised upload speed.
On the other hand, making the upload be that fast over a single TCP connection requires some tweaking of the TCP settings which require lots of restarts.
With a 300/0.7 connection you will never be able to achieve 300mbps download using TCP - there will be not enough bandwidth for ACK packets.
Yea, while very few people had anything to do with space, there is another way to understand that cooling by radiation is inefficient - the vacuum tube. Notice how big the anode has to be to radiate even a few watts? And the anode (being just a metal plate) can survive few hundred degrees C (and radiation power is proportional to temperature). Yet it is still really big, that's why powerful glass vacuum tubes are big (even more powerful tubes have anode on the outside so you can cool it with air or deionized water).
Now imagine having to cool down a transistor that can only survive 120C or so. In air it's easy, in a vacuum it's hard.
For this probe, the sun will be heating up one of its sides, so you will need to get rid of that heat, as well as the heat produced in the internal components.
You cannot power anything from heat, unless there is a colder place that you can heat up in the process. For example, you can use a steam engine, but you either need to condense the steam back into water (so, a cold place to do that) or bring so much water that it will be enough for the entire time the unit has to stay operational. Oh, and a boiler that can survive the heat and water pressure of being near the sun.
I used to think that the politicians in my country were stupid too, but then I realized - they are not. I think the same applies to the US as well.
The politician has managed to get to a position of power in the first place (not everybody can). He manages to use this power to fill his pocket in such a way that is not entirely illegal (but most likely immoral), or at least manages to pay off certain people to make his way legal or look the other way.
So, politicians are not stupid, they are intelligent selfish greedy bastards and they screw up the country not because of incompetence, but because it is the unintended consequence (or maybe even intended for some) of their actions that fill their pockets.
They do not run the tracker, actually, there is no tracker at all, tracking is decentralized and has been for a while now. What they run is a search engine for torrents, you can comment them etc. that can be replicated more easily than a tracker. Or you can even search for torrents using google.
New cable, other routes, different frequency, higher power and/or lower bitrate to get the signal even with the jammer on, PSTN line with an analog modem. There are ways to connect if you really really want it.
Yes, but that's the thing. DRM with published source code will be cracked faster.
If I encrypt some files and do not tell you the encryption algorithm then it will be harder for you to break the encryption because you will need to find the algorithm as well as the key (or maybe I encrypted the file twice with different algorithms). If you know the algorithm then breaking the encryption becomes a bit easier since now you know what (if any) weaknesses you can exploit and you only need to find the key.
They even give you the blueprints to the bank to assure you how well it's built.
Someone still might be able to find a weakness by looking at those blueprints. If that bank did not show you around (but had the same security) it would be harder because the thief would need to obtain the blueprints first before he can attempt to find the weakness.
Example from computer security - DRM. A lot of people are trying to break DRM and they manage to do so because uncrackable DRM for passive content (video, audio) does not exist. If the creator of the DRM scheme published the source code, it would be cracked much faster than it is now.
Or you can hide they key somewhere else, not under a flower pot. That would be OK if you wanted someone to be able to get in your house, but could not be there to meet him or mail the key but did not want to keep your house unlocked. Hide the key somewhere not obvious and instruct the guest where to find it. Will the thief really find out that the key is hidden under one of the flower pots that are dispersed trough the yard, in a pile of bricks or in a bucket that's in the well?Does he really have time to run around and check everywhere that the key could be hidden before just assuming that the key isn't there and either going away or just breaking the door/window? My yard is about 6a (600m^2), there are a lot of places to hide a key.
I am not a tree hugger, I can assure you that (for one, I drive a car made in 1982 - no catalytic converter:), though it also runs on LPG, but only because LPG costs half the price of petrol). The only thing that I care about the environment is its suitability for me but I do not care whether some chemical is made in a plant/animal or in a factory.
And yea, I have read about those tree huggers you talk about - they basically think that everything was great before humans and they are ruining the planet now.
Before cyanobacteria were able to put enough oxygen into the atmosphere in order to support animal life, that philosophy would've left the world a barren unevolved place.
But if there were organisms that needed that atmosphere to survive and could not survive with too much oxygen, then the change was definitely worse for them. Same thing here - maybe it will be better, say, if an asteroid wipes out all humans and a new form of life evolves that is much better than humans, but still, it will be bad for us.
Though I do not particularly care about the environment as long as it is possible to make it suitable for human life (replacing all trees with devices that create oxygen would be OK with me).
I am pro-choice, but still think that it is ok to steer the choice, as long as the choice exists.
So is that positive or negative?
A 24 hour wait period would be OK me, like the "Are you really sure?" dialog box that Windows displays when I want to do something. The ultrasound too, as long as it does not increase the cost.
why would a poorer woman want an abortion sooner than a richer woman?
No, it's not because a poorer woman would want an abortion sooner, but that the rich woman would still be able to get it if she really wants to (she can go to another country for it for example). So, if you place financial or legal/bureaucratic hurdles in getting the abortion, the rich women will be least affected by them and poor women will be affected the most. I am for equality in this case.
It really should be a choice, but I think as a society, we've assumed that "choice" means easy, and this is one choice that should be anything but (in a moral way, not a financial/etc way).
Moral, OK. But if the woman still wants the abortion after you tried to talk her out of it, she should be able to get it.
Also, as I understand it the choice for abortion may not be only because of financial problems. While I am not a woman I have read that childbirth is really painful and pregnancy is quite uncomfortable (vomiting, large stomach etc). If the woman states this as the reason, it should be enough.
I have an analogy. My country has a problem that a lot of people emigrate (because it is hard to find a job here, prices are high, salaries low etc). Obviously the government wants to reduce it. So, in my opinion, making life here better so that people do not want to emigrate would be good, while banning it (something they cannot do thankfully, since we are part of the EU) or making it really hard (financially or legally) would be bad.
Same is here - if you want to get the woman no longer want the abortion, it's OK, as long as you do not use force (physical, legal etc) as long as you honor her choice in case she still wants it.
Slashdot Mirror
However, Youtube holds much more data, because videos take up a lot (especially considering that there are more than one verson of a video - 1080/720/480/360/240 and sometimes even two codecs - WebM and h.264).
As for distributed distribution, that can't possibly work if you're relying on smoke-and-mirrors DRM
Oh right, forgot that :) Though each book could be encrypted with a different key, still,it would be easier to break than it is now.
I still cannot believe that if I buy a 5MB ebook, it costs Amazon 20 cents to just send it to me. I guess a 4GB DVD image would cost $164 and a 500MB movie $20? How does Netflix stay in business? As I recall they provide downloads.
Still, it seems strange to me that providing data has an inverse economy of scale - I can upload 22TB/month for 1000 times less than it would cost a large company to do so. So, in theory I could have something like 800 connections and servers (for redundancy) and some backup generators for the same amount of money. That would be quite reliable.
Not sure where you got five percent.
Took a guess.
Most folks don't know exactly what the latter costs, and nobody who does know can say, so all I have to go on are rumors and innuendo, which suggest that it's somewhere between twenty and fifty cents to host a 3-5 megabyte download, assuming that it gets a reasonable download rat
20-50 cents for one file or per download? I can believe that it's 50 cents for one file for some time (more than a month), but not per download. Youtube hosts a lot of big video files and has to upload them at a certain minimum speed - it doesn't really matter if the 5MB ebook takes 1 or 20 seconds to download, but it matters when the streaming video stalls. It cannot cost even 20 cents for a 5MB download (not file).
Also, how much space wold ebooks use anyway? 10-20TB? That should not be that a big problem to distribute. And once you sent the initial books, then you only have to send the new additions, that should not take up a lot of space.
And yes, availability - sure, that costs a lot, but it should not cost that lot. If it does, just implement something like a distributed computing project (distributed uploading, something similar to bittorrent) and pay the participants 1 cent per 10MB uploaded (if it really costs 20-50 cents to send me the 5MB ebook I bought). I am sure a lot of people would jump at the opportunity and the network would be at least as stable as their own is now.
for a $100 math textbook that's 200 megabytes in size because of all the figures, it's probably at least six or seven dollars, and maybe as high as fifteen.
Assuming that 5% is a transaction fee, that means that to serve 200MB costs $1-2. That's in the order of what my cellphone provider charges me if I go over the monthly cap (yes, my cell connection is capped because I do not use it a lot). With my wired connection I upload about 22TB/month, so, for me that costs ~$130 (internet connection + electricity for those servers), but for a company like Amazon it would cost at least $120k?
And whatever costs are proportional to the price (like the transaction fee), they do down with the price too.
VISA takes about 25â"30 cents as a transaction fee, plus 2â"3 percent, so almost a third of that goes directly to the credit card processor.
This can be reduced by the store offering me a discount (say 10%, that is, less than the difference between the transaction fee for 10x$1 ebooks and 1x$10 ebook) if I buy their "points" (no less than $10 at a time) which can later be used to buy ebooks. One larger transaction means lower fees.
Similarly, servers require power and take up space.
But vastly less space than it would require to store the printed books in enough quantities. Also, there is no shipping to/from the store required. I am also sure that Amazon sells not only ebooks, so those 40k servers are used for other things too. ebooks do not require a lot of disk space. I could probably store quite a lot of them on a 1TB hard drive in one server. OK, two for redundancy. If the books are not popular then my two servers would be enough. If they are so popular that the two servers cannot handle the load, then most likely I am making enough money for more servers.
What the multi-million dollar talent contracts bring in is not better quality, but rather name recognition and the automatic crowd appeal that comes from that recognition.
CGI also costs a lot. Whether you like it or not, movies with good effects (even those that are pretty much all special effects) are popular. Advertising is important too.
And yes, I would be willing to pay more to see a movie that cost $100M than one that cost $10k to produce. The same way I pay for some physical item made in China less than I would pay for a similar item made in, say, EU or Japan. If it was cheaper for you to make, then do not expect me to pay as much as I would pay for something that took more money to make.
The point is that most of those do not directly contribute to the quality of workmanship; thus, although they may contribute to the cost of a work, they should not contribute to its perceived value.
Of course, just paying for advertising (TV, radio etc) does not make the item worth more.
And before Netflix there were video rentals. The problem with them (and libraries) is that you have to go there to get what you want. Unlike some device, a book or a movie is just bits, I can download it much faster than it would take me to go to library (or a video rental store) and it costs me less (as I do not have to burn fuel/pay for bus ticket to go there).
A new release of a movie gives you two hours of enjoyment for $20. A new release of a hardcover book gives you significantly more than two hours of enjoyment for that same $20 unless you're speed reading (and probably even then).
"Hours of enjoyment" is not a proper measure for worth. Otherwise you would say that, for example, a roller coaster is not worth it because it only gives a few minutes of enjoyment, costs about as much as a (cheap) book and if you want to ride it again you have to pay again (where you can read the book multiple times and even lend it to friends).
A lot of people measure worth by how much they enjoyed it (not how long) and also by the perceived cost of making. A roller coaster needs a lot of electricity, maintenance etc, so the price is justified. The movie costs a lot for the cinema to get (because it costs lots of millions to make), the projector needs electricity, maintenance, the cinema building also requires maintenance and other stuff, so it is possible to justify that (though cinema tickets are a bit overpriced).
So, you are saying that a book costs as much to write and print (or upload to a server) that it is on the same level with the costs associated with running a cinema?
Linux has small market share so there isn't much profit in making a virus for it - make a virus for Windows and it will run on more systems. Because a lot of users are behind NAT (their own router or an ISP grade NAT) usually the virus cannot go in trough the open ports (like blaster did) so they now mostly rely on user downloading and running an executable file or a bug in the browser/flash/etc. It is entirely possible to download and run a malicious file on Linux too and I doubt that Linux browsers are bug-free.
However, if someone wanted to specifically infect those drones and computers controlling them, then they would write a virus that works on whatever OS those computers have.
Like stuxnet was ? :)
Of course there is always the possibility that the virus was a common one, then it means that whoever is responsible for security is even more incompetent than i originally thought.
Why? Windows crash and burn all the time, isn't that what a bomb is supposed to do?
Also, I doubt that this virus is just a random one, it most likely was created with the target in mind, so if Linux was used then the virus would have been created for Linux.
I just wait for the bluray rip, 720p or 1080p depending on how much hard drive space I have left. As a onus, I get it without any DRM.
Isn't it on by default? Last time I configured a hardware (consumer level) router it had SNMP enabled by default IIRC.
Plugging in two cables works but not for my nonstandard configuration - I use a PC as a router and it also runs uTorrent (one other PC inside the network does it too). I also doubt that their device will be able to pass full gigabit (to/from my router PC).
I would participate but a Cacti graph of my actual usage would be more useful - my connection is almost never idle.
Use SNMP to find out the current upload/download from the actual router. The same way Cacti does. Once the speed drops below pre-set level, try to run the test.
That sucks, I have a 300/300 connection, when I manage to download a very popular torrent shortly after it is put on a public tracker (and does not have that many peer yet), my upload on that torrent alone reaches about 20MB/s, add the other torrents and it comes quite close to the advertised upload speed.
On the other hand, making the upload be that fast over a single TCP connection requires some tweaking of the TCP settings which require lots of restarts.
With a 300/0.7 connection you will never be able to achieve 300mbps download using TCP - there will be not enough bandwidth for ACK packets.
Yea, while very few people had anything to do with space, there is another way to understand that cooling by radiation is inefficient - the vacuum tube. Notice how big the anode has to be to radiate even a few watts? And the anode (being just a metal plate) can survive few hundred degrees C (and radiation power is proportional to temperature). Yet it is still really big, that's why powerful glass vacuum tubes are big (even more powerful tubes have anode on the outside so you can cool it with air or deionized water).
Now imagine having to cool down a transistor that can only survive 120C or so. In air it's easy, in a vacuum it's hard.
For this probe, the sun will be heating up one of its sides, so you will need to get rid of that heat, as well as the heat produced in the internal components.
BitTorrent, on the other hand works just fine, especially when there are a lot of peers.
And what is going to power the cooling system?
You cannot power anything from heat, unless there is a colder place that you can heat up in the process. For example, you can use a steam engine, but you either need to condense the steam back into water (so, a cold place to do that) or bring so much water that it will be enough for the entire time the unit has to stay operational. Oh, and a boiler that can survive the heat and water pressure of being near the sun.
I used to think that the politicians in my country were stupid too, but then I realized - they are not. I think the same applies to the US as well.
The politician has managed to get to a position of power in the first place (not everybody can). He manages to use this power to fill his pocket in such a way that is not entirely illegal (but most likely immoral), or at least manages to pay off certain people to make his way legal or look the other way.
So, politicians are not stupid, they are intelligent selfish greedy bastards and they screw up the country not because of incompetence, but because it is the unintended consequence (or maybe even intended for some) of their actions that fill their pockets.
They do not run the tracker, actually, there is no tracker at all, tracking is decentralized and has been for a while now. What they run is a search engine for torrents, you can comment them etc. that can be replicated more easily than a tracker. Or you can even search for torrents using google.
New cable, other routes, different frequency, higher power and/or lower bitrate to get the signal even with the jammer on, PSTN line with an analog modem. There are ways to connect if you really really want it.
Yes, but that's the thing. DRM with published source code will be cracked faster.
If I encrypt some files and do not tell you the encryption algorithm then it will be harder for you to break the encryption because you will need to find the algorithm as well as the key (or maybe I encrypted the file twice with different algorithms). If you know the algorithm then breaking the encryption becomes a bit easier since now you know what (if any) weaknesses you can exploit and you only need to find the key.
They even give you the blueprints to the bank to assure you how well it's built.
Someone still might be able to find a weakness by looking at those blueprints. If that bank did not show you around (but had the same security) it would be harder because the thief would need to obtain the blueprints first before he can attempt to find the weakness.
Example from computer security - DRM. A lot of people are trying to break DRM and they manage to do so because uncrackable DRM for passive content (video, audio) does not exist. If the creator of the DRM scheme published the source code, it would be cracked much faster than it is now.
Or you can hide they key somewhere else, not under a flower pot. That would be OK if you wanted someone to be able to get in your house, but could not be there to meet him or mail the key but did not want to keep your house unlocked. Hide the key somewhere not obvious and instruct the guest where to find it.
Will the thief really find out that the key is hidden under one of the flower pots that are dispersed trough the yard, in a pile of bricks or in a bucket that's in the well?Does he really have time to run around and check everywhere that the key could be hidden before just assuming that the key isn't there and either going away or just breaking the door/window? My yard is about 6a (600m^2), there are a lot of places to hide a key.
I am not a tree hugger, I can assure you that (for one, I drive a car made in 1982 - no catalytic converter :), though it also runs on LPG, but only because LPG costs half the price of petrol). The only thing that I care about the environment is its suitability for me but I do not care whether some chemical is made in a plant/animal or in a factory.
And yea, I have read about those tree huggers you talk about - they basically think that everything was great before humans and they are ruining the planet now.
Before cyanobacteria were able to put enough oxygen into the atmosphere in order to support animal life, that philosophy would've left the world a barren unevolved place.
But if there were organisms that needed that atmosphere to survive and could not survive with too much oxygen, then the change was definitely worse for them. Same thing here - maybe it will be better, say, if an asteroid wipes out all humans and a new form of life evolves that is much better than humans, but still, it will be bad for us.
Though I do not particularly care about the environment as long as it is possible to make it suitable for human life (replacing all trees with devices that create oxygen would be OK with me).
I am pro-choice, but still think that it is ok to steer the choice, as long as the choice exists.
So is that positive or negative?
A 24 hour wait period would be OK me, like the "Are you really sure?" dialog box that Windows displays when I want to do something. The ultrasound too, as long as it does not increase the cost.
why would a poorer woman want an abortion sooner than a richer woman?
No, it's not because a poorer woman would want an abortion sooner, but that the rich woman would still be able to get it if she really wants to (she can go to another country for it for example). So, if you place financial or legal/bureaucratic hurdles in getting the abortion, the rich women will be least affected by them and poor women will be affected the most. I am for equality in this case.
It really should be a choice, but I think as a society, we've assumed that "choice" means easy, and this is one choice that should be anything but (in a moral way, not a financial/etc way).
Moral, OK. But if the woman still wants the abortion after you tried to talk her out of it, she should be able to get it.
Also, as I understand it the choice for abortion may not be only because of financial problems. While I am not a woman I have read that childbirth is really painful and pregnancy is quite uncomfortable (vomiting, large stomach etc). If the woman states this as the reason, it should be enough.
I have an analogy. My country has a problem that a lot of people emigrate (because it is hard to find a job here, prices are high, salaries low etc). Obviously the government wants to reduce it. So, in my opinion, making life here better so that people do not want to emigrate would be good, while banning it (something they cannot do thankfully, since we are part of the EU) or making it really hard (financially or legally) would be bad.
Same is here - if you want to get the woman no longer want the abortion, it's OK, as long as you do not use force (physical, legal etc) as long as you honor her choice in case she still wants it.