In most cases, zoning rules only apply if you have a storefront/foot traffic. With a software business, presumably you would have neither, and so zoning doesn't apply at all.
With the blog software I use, you can configure it to post a blog entry from an e-mail... and I can e-mail from my phone. It's just that easy......I could even do it through the web browser on my Treo, but e-mail's still faster.
has anyone even tried to build one of these units to see if it can live up to the given promise, or at least prove to be a technology than we should be exploring?
Well, I started, and then I got a grant from Shell, BP/Amoco, and Exxon to help GM, Ford and Chrysler build an SUV that got 3 miles to the gallon for safety... too much gas on board could lead to fires.
To sum it up, I would say the internet is free, it's your socket that costs money.
Tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto... Sure, I'm not the AOL crowd, and yeah, I'll concede that the net is free, the socket costs money. But like it or not, the AOL crowd toss a lot of money out there... and they are the future of content pay-per-view... so you can't just discount the way they might feel about it.
The bottom line is that if money is coming out of someone's pocket to access it, to *them* the issue of it being for the content or the connection is often moot. To them, it isn't free... It's still money out of their pocket. There's no free lunch... but don't tell that to my Aunt Betty who thinks casinos are great because she get's "free drinks! free food! and free hotel rooms!" nevermind she loses several $k while on the trip... to her, all those comps were "free".
I'm not making the distiniction... it's definitely faulty. I was just trying to point out that others _do_.
But no one is really saying "the internet is free" in an attempt to say you don't pay for access. they merely are saying YOU DON'T (generally) PAY FOR CONTENT. An argument about the cost of access is a valid point, but a very minor one.
Well, I agree with that... What's funny is I only posted this as a minor backup to point out that nothing is free... my real gripe with the idea of Micropayments actually is one of how do I make (as a _provider_ of content) them economically feasable. They aren't now, because the margins are so thin and cc fees so high that it doesn't make sense to take them, period. Something this silly article on.htaccess didn't bother to address.
But of course, no one bothered to respond to that point in my second post below... instead, everyone jumps on this post...:)
No, I get that perfectly well... as I said in both my posts (which people seem to be not reading!) I DON'T MIND PAYING EXTRA (LIKE SUBSCRIBING) TO SITES THAT PROVIDE GOOD CONTENT.
For the record:
1. I know my payment to _access_ web doesn't pay you to put information on it.
2. You are under no obligation to put anything on the web, just as I am under no obligation to look at your stuff.
3. I still have to pay a provider (be it dial-up, broadband, whatever) in order to simply access what free content is already there.
4. I have rent to pay, and bills to pay, and I am not independently wealthy.
5. Because I must pay to access it, the web is *not* free.
6. I have a $ amount budgeted to use the web.
7. If my budget is already met with my access fee, and the few sites I already subscribe to, your content must either be compelling enought to make me break my budget, or I simply won't pay for your content.
There... does that clear things up? Sheesh. The point being that people on both sides gripe about free this, and free that... but it ain't free. It's just not.
It's not like saying my car payments amount to a toll at all... It's like saying "I already pay for cable, and it includes ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. If you want me to pay for Showtime, you'd better get some better shows, because HBO already has my money."
The bottom line is that unless *all* of the content is pay-per-view, there will always be some of us who get enough value from the free content not to be bothered by paying for more. Or we will pay for a select few sites, and the others will simply die on the vine.
The whole problem with payment on the web still boils down to one of _economy_ not technology. This article completely glosses over *why* anyone would be willing to do Micropayments (and more importantly, how that would work from the actual *payment* side of things) and just proposes a not even clever way of restricting access. Big F'in deal!
The *reality* of Micropayments, and subscriptions is that you *have* to factor in that people already pay to access the Internet, because that is part of their budgets and their lives, and many people see what is currently free as being the value they get for their $50 a month to AT&F. In order to get them to pay more, like I said, you either have to eliminate all free content, or make your content good enough to pay for. Why? Because the web *ain't* free now...
Um, no... in fact, if you *read* my comment, I even said I'm not against paying for compelling content. In fact, I do subscribe to a couple of (non-porn) sites.
BUT... my point was that the web *isn't* free. Just because *you* don't get my money doesn't mean *I* don't pay. And because *I* pay, I won't stand much for micropayments unless the content is awesome.
Paying for anything is about consumers, so when you say "Who cares if and what you pay for access?" the answer is "Anyone who wants to charge for their content should care, because anything I pay them is above an beyond my current budget, so I have to justify it." That's the way market economies work.
This take on Micropayments was fine and dandy, but the real problem can be summed up by the fact that only one paragraph is dedicated to the payment *method*.
The problem of micropayments isn't really a technical one at all... the technology is easy. It's the economics of it that suck. I take credit cards over the web (not for porn, for software) and I can tell you:
1. There are *many* more chargebacks than in traditional retail.
2. It's not free to get a merchant account.
3. The current percentages taken by any reputable credit card (and even some not so reputable!) would completely destroy any profit I might see from Micropayments for content.
Unless you force people into using PayPal, etc. for payments, Micropayments don't make sense to me *economically*. And not giving customers choices in ways to pay doesn't make sense either. Been there, done that. Give people more options, you increase your customer base.
Sorry, you want to make a convincing argument for Micropayments, don't work on the technical or even the content (there's _some_ content out there worth it...) work on the economy of scale and the payment methods. Anything else is wasted effort.
And that is why it should be banned now... you would rather wait until your phone is littered with hundreds of Spam messages to do something? Kinda like e-mail...
I mean, the article really doesn't go into any detail about how it was determined that this was the first smiley... just the first smiley at CMU... just because this guy first proposed it at CMU then, doesn't mean someone didn't propose it earlier someplace else. I'd love to see a more extensive search to see if that is, indeed, the first smiley...
Actually, the Sprint network *is* true 3G, they are the first US carrier to be able to do it, because for them, it only required software upgrades to their network, while the other carriers need network hardware upgrades. The "M" stuff from ATT that they have been marketing and telling people are "3G" is actually only 2.5G, but the Sprint stuff is indeed, 3G.
I think it's ironic, that in an article about journalism, by someone who's always touting the blog (Dave Winer) there is a *retraction* because he failed to do his basic fact checking!! That, right there, sums up why blogs, and I do like them, are not "journalism".
Besides, I can't read an article about "Mr. X" with out thinking of Homer Simpson...:)
Does charley pride's label really think that a high percentage of Charley Pride's listening demographic is likely to rip, encode, and post ANYTHING to the internet?
You joke... but perhaps that was calculated. If they release a Charley Pride CD this way, and no one complains, they have a successful "test market" example they can use to justify it for other, more popular artists...
Slashdot Mirror
In most cases, zoning rules only apply if you have a storefront/foot traffic. With a software business, presumably you would have neither, and so zoning doesn't apply at all.
I've never understood the need to print stuff out. It's hard to grep a dead tree.
It's also hard to explain to clients who want written estimates and proposals that you don't own a printer. Harder still to invoice them.
I'm as paperless as I can be, but I don't have an employer to mooch off of... There are many valid reasons for needing a printer.
I propose we use one of *his* children as one of those "examples" and see how long he sticks to his tune....
That's why I keep making them drain faster, monkey boy.
With the blog software I use, you can configure it to post a blog entry from an e-mail... and I can e-mail from my phone. It's just that easy... ...I could even do it through the web browser on my Treo, but e-mail's still faster.
has anyone even tried to build one of these units to see if it can live up to the given promise, or at least prove to be a technology than we should be exploring?
Well, I started, and then I got a grant from Shell, BP/Amoco, and Exxon to help GM, Ford and Chrysler build an SUV that got 3 miles to the gallon for safety... too much gas on board could lead to fires.
To sum it up, I would say the internet is free, it's your socket that costs money.
Tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto... Sure, I'm not the AOL crowd, and yeah, I'll concede that the net is free, the socket costs money. But like it or not, the AOL crowd toss a lot of money out there... and they are the future of content pay-per-view... so you can't just discount the way they might feel about it.
The bottom line is that if money is coming out of someone's pocket to access it, to *them* the issue of it being for the content or the connection is often moot. To them, it isn't free... It's still money out of their pocket. There's no free lunch... but don't tell that to my Aunt Betty who thinks casinos are great because she get's "free drinks! free food! and free hotel rooms!" nevermind she loses several $k while on the trip... to her, all those comps were "free".
I'm not making the distiniction... it's definitely faulty. I was just trying to point out that others _do_.
But no one is really saying "the internet is free" in an attempt to say you don't pay for access. they merely are saying YOU DON'T (generally) PAY FOR CONTENT. An argument about the cost of access is a valid point, but a very minor one.
.htaccess didn't bother to address.
:)
Well, I agree with that... What's funny is I only posted this as a minor backup to point out that nothing is free... my real gripe with the idea of Micropayments actually is one of how do I make (as a _provider_ of content) them economically feasable. They aren't now, because the margins are so thin and cc fees so high that it doesn't make sense to take them, period. Something this silly article on
But of course, no one bothered to respond to that point in my second post below... instead, everyone jumps on this post...
No, I get that perfectly well... as I said in both my posts (which people seem to be not reading!) I DON'T MIND PAYING EXTRA (LIKE SUBSCRIBING) TO SITES THAT PROVIDE GOOD CONTENT.
For the record:
1. I know my payment to _access_ web doesn't pay you to put information on it.
2. You are under no obligation to put anything on the web, just as I am under no obligation to look at your stuff.
3. I still have to pay a provider (be it dial-up, broadband, whatever) in order to simply access what free content is already there.
4. I have rent to pay, and bills to pay, and I am not independently wealthy.
5. Because I must pay to access it, the web is *not* free.
6. I have a $ amount budgeted to use the web.
7. If my budget is already met with my access fee, and the few sites I already subscribe to, your content must either be compelling enought to make me break my budget, or I simply won't pay for your content.
There... does that clear things up? Sheesh. The point being that people on both sides gripe about free this, and free that... but it ain't free. It's just not.
It's not like saying my car payments amount to a toll at all... It's like saying "I already pay for cable, and it includes ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. If you want me to pay for Showtime, you'd better get some better shows, because HBO already has my money."
The bottom line is that unless *all* of the content is pay-per-view, there will always be some of us who get enough value from the free content not to be bothered by paying for more. Or we will pay for a select few sites, and the others will simply die on the vine.
The whole problem with payment on the web still boils down to one of _economy_ not technology. This article completely glosses over *why* anyone would be willing to do Micropayments (and more importantly, how that would work from the actual *payment* side of things) and just proposes a not even clever way of restricting access. Big F'in deal!
The *reality* of Micropayments, and subscriptions is that you *have* to factor in that people already pay to access the Internet, because that is part of their budgets and their lives, and many people see what is currently free as being the value they get for their $50 a month to AT&F. In order to get them to pay more, like I said, you either have to eliminate all free content, or make your content good enough to pay for. Why? Because the web *ain't* free now...
Um, no... in fact, if you *read* my comment, I even said I'm not against paying for compelling content. In fact, I do subscribe to a couple of (non-porn) sites.
BUT... my point was that the web *isn't* free. Just because *you* don't get my money doesn't mean *I* don't pay. And because *I* pay, I won't stand much for micropayments unless the content is awesome.
Paying for anything is about consumers, so when you say "Who cares if and what you pay for access?" the answer is "Anyone who wants to charge for their content should care, because anything I pay them is above an beyond my current budget, so I have to justify it." That's the way market economies work.
This take on Micropayments was fine and dandy, but the real problem can be summed up by the fact that only one paragraph is dedicated to the payment *method*.
The problem of micropayments isn't really a technical one at all... the technology is easy. It's the economics of it that suck. I take credit cards over the web (not for porn, for software) and I can tell you:
1. There are *many* more chargebacks than in traditional retail.
2. It's not free to get a merchant account.
3. The current percentages taken by any reputable credit card (and even some not so reputable!) would completely destroy any profit I might see from Micropayments for content.
Unless you force people into using PayPal, etc. for payments, Micropayments don't make sense to me *economically*. And not giving customers choices in ways to pay doesn't make sense either. Been there, done that. Give people more options, you increase your customer base.
Sorry, you want to make a convincing argument for Micropayments, don't work on the technical or even the content (there's _some_ content out there worth it...) work on the economy of scale and the payment methods. Anything else is wasted effort.
I think you missed a major part of the point... that he (and I) already pay for bandwidth to access the net. In fact, I pay a lot.
I'm not adverse to paying for content. But *nothing* I view on-line right now is "free". I have to pay to access the net itself.
First of all, 200 years is a long time. Look at your ancesters 200 years ago, they weren't winning any prizes.
They weren't? 200 years ago, my ancestors were signing the constitution and forming the US...
200 is a *blink* in evolutionary time...
And that is why it should be banned now... you would rather wait until your phone is littered with hundreds of Spam messages to do something? Kinda like e-mail...
I mean, the article really doesn't go into any detail about how it was determined that this was the first smiley... just the first smiley at CMU... just because this guy first proposed it at CMU then, doesn't mean someone didn't propose it earlier someplace else. I'd love to see a more extensive search to see if that is, indeed, the first smiley...
Actually, the Sprint network *is* true 3G, they are the first US carrier to be able to do it, because for them, it only required software upgrades to their network, while the other carriers need network hardware upgrades. The "M" stuff from ATT that they have been marketing and telling people are "3G" is actually only 2.5G, but the Sprint stuff is indeed, 3G.
No, actually, the ATT network is GSM based... it is not true 3G, it's only 2.5G... in spite of what their marketing department is calling it.
This isn't exactly related but then again maybe it is.... Is it marketing or journalism? [userland.com]
:)
I think it's ironic, that in an article about journalism, by someone who's always touting the blog (Dave Winer) there is a *retraction* because he failed to do his basic fact checking!! That, right there, sums up why blogs, and I do like them, are not "journalism".
Besides, I can't read an article about "Mr. X" with out thinking of Homer Simpson...
Yes, but what if you are hit by a bus on your way to work, rather than during your vacation? We can't all die during scheduled time off... ;)
No, with the pay service you will no longer have to subscribe to the advertising e-mails from Yahoo. Which is why it is a pay service... :)
Wow... this press release reads like an executive Power Point presentation. Ten to one it was. :)
Does charley pride's label really think that a high percentage of Charley Pride's listening demographic is likely to rip, encode, and post ANYTHING to the internet?
You joke... but perhaps that was calculated. If they release a Charley Pride CD this way, and no one complains, they have a successful "test market" example they can use to justify it for other, more popular artists...
I bought one of these in Japan in July 2001. And CNET Asia ran this review of the product in October 2001. Sheesh. So much for cutting edge news on
Taxi2000 has been around and trying to do basically the same thing for years.
-Dave!
How absolutely true... because the word "elite" never enters my mind when I think of Steve Jobs...
-Dave!