I'll get blasted for this and called a troll, but my real opinion is that the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen. They've controlled the system for too long, and they're fearful (rightfully so) of losing out to the smaller direct-caster. Broadcast (ie, not a la carte) is dying.
The best way to let things progress is to stop holding to the old norms (regulations). Look at all the bandwidth set aside fo television and radio at 50,000 watts per frequency range. All that lovely bandwidth could be better prioritized with lower transmission power and WiFi or something similar. Even cell phone companies hold way too much bandwidth for the type of transmission used, it is crazy that EDGE/3G/whatever isn't even faster than it is today.
I truly believe we'd see much more technology growth if we didn't hold to standards created 20, 30, 50 years ago. UHF and VHF should be dead, and HDTV along with it. If people want HD broadcasts, they could be better suited to a faster more localized version of the torrent protocol -- maybe set up by a few re-distro companies, maybe by amateurs, let competition bring it about.
As for paying for it, I believe 5 second spots work just as well as 30 and 60 second spots. The rare times I watch public programming, I actually hear "brought to you by the McDonalds corporation" better than I hear a 30 or 60 second McD's spot.
I've been looking for advice and opinions on a "dream" of mine on the verge of coming true -- an idea I call No Copyright Studios. Basically the idea was initially to sponsor bands who dropped all their music into the public domain in exchange for all the free marketing that could drive more fans to their shows. Now we're looking at enticing another group of artists to work to build a digital library of free programming in exchange for driving people to see them live: the theatre group.
I've been thinking about all the great actors I personally know (I love SOME local theatre) and how they could record some of their skits as mini-TV-shows to broadcast freely online. I've also thought that we could get a few different groups throughout the country to work on similar vignettes, creating interest not just in my local Chicago area.
The more I look at the quality increases of amateur performers online, the more I realize that the big cartels that controlled distribution for nearly 70 year ARE in trouble. No, we aren't there yet, but we're getting there. I just picked up 3 3-chip DV cams for under US$4000 total, brand new, 16:9. Amazing what competition can do to drive prices down so that amateurs can start competing with the big guys. Even HD cams are dropping in price.
I think the big issue right now is forgoing "protection" of the medium or the data and just letting it go wherever it can go. In the long run, people seem to be willing to pay for a la carte entertainment, so I believe that we can see a return to the old days when artists were sponsored by the masses solely to create. No Copyright Studios has numerous ways for artists to make money without copyright, including charging for fans to watch the band in the studio live (via the web). As more people embrace the idea of letting your digital product become your marketing sysetem, the quality will go up. Competition still exists even when a product is given away.
The question is: what will the cartels do to stop it? The big print media outlets are forming blogs, which are succeeding within reason (Slate?). The big radio outlets are jumping beyond their pre-set formats, bringing some people back to the radio, and some are even podcasting.
Can big media hold on when the prices are quickly dropping to zero and advertising can be bypassed with the press of a button? What is the next step for them?
Since I'm 32, many of my favorite games are those that remind me of my gaming youth. Days playing Astrosmash on the Intellivision with pops, or playing Utopia on the Aquarius with my friends -- these were low res but very high fun-factor games that today's batches don't really compete well with (for me). Even newer games like Dreamcast's Chu-Chu Rocket tend to give me more hours of fun, mostly because the basic games seem to need less hardware, less overhead, and give me more playing time. I guess the lower resolution adds to the imagination-creation that tabletop gaming created, too.
I've been thinking often about how the old games could be refreshed and renewed, but I can't figure out if it would be feasible. MOST gaming companies will re-create the game with the mess of 3D animation, large storage needs and slow cut-scenes, probably destroying them in the process. Civ4 is the most frustrating game I've ever played, I even battled to return it to the store since the only way to get it to work was to pirate it (the boxed release didn't work on 6 different PCs). Sid can go choke on my box for all I care -- the love of the game is gone.
Yet I do see the "50 games for $5" that contain some of my favorite games of my youth -- Sinistar, Pole Position, Joust, Galaga, you name it. Thinking back, were these games my favorite because that is all we had at the local teen hang-out? I don't think so, we spent enough time at the super arcade to get our pick of 100 machines. Are they "the best" because they're from my childhood? I'm not sure, as my friend's 3 kids love to play them at our house, moreso than any of their X-box games. Are the games still powerful because they have some uniqueness to them? Not at all, there is just something about the story+gameplay+graphics that pulls you in.
I wish I could figure it out, I've been dying to create something similar to the old games, but without making a copy. Tying some of the best features together might be a real winner, especially now that almost every cell phone can run most older games with better speed, maybe there is a new market for bringing the old tech back.
Slavery ended in EVERY industrialized nation BECAUSE of industrialization -- slaves were inefficient with machines. Even the so-called child labor camps on Asia have been replaced slowly because the next generation is better at running the newer machines.
The bloody war you talk about (the War between States a.k.a. the "Civil" War) was not over slavery, it was about regulation. Lincoln was a Whig supporter of Clay's American System -- a politican engine designed to tax Southern producers in order to pay for what Lincoln called "internal improvements" in the North, a.k.a corporate welfare. Lincoln detested blacks and more than once called for them to be deported back to Africa or Haiti. Lincoln supported the law in Illinois that prevented black immigration.
Don't believe your (public school) history books, the war was always about one thing -- regulation.
The Whig part dissolved only to be replaced with Lincoln's Republic party, which, by the way, is also a Whig-intended party. The Whigs believe in 3 things:
1. A Central bank so they could inflate the currency (devalue it) just as the Federal Reserve destroys the dollar with no gold standard. (Democrats also support this today) 2. Imperialism to spread "democracy" which is reaslly a euphamism for spreading corporate interests aligned with the State. This includes protective tariffs. (see Haliburton, but Democrats also support this today). 3. Internal Improvements based on taxing productive companies and restraining entry to those markets for favored companies (again, somethnig Democrats support).
Almost all of that regulation was created at the local level -- almost none federally and a little at the state level.
While I'm against government regulation of any sort, I can accept local regulations because I can vote with my feet, and local regulations (and subsidies) don't create the cartels and monopolists that state and federal regulation does.
Could this possibly be because there are neither "anti-global warming facts" nor "pro-global warming facts"? There are only facts (and data, but the two are rarely the same). Everything else is interpretation - but the vast majority of scientists who are actively working on interpreting the facts say that rapid climate change is indeed real, and human activity is probably at least partly to blame.
So? Human activity that "might" create climate change that "might" affect us in the future if we change nothing also created new medicines, new transportation devices and a more efficient human, in general. These activities also lead us to new ways to produce the products people want and need.
I don't see how this would help in the least. Instead of having scientists with many different viewpoints vying for public funds, you would have many different groups with specific agendas producing research. How exactly is this supposed to help produce unbiased results?
Because government should not be biased -- it should be based on the facts, and it should do no harm to the individual or the minority. If it has a job to protect, why instead does it merely punish? There is no protection here, ever.
The reason I'd rather see independent financing of research is so the individual can do their research and pick the product they want to use. This is how you solve pollution problems, not by funding scientists publicly who will then tell the administration what it wants to hear. You also don't fund scientists so that you can come up with new ways to create regulation (which I said in a previous post doesn't help the masses, it only creates a higher barrier to entry in a given market, protecting the market incumbents).
Horsepower in cars rarely meets up with the numbers. Fuel efficiency, either. Carb content in food is labeled, but most people don't read the serving size, so that is advertising funk, too.
Why should this be different? When a company ships a product to be reviewed and tested, they'll ship the best. When they test their own, they'll test the best. You should NEVER accept that specs are factual, and you should spend some time confirming what you bought.
This is the great thing about specs -- if they're lies, just return the product. If a company lies enough, the customers will go elsewhere.
I'll accept your refutation on its face, but digging deeper it causes me to think more about it.
First of all, regulation of industry is NOT about controlling pollution -- this is just how regulation is sold to the masses. "We're protecting you by limiting pollution output!" This is far from the truth. Regulating an industry actually just created a very high barrier of entry -- making it hard to compete with the status quo. MOST laws that eventually pass do so based on the acceptance of the industry in question -- the cronies and the cartels that now control the industry that is hard to compete in.
Pollution sounds terrible, but I've been to countries without major pollution controls and I'm not sure it is as bad as it is labeled. Would I live in a town with a factory? No, but I don't live in industrial towns. The effects of pollution are not proven to me in a way that makes logical sense, most of the time it is doom-and-gloom hype.
When government regulates, it does so to protect the incumbents in a market, not to curtail them. Gas is supposed to be formulated for lower emissions, but the real reason is to protect the companies that refine it -- refineries are a subsidized and licensed cartel. Flouride is supposed to be good for our teeth but it is added to water because of other cronies who profit from the flouridization (sp?).
That is a bigger concern -- you might THINK you won when a regulation gets passed, but it is only the one who profits from the regulation by limiting competition that wins in the long run. As our country falls deeper into inefficiency and uncompetitiveness, I can only hope people realize why this is the case, rather than turn to government for even more regulations to try to save industries that are long dead.
Also, a great part of regulation of large companies is an off-set subsidy that makes it difficult for new technologies to compete in an apples-to-apples free market.
Nonetheless, I don't care for articles, I was sort of just making a point that anyone can point links, but none of those links matter to me -- I care about choice, and it is consumer choice that will make the world better, not fiat or force.
Actually, my reply was more a joke than a real opinion -- I don't know personally which is safer and which isn't. I've been in 3 accidents in my entire life, all in larger cars, and I walked away unscathed. I generally prefer larger cars, recently driving a Land Rover Disco2 for a few years before realizing it was just too much money in the toilet. Now I drive a used 96 Corolla (small car):)
My point is that being forced by government to make purchasing decisions doesn't make much sense. If a car pollutes, and if the pollution affects the environment, then people who love the environment should make a choice to not buy polluting cars (or use polluting electricity in their homes, etc). Telling someone not to leaves no room to see if their purchase HELPED their lives.
I believe we've lived better lives even with the possible pollutants. I know I have. To allow government to regulate it doesn't really fix anything, in fact, it doesn't leave room for any choices to be made except for those who are party to the power in office. For scientists to get their income from the paternalist government leaves even less room for debate.
Sure, you picked a safe car, maybe you did the research. The post I just made shows a few opinions and studies that show that smaller cars and the new CAFE standards will likely kill thousands of Americans a year.
When it comes to smokestacks, I can tell you that the country will soon learn its lesson about regulating businesses beyond a minimum amount. Pollution is terrible, but compare the average lifespan in the 1800s to the 1900s to today -- for some reason we're living longer even with all this terrible pollution. I'm not worried about it -- if I live to 75 and die of emphysema, it is better than dying at 45 of disease or not having any opportunities to travel to work. Thank the free market for the world's growth, not regulations and greenies.
The U.S. will be a sinkhole of people complaining about why we couldn't be more efficient to compete with the world market -- the answer will be in all the regulations and mandates that others have forced on us.
The only person screwing you is you -- you're demanding the government keep power over domains that are outside of their Constitutional limits. Forget the Federal government, read the Constitution directly; 90% of our Federal government is illegal.
On top of that, the Federal Reserve is stealing your money -- they print more money every week than previously existed, making your money (and your investments and your savings) worthless very quickly. In 10 years they've decreased the value of $1 nearly 40% and in 20 years nearly 55%. That is who is stealing from you -- you and those you supported with your vote.
I don't support any of them, and I'm finding great ways to extricate myself legally from the problem. There are a number of ways the government has set up taxpaying for the ultra-elite, and every individual can take advantage of them and reduce their support of a great evil, maybe the greatest evil in history.
The IRS is unconstitutional and the money that the federal government forces us to pay is sometimes (maybe often) used in ways that the taxpayer does not agree with morally. I despise my government warmongering, creating welfare schemes, funding education in states I don't live in, drafting/enslaving troops, creating retirement programs for people too lazy and irresponsible to save themselves.
I don't see any reason not to support the tax evaders, and I congratulate them for trying. The IRS has no reason to request anything of anyone, nor do they have any constitutional allowance for it -- in order to breach private property they need a warrant to search. Demanding information from paypal is treason and whoever supports it that has taken the oath to uphold the Constitution deserves the ultimate penalty for breaking their oath.
It is really sad when someone who doesn't agree with the rest of the world faces these kinds of problems -- I think it directly has to do with the politics of science. With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars, of course you're going to see more and more scientists come up with the alarming issues that raise the most money.
It also goes to show that you'll find dissent creates outcasts. This is no different when anything else becomes public policy -- try speaking out about the inept public school teachers you find more often, or the low-IQ workers at the DMV, or anyone else on the dole.
Global warming is more myth than science. Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations -- "why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too. "Why not curtail smokestacks?" Because other countries won't, and you'll lose jobs on top of jobs (this is already evident).
I'm not surprised in the least by this. It is harder and harder to find anti-global warming facts not because there aren't any, but because people who know the facts are afraid to bring them to light.
I don't care either way. I directly finance all the environmental causes I believe in through www.perc.org and that's the way we should be dealing with it. Drop the federal and public-taxpayer funded grants and let each individual focus on what they believe in. Instead of crying that the sky is falling at some lame protest, go work those hours at Starbucks and donate the money to the scientific research company of your choice.
He works 12-16 hours at US$6.50 or so an hour (whatever minimum wage is). That's about US$90 a week before taxes. He bills out at US$120 per hour for those 12-16 hours, so he takes home (after overhead plus my 30% cut) about $50k a year, working 40 weeks a year.
He gets about 70% project bonus, 80% is for some, some get 50%, depends on their retention with customers. All still do better than most who get a set salary.
Hit me up with an e-mail and I'll give you some options. I started with nothing, came from a poor family, and have a pretty decent life at 31. If I didn't screw up along the way listening to people who didn't know reality, I'd be at the same place at 25:)
How to fix trade secrets
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
1. Don't tell anyone who can't keep a secret. 2. If you tell someone in the media and they leak it, cut them off from future trade secrets. 3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.
The idea of trying to protect a secret once you give it away is ludicrous. Even under a contract it is hard to enforce as Party A can tell it to their cousin who can post about it. If you want to control secrets, don't let them out, or don't have them in the first place.
Also, the Firewire interface for GarageBand would be awesome if it supported multiple channels (8, or more with multiple units), if it worked with the typical firewire delay, and if it was cheap. Apple could do it. I don't think it's "yawn" news since I personally know thousands of profitable small bands that use GarageBand over ProTools to record their basic EPs and do a fine job of it. I'm producing a band right now that made their demo on GarageBand and it sounds fantastic -- better than many of the ProTools recordings of the past 5 years that I've heard. Giving small bands more hardware is wise.
Most people are schmucks and would rather spend 4-8 years in college learning nothing that start out on their own, charge a low rate, and build a portfolio of successful projects.
Not many people can make 6 figures with 25 hours of work -- this is true. Yet many people can do better than they're doing now and with less time, IF they focus on what they do best. Working for a large company won't let you find those skills, which is why I recommend finding a smaller shop, contracting for them for your basic needs, and then going out and finding contracts you can handle on your own.
Even though I don't want any more work and I'm working my way out of my business, I still ask for referrals and good referenes from my customers. I do a good job, so I get them. Out of all the referrals I get, I pass up nearly all of them lately -- they're not worth my time.
There are thousands of available jobs in the Midwest right now paying two-guy shops over US$120 an hour for basic maintenance work. I can't believe how few people want to take the risk, maybe it is because they know they could never follow through on time?
I don't understand the geek mentality -- we're unique, we have a massive amount of opportunity, and we generally go and get mediocre educations only to end up in a mediocre job? Change your way of thinking and realize that the way to make money is to save someone else the money they pay you. With technology, I think there are many holes to fill. Even in my own customer base, I've interviewed MANY CEOs and upper managers who are terribly unhappy with their basic technology (I don't do the basics anymore). That hole could be filled easily and with a nice income. If you bill US$80 an hour and can find 25 hours a week of work, your gross income will be US$100K. I bet I could find 100 businesses hungry for a deal like that, but no one is available to fill the position. Sad.
Then again, I've worked with some large IT companies, and their employees ARE morons. To think that some of these idiots get paid upper 5 figures (US$60-75K) and can barely spell is beyond me. I guess that's the reason the market sucks -- most people aren't performing because they feel comfortable with their salaried job. Then again, how many geeks here had that comfortable salaried job and don't have it anymore?
There is DEFINITELY more to it than just responsbility, but I believe it is the key need.
I still work for some of my original customers at around US$80 per hour. These are companies that hired me at 15 years of age with no history and no real business experience -- they took a risk, and I repay them with the reward of getting me cheaply (very limited hours, of course, as these are tiny companies). I love to finish a project, and the pay doesn't matter as long as the customer is making a profit and I'm happy with the project.
You're also right in your reply in saying that believing in yourself (and finishing the job on time or ahead of time and on budget) gets you rehired. So many people go and get W2 jobs at a set salary, but never find ways to exceed their salary in efficiency for their employer. If you want a raise, you'll get one when you prove you're worth more -- unless you work for a monster who doesn't see value in their employees.
I never wanted to grow to be huge, I focused rather on spinning off my best employees into their companies. As they competed with me we helped our market grow -- and I didn't have to worry about managing a huge staff. I have no desire to make millions when I am satisfied with my income (and my life), but I did desire to see my market grow so others could come into it and keep it fed. The sad part is that more and more companies are turning into monsters -- hiring the MBAs who don't know business from a textbook -- and these monsters are destroying the industries I've helped to build. It's OK, though, because all that paternalism and textbook mumbo jumbo is quickly taking jobs to countries where people understand that they can do the job for less money and headaches. Our country will learn a lesson, and they'll learn it painfully. YOu're only worth what you can save another man in time. If someone else can save that man more of his own time, guess who gets the job?
I still own a Dreamcast and I still play Chu Chu Rocket.
In fact, for about 3 years straight I had people I barely knew knock on my door at 2am to play Chu Chu. Considering that there were usually another 1-2 people playing then, we'd happily invite them in and then pound on the controllers until our fingers hurt.
The only downside to Chu Chu / Dreamcast was no 16:9 support, and my projector is 16:9. Seeing Chu Chu on a 120" wide screen is the ultimate gaming experience.
If you don't have Chu Chu, go buy a Dreamcast and Chu Chu on eBay. Evercrack? That's like Tylenol compared to this game.
I wouldn't say I'm sitting pretty since I don't buy gold or silver as a profit-making investment: I buy hard money to store my wealth safely so I don't spend it unwisely, and so I am fairly protected against real inflation (which only comes from government printing more money than previously printed).
I'm a true gold bug -- I believe that the only way to make money is to work for it. I don't believe in stock markets, 401Ks, bonds or taxes -- I believe in paying off your debt early (including your mortgage), living in a home a tad smaller than you need (1 bedroom and 1/2 bath per 2 residents is perfect), and living thrifty while you save.
If you're trying to keep up with the Joneses -- opt out.
If you hate your job -- start your own business.
If you can't stand the career you're in -- try another career, starting from zero is better than driving yourself into the negatives.
If you need some real personal advice, hit me up with an e-mail, I'll be happy to spend the time giving you some ideas for getting out of the grind and finding some happiness in life beyond just finances.
There is no risk with an unstable income IF you know how to reduce the risks that almost 99% of American workers take -- not having money for the future. Rather than settling their future costs early, they accept debt to live in the now and forget about tomorrow.
I would never hire someone who isn't willing to accept a few higher costs early on in order to live a more effective life. All my employees are aware that I hammer into them the basic knowledge I've learned:
1. Buy your first small house and pay it off quickly. 7-10 years TOPS, preferably quicker.
2. Buy your first car used and drive it till it dies.
3. Invest in safe investments (gold, silver, safe high-dividend-paying international stocks) only after you are completely debt free.
4. Focus on building real value in all your work. Build a portfolio of every project you work on, for the day that you might want to start your own company or go work for another.
Most people can be 100% debt free (including mortgages) by the age of 25. The problem is that most people want to live like they're multi-millionaires, there is no room for granite countertops and 2 bedrooms per home-occupant in my world. My employees learn this also, and I have no room for those who live irresponsible lives only to pass on their retirement costs to the next generation.
If you're solid by 25 or 30, debt-free, you can take huge risks that also entail huge rewards. Calculated risks are not the gambles that uncalculated risks are, and there is a lot of history that has to be analyzed in the calculated risk. I've turned away customer after customer because I knew they'd be unprofitable in the long run -- the whiners, the cheapskates, the MBAs with no real knowledge of how business should be run. If you do your job, and you select the right customer to contract to, the risk is very small that you won't make a profit. If you prove to them that you've saved them more money than you cost them, they'll hire you again and again and again. My company is still retained by people who took a chance on me when I started the business in my late teens, and they continue to rehire us when the contracts expire.
Why? Because I understand what business is -- saving someone more money than they're paying you.
I've helped past employees grow beyond being employed by me by helping them finance their own companies. Some still directly compete with me (in an open market), and some subcontract work we can't reach. I don't consider it quitting when I help someone move to their own business, in fact I almost demand that those who work for me look for opportunities to open up their own shops.
You've hit the nail on the head there, my friend. Because of ridiculous IRS and federal laws and mandates, I can't hire permanent 1099 contract employees like I'd prefer. If they work for me too long as a contractor, I get penalized. I considered helping my employees incorporate and work as subs beneath me, but that hurt some of my ability to help them reduce their tax burden in other ways, plus it would hurt me if my customers thought I subbed all my work out.
This way we all get the best of every world -- I guarantee stable, profitable work, they guarantee stable, profitable work, and we all do better.
I don't think my shop is for everyone, actually it is for the very select few. I detest many of the people I interview because I know they only want in so they can extricate themselves out of the idiocy in their lives (financially), and I can't begin to imagine hiring someone who has their mind on their financial mistakes rather than the job at hand.
But you did hit the nail on the head with your statement -- if only there was a way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll get blasted for this and called a troll, but my real opinion is that the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen. They've controlled the system for too long, and they're fearful (rightfully so) of losing out to the smaller direct-caster. Broadcast (ie, not a la carte) is dying.
The best way to let things progress is to stop holding to the old norms (regulations). Look at all the bandwidth set aside fo television and radio at 50,000 watts per frequency range. All that lovely bandwidth could be better prioritized with lower transmission power and WiFi or something similar. Even cell phone companies hold way too much bandwidth for the type of transmission used, it is crazy that EDGE/3G/whatever isn't even faster than it is today.
I truly believe we'd see much more technology growth if we didn't hold to standards created 20, 30, 50 years ago. UHF and VHF should be dead, and HDTV along with it. If people want HD broadcasts, they could be better suited to a faster more localized version of the torrent protocol -- maybe set up by a few re-distro companies, maybe by amateurs, let competition bring it about.
As for paying for it, I believe 5 second spots work just as well as 30 and 60 second spots. The rare times I watch public programming, I actually hear "brought to you by the McDonalds corporation" better than I hear a 30 or 60 second McD's spot.
I've been looking for advice and opinions on a "dream" of mine on the verge of coming true -- an idea I call No Copyright Studios. Basically the idea was initially to sponsor bands who dropped all their music into the public domain in exchange for all the free marketing that could drive more fans to their shows. Now we're looking at enticing another group of artists to work to build a digital library of free programming in exchange for driving people to see them live: the theatre group.
I've been thinking about all the great actors I personally know (I love SOME local theatre) and how they could record some of their skits as mini-TV-shows to broadcast freely online. I've also thought that we could get a few different groups throughout the country to work on similar vignettes, creating interest not just in my local Chicago area.
The more I look at the quality increases of amateur performers online, the more I realize that the big cartels that controlled distribution for nearly 70 year ARE in trouble. No, we aren't there yet, but we're getting there. I just picked up 3 3-chip DV cams for under US$4000 total, brand new, 16:9. Amazing what competition can do to drive prices down so that amateurs can start competing with the big guys. Even HD cams are dropping in price.
I think the big issue right now is forgoing "protection" of the medium or the data and just letting it go wherever it can go. In the long run, people seem to be willing to pay for a la carte entertainment, so I believe that we can see a return to the old days when artists were sponsored by the masses solely to create. No Copyright Studios has numerous ways for artists to make money without copyright, including charging for fans to watch the band in the studio live (via the web). As more people embrace the idea of letting your digital product become your marketing sysetem, the quality will go up. Competition still exists even when a product is given away.
The question is: what will the cartels do to stop it? The big print media outlets are forming blogs, which are succeeding within reason (Slate?). The big radio outlets are jumping beyond their pre-set formats, bringing some people back to the radio, and some are even podcasting.
Can big media hold on when the prices are quickly dropping to zero and advertising can be bypassed with the press of a button? What is the next step for them?
Since I'm 32, many of my favorite games are those that remind me of my gaming youth. Days playing Astrosmash on the Intellivision with pops, or playing Utopia on the Aquarius with my friends -- these were low res but very high fun-factor games that today's batches don't really compete well with (for me). Even newer games like Dreamcast's Chu-Chu Rocket tend to give me more hours of fun, mostly because the basic games seem to need less hardware, less overhead, and give me more playing time. I guess the lower resolution adds to the imagination-creation that tabletop gaming created, too.
I've been thinking often about how the old games could be refreshed and renewed, but I can't figure out if it would be feasible. MOST gaming companies will re-create the game with the mess of 3D animation, large storage needs and slow cut-scenes, probably destroying them in the process. Civ4 is the most frustrating game I've ever played, I even battled to return it to the store since the only way to get it to work was to pirate it (the boxed release didn't work on 6 different PCs). Sid can go choke on my box for all I care -- the love of the game is gone.
Yet I do see the "50 games for $5" that contain some of my favorite games of my youth -- Sinistar, Pole Position, Joust, Galaga, you name it. Thinking back, were these games my favorite because that is all we had at the local teen hang-out? I don't think so, we spent enough time at the super arcade to get our pick of 100 machines. Are they "the best" because they're from my childhood? I'm not sure, as my friend's 3 kids love to play them at our house, moreso than any of their X-box games. Are the games still powerful because they have some uniqueness to them? Not at all, there is just something about the story+gameplay+graphics that pulls you in.
I wish I could figure it out, I've been dying to create something similar to the old games, but without making a copy. Tying some of the best features together might be a real winner, especially now that almost every cell phone can run most older games with better speed, maybe there is a new market for bringing the old tech back.
Can you imagine Space Quest 3 on a Samsung d500?
I wish I could agree, I really do.
Slavery ended in EVERY industrialized nation BECAUSE of industrialization -- slaves were inefficient with machines. Even the so-called child labor camps on Asia have been replaced slowly because the next generation is better at running the newer machines.
The bloody war you talk about (the War between States a.k.a. the "Civil" War) was not over slavery, it was about regulation. Lincoln was a Whig supporter of Clay's American System -- a politican engine designed to tax Southern producers in order to pay for what Lincoln called "internal improvements" in the North, a.k.a corporate welfare. Lincoln detested blacks and more than once called for them to be deported back to Africa or Haiti. Lincoln supported the law in Illinois that prevented black immigration.
Don't believe your (public school) history books, the war was always about one thing -- regulation.
The Whig part dissolved only to be replaced with Lincoln's Republic party, which, by the way, is also a Whig-intended party. The Whigs believe in 3 things:
1. A Central bank so they could inflate the currency (devalue it) just as the Federal Reserve destroys the dollar with no gold standard. (Democrats also support this today)
2. Imperialism to spread "democracy" which is reaslly a euphamism for spreading corporate interests aligned with the State. This includes protective tariffs. (see Haliburton, but Democrats also support this today).
3. Internal Improvements based on taxing productive companies and restraining entry to those markets for favored companies (again, somethnig Democrats support).
Some links to the truth about Lincoln:
1 * 2 * 3
The whole King Lincoln archive is online and very distressing to read if you're a Lincoln supporter.
Almost all of that regulation was created at the local level -- almost none federally and a little at the state level.
While I'm against government regulation of any sort, I can accept local regulations because I can vote with my feet, and local regulations (and subsidies) don't create the cartels and monopolists that state and federal regulation does.
Could this possibly be because there are neither "anti-global warming facts" nor "pro-global warming facts"? There are only facts (and data, but the two are rarely the same). Everything else is interpretation - but the vast majority of scientists who are actively working on interpreting the facts say that rapid climate change is indeed real, and human activity is probably at least partly to blame.
So? Human activity that "might" create climate change that "might" affect us in the future if we change nothing also created new medicines, new transportation devices and a more efficient human, in general. These activities also lead us to new ways to produce the products people want and need.
I don't see how this would help in the least. Instead of having scientists with many different viewpoints vying for public funds, you would have many different groups with specific agendas producing research. How exactly is this supposed to help produce unbiased results?
Because government should not be biased -- it should be based on the facts, and it should do no harm to the individual or the minority. If it has a job to protect, why instead does it merely punish? There is no protection here, ever.
The reason I'd rather see independent financing of research is so the individual can do their research and pick the product they want to use. This is how you solve pollution problems, not by funding scientists publicly who will then tell the administration what it wants to hear. You also don't fund scientists so that you can come up with new ways to create regulation (which I said in a previous post doesn't help the masses, it only creates a higher barrier to entry in a given market, protecting the market incumbents).
Horsepower in cars rarely meets up with the numbers. Fuel efficiency, either. Carb content in food is labeled, but most people don't read the serving size, so that is advertising funk, too.
Why should this be different? When a company ships a product to be reviewed and tested, they'll ship the best. When they test their own, they'll test the best. You should NEVER accept that specs are factual, and you should spend some time confirming what you bought.
This is the great thing about specs -- if they're lies, just return the product. If a company lies enough, the customers will go elsewhere.
It is really all common sense.
I'll accept your refutation on its face, but digging deeper it causes me to think more about it.
First of all, regulation of industry is NOT about controlling pollution -- this is just how regulation is sold to the masses. "We're protecting you by limiting pollution output!" This is far from the truth. Regulating an industry actually just created a very high barrier of entry -- making it hard to compete with the status quo. MOST laws that eventually pass do so based on the acceptance of the industry in question -- the cronies and the cartels that now control the industry that is hard to compete in.
Pollution sounds terrible, but I've been to countries without major pollution controls and I'm not sure it is as bad as it is labeled. Would I live in a town with a factory? No, but I don't live in industrial towns. The effects of pollution are not proven to me in a way that makes logical sense, most of the time it is doom-and-gloom hype.
When government regulates, it does so to protect the incumbents in a market, not to curtail them. Gas is supposed to be formulated for lower emissions, but the real reason is to protect the companies that refine it -- refineries are a subsidized and licensed cartel. Flouride is supposed to be good for our teeth but it is added to water because of other cronies who profit from the flouridization (sp?).
That is a bigger concern -- you might THINK you won when a regulation gets passed, but it is only the one who profits from the regulation by limiting competition that wins in the long run. As our country falls deeper into inefficiency and uncompetitiveness, I can only hope people realize why this is the case, rather than turn to government for even more regulations to try to save industries that are long dead.
Also, a great part of regulation of large companies is an off-set subsidy that makes it difficult for new technologies to compete in an apples-to-apples free market.
Correct. lighter pickup trucks. lighter vans. lighter SUVs.
Nonetheless, I don't care for articles, I was sort of just making a point that anyone can point links, but none of those links matter to me -- I care about choice, and it is consumer choice that will make the world better, not fiat or force.
Actually, my reply was more a joke than a real opinion -- I don't know personally which is safer and which isn't. I've been in 3 accidents in my entire life, all in larger cars, and I walked away unscathed. I generally prefer larger cars, recently driving a Land Rover Disco2 for a few years before realizing it was just too much money in the toilet. Now I drive a used 96 Corolla (small car) :)
My point is that being forced by government to make purchasing decisions doesn't make much sense. If a car pollutes, and if the pollution affects the environment, then people who love the environment should make a choice to not buy polluting cars (or use polluting electricity in their homes, etc). Telling someone not to leaves no room to see if their purchase HELPED their lives.
I believe we've lived better lives even with the possible pollutants. I know I have. To allow government to regulate it doesn't really fix anything, in fact, it doesn't leave room for any choices to be made except for those who are party to the power in office. For scientists to get their income from the paternalist government leaves even less room for debate.
Sure, you picked a safe car, maybe you did the research. The post I just made shows a few opinions and studies that show that smaller cars and the new CAFE standards will likely kill thousands of Americans a year.
When it comes to smokestacks, I can tell you that the country will soon learn its lesson about regulating businesses beyond a minimum amount. Pollution is terrible, but compare the average lifespan in the 1800s to the 1900s to today -- for some reason we're living longer even with all this terrible pollution. I'm not worried about it -- if I live to 75 and die of emphysema, it is better than dying at 45 of disease or not having any opportunities to travel to work. Thank the free market for the world's growth, not regulations and greenies.
The U.S. will be a sinkhole of people complaining about why we couldn't be more efficient to compete with the world market -- the answer will be in all the regulations and mandates that others have forced on us.
Idiots, I guess:
Study: Smaller cars are more dangerous
Fuel Efficiency Regulations Cost Lives and Money
Government's Dangerous Prescription
The only person screwing you is you -- you're demanding the government keep power over domains that are outside of their Constitutional limits. Forget the Federal government, read the Constitution directly; 90% of our Federal government is illegal.
On top of that, the Federal Reserve is stealing your money -- they print more money every week than previously existed, making your money (and your investments and your savings) worthless very quickly. In 10 years they've decreased the value of $1 nearly 40% and in 20 years nearly 55%. That is who is stealing from you -- you and those you supported with your vote.
I don't support any of them, and I'm finding great ways to extricate myself legally from the problem. There are a number of ways the government has set up taxpaying for the ultra-elite, and every individual can take advantage of them and reduce their support of a great evil, maybe the greatest evil in history.
The IRS is unconstitutional and the money that the federal government forces us to pay is sometimes (maybe often) used in ways that the taxpayer does not agree with morally. I despise my government warmongering, creating welfare schemes, funding education in states I don't live in, drafting/enslaving troops, creating retirement programs for people too lazy and irresponsible to save themselves.
I don't see any reason not to support the tax evaders, and I congratulate them for trying. The IRS has no reason to request anything of anyone, nor do they have any constitutional allowance for it -- in order to breach private property they need a warrant to search. Demanding information from paypal is treason and whoever supports it that has taken the oath to uphold the Constitution deserves the ultimate penalty for breaking their oath.
It is really sad when someone who doesn't agree with the rest of the world faces these kinds of problems -- I think it directly has to do with the politics of science. With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars, of course you're going to see more and more scientists come up with the alarming issues that raise the most money.
It also goes to show that you'll find dissent creates outcasts. This is no different when anything else becomes public policy -- try speaking out about the inept public school teachers you find more often, or the low-IQ workers at the DMV, or anyone else on the dole.
Global warming is more myth than science. Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations -- "why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too. "Why not curtail smokestacks?" Because other countries won't, and you'll lose jobs on top of jobs (this is already evident).
I'm not surprised in the least by this. It is harder and harder to find anti-global warming facts not because there aren't any, but because people who know the facts are afraid to bring them to light.
I don't care either way. I directly finance all the environmental causes I believe in through www.perc.org and that's the way we should be dealing with it. Drop the federal and public-taxpayer funded grants and let each individual focus on what they believe in. Instead of crying that the sky is falling at some lame protest, go work those hours at Starbucks and donate the money to the scientific research company of your choice.
He works 12-16 hours at US$6.50 or so an hour (whatever minimum wage is). That's about US$90 a week before taxes. He bills out at US$120 per hour for those 12-16 hours, so he takes home (after overhead plus my 30% cut) about $50k a year, working 40 weeks a year.
He gets about 70% project bonus, 80% is for some, some get 50%, depends on their retention with customers. All still do better than most who get a set salary.
Hit me up with an e-mail and I'll give you some options. I started with nothing, came from a poor family, and have a pretty decent life at 31. If I didn't screw up along the way listening to people who didn't know reality, I'd be at the same place at 25 :)
1. Don't tell anyone who can't keep a secret.
2. If you tell someone in the media and they leak it, cut them off from future trade secrets.
3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.
The idea of trying to protect a secret once you give it away is ludicrous. Even under a contract it is hard to enforce as Party A can tell it to their cousin who can post about it. If you want to control secrets, don't let them out, or don't have them in the first place.
Also, the Firewire interface for GarageBand would be awesome if it supported multiple channels (8, or more with multiple units), if it worked with the typical firewire delay, and if it was cheap. Apple could do it. I don't think it's "yawn" news since I personally know thousands of profitable small bands that use GarageBand over ProTools to record their basic EPs and do a fine job of it. I'm producing a band right now that made their demo on GarageBand and it sounds fantastic -- better than many of the ProTools recordings of the past 5 years that I've heard. Giving small bands more hardware is wise.
Most people are schmucks and would rather spend 4-8 years in college learning nothing that start out on their own, charge a low rate, and build a portfolio of successful projects.
Not many people can make 6 figures with 25 hours of work -- this is true. Yet many people can do better than they're doing now and with less time, IF they focus on what they do best. Working for a large company won't let you find those skills, which is why I recommend finding a smaller shop, contracting for them for your basic needs, and then going out and finding contracts you can handle on your own.
Even though I don't want any more work and I'm working my way out of my business, I still ask for referrals and good referenes from my customers. I do a good job, so I get them. Out of all the referrals I get, I pass up nearly all of them lately -- they're not worth my time.
There are thousands of available jobs in the Midwest right now paying two-guy shops over US$120 an hour for basic maintenance work. I can't believe how few people want to take the risk, maybe it is because they know they could never follow through on time?
I don't understand the geek mentality -- we're unique, we have a massive amount of opportunity, and we generally go and get mediocre educations only to end up in a mediocre job? Change your way of thinking and realize that the way to make money is to save someone else the money they pay you. With technology, I think there are many holes to fill. Even in my own customer base, I've interviewed MANY CEOs and upper managers who are terribly unhappy with their basic technology (I don't do the basics anymore). That hole could be filled easily and with a nice income. If you bill US$80 an hour and can find 25 hours a week of work, your gross income will be US$100K. I bet I could find 100 businesses hungry for a deal like that, but no one is available to fill the position. Sad.
Then again, I've worked with some large IT companies, and their employees ARE morons. To think that some of these idiots get paid upper 5 figures (US$60-75K) and can barely spell is beyond me. I guess that's the reason the market sucks -- most people aren't performing because they feel comfortable with their salaried job. Then again, how many geeks here had that comfortable salaried job and don't have it anymore?
There's the answer.
There is DEFINITELY more to it than just responsbility, but I believe it is the key need.
I still work for some of my original customers at around US$80 per hour. These are companies that hired me at 15 years of age with no history and no real business experience -- they took a risk, and I repay them with the reward of getting me cheaply (very limited hours, of course, as these are tiny companies). I love to finish a project, and the pay doesn't matter as long as the customer is making a profit and I'm happy with the project.
You're also right in your reply in saying that believing in yourself (and finishing the job on time or ahead of time and on budget) gets you rehired. So many people go and get W2 jobs at a set salary, but never find ways to exceed their salary in efficiency for their employer. If you want a raise, you'll get one when you prove you're worth more -- unless you work for a monster who doesn't see value in their employees.
I never wanted to grow to be huge, I focused rather on spinning off my best employees into their companies. As they competed with me we helped our market grow -- and I didn't have to worry about managing a huge staff. I have no desire to make millions when I am satisfied with my income (and my life), but I did desire to see my market grow so others could come into it and keep it fed. The sad part is that more and more companies are turning into monsters -- hiring the MBAs who don't know business from a textbook -- and these monsters are destroying the industries I've helped to build. It's OK, though, because all that paternalism and textbook mumbo jumbo is quickly taking jobs to countries where people understand that they can do the job for less money and headaches. Our country will learn a lesson, and they'll learn it painfully. YOu're only worth what you can save another man in time. If someone else can save that man more of his own time, guess who gets the job?
I still own a Dreamcast and I still play Chu Chu Rocket.
In fact, for about 3 years straight I had people I barely knew knock on my door at 2am to play Chu Chu. Considering that there were usually another 1-2 people playing then, we'd happily invite them in and then pound on the controllers until our fingers hurt.
The only downside to Chu Chu / Dreamcast was no 16:9 support, and my projector is 16:9. Seeing Chu Chu on a 120" wide screen is the ultimate gaming experience.
If you don't have Chu Chu, go buy a Dreamcast and Chu Chu on eBay. Evercrack? That's like Tylenol compared to this game.
I wouldn't say I'm sitting pretty since I don't buy gold or silver as a profit-making investment: I buy hard money to store my wealth safely so I don't spend it unwisely, and so I am fairly protected against real inflation (which only comes from government printing more money than previously printed).
I'm a true gold bug -- I believe that the only way to make money is to work for it. I don't believe in stock markets, 401Ks, bonds or taxes -- I believe in paying off your debt early (including your mortgage), living in a home a tad smaller than you need (1 bedroom and 1/2 bath per 2 residents is perfect), and living thrifty while you save.
If you're trying to keep up with the Joneses -- opt out.
If you hate your job -- start your own business.
If you can't stand the career you're in -- try another career, starting from zero is better than driving yourself into the negatives.
If you need some real personal advice, hit me up with an e-mail, I'll be happy to spend the time giving you some ideas for getting out of the grind and finding some happiness in life beyond just finances.
There is no risk with an unstable income IF you know how to reduce the risks that almost 99% of American workers take -- not having money for the future. Rather than settling their future costs early, they accept debt to live in the now and forget about tomorrow.
I would never hire someone who isn't willing to accept a few higher costs early on in order to live a more effective life. All my employees are aware that I hammer into them the basic knowledge I've learned:
1. Buy your first small house and pay it off quickly. 7-10 years TOPS, preferably quicker.
2. Buy your first car used and drive it till it dies.
3. Invest in safe investments (gold, silver, safe high-dividend-paying international stocks) only after you are completely debt free.
4. Focus on building real value in all your work. Build a portfolio of every project you work on, for the day that you might want to start your own company or go work for another.
Most people can be 100% debt free (including mortgages) by the age of 25. The problem is that most people want to live like they're multi-millionaires, there is no room for granite countertops and 2 bedrooms per home-occupant in my world. My employees learn this also, and I have no room for those who live irresponsible lives only to pass on their retirement costs to the next generation.
If you're solid by 25 or 30, debt-free, you can take huge risks that also entail huge rewards. Calculated risks are not the gambles that uncalculated risks are, and there is a lot of history that has to be analyzed in the calculated risk. I've turned away customer after customer because I knew they'd be unprofitable in the long run -- the whiners, the cheapskates, the MBAs with no real knowledge of how business should be run. If you do your job, and you select the right customer to contract to, the risk is very small that you won't make a profit. If you prove to them that you've saved them more money than you cost them, they'll hire you again and again and again. My company is still retained by people who took a chance on me when I started the business in my late teens, and they continue to rehire us when the contracts expire.
Why? Because I understand what business is -- saving someone more money than they're paying you.
I've helped past employees grow beyond being employed by me by helping them finance their own companies. Some still directly compete with me (in an open market), and some subcontract work we can't reach. I don't consider it quitting when I help someone move to their own business, in fact I almost demand that those who work for me look for opportunities to open up their own shops.
You've hit the nail on the head there, my friend. Because of ridiculous IRS and federal laws and mandates, I can't hire permanent 1099 contract employees like I'd prefer. If they work for me too long as a contractor, I get penalized. I considered helping my employees incorporate and work as subs beneath me, but that hurt some of my ability to help them reduce their tax burden in other ways, plus it would hurt me if my customers thought I subbed all my work out.
This way we all get the best of every world -- I guarantee stable, profitable work, they guarantee stable, profitable work, and we all do better.
I don't think my shop is for everyone, actually it is for the very select few. I detest many of the people I interview because I know they only want in so they can extricate themselves out of the idiocy in their lives (financially), and I can't begin to imagine hiring someone who has their mind on their financial mistakes rather than the job at hand.
But you did hit the nail on the head with your statement -- if only there was a way.