Every organ transplant recipient should be strongly pressured to donate all their own organs when they die, if they're in acceptable condition. And the transplanting doctors should share some of the money they receive for the operation with the donor's family (or other beneficiary). The death of the donor should be sufficient prohibition for selling their organs. If it's not, the indestructible illegal trade will offer a market anyway.
Along these lines, I don't know why there's always such a severe blood shortage. Most people receiving blood transfusions schedule their surgery weeks or months in advance. It only takes a couple of weeks for drawn blood to regenerate. They should all have drawn the maximum they can handle from the moment their requirements are known until their surgery. And after they recover, they should submit even more. They should count primarily on their own autologous donations, which tax the healthcare system so much less by "matching the donor" without extensive tests and mistakes, as well as leaving the donations of other people alone. Everyone who receives blood from a stranger even once should have to donate at least once a year for several following years, health permitting. Maybe they should receive discounts on their own care when "giving back", maybe they should be required to donate if "in the system" for receiving from strangers. But there's absolutely no reason that scheduled blood demands should offer anything but a pool of donors, instead of the overwhelming demand we see now.
Have you ever served on a Board of Directors? Only rarely do members or the shareholders who select them "vote their shares". Most of the decisions, and the work that frames them, is nonproportional discussion, dominated by the biggest shareholders and the biggest charismas.
Jobs' famous reality distortion field will see him leading Disney soon enough, especially with his backing by the other shareholders caught in the magic.
I dunno, they earned $48.967M on $210.015M in 2004, after losing ($11.155M) on $161.259M in 2003 and ($182.536M) on $144.976M in 2002. 2005 could be about $100M net on $250M, which would mean they'd taken in 2/3 of a $billion, and spent just a little more, before their market is even arrived. Which is about how much my estimates say they'd spend to serve a billion people in 2006. Seems like the model is about correct, though it's taken them several years of investment to get there. I guess they better hope they're not obsoleted by a DIY P2P Internet before 2007, when they'll probably show a total net profit.
I already postulated a better server architecture than actual P4s: a SAN more directly coupled to the routers, with more dedicated video hardware. The P4 costs are just a basis for multiplying scale - they're not the actual hardware to use. And 60K "server units" would be distributed around the Net, with lower electric costs in many places, especially in bulk, with greater efficiencies in the actual denser HW installations. Even at $10K per server, that's not much compared to $5K:mo for 1Gbps bandwidth to the server, so the difference in cost is largely negligible. And the couple of million in staffing costs are similarly within the margin of error of my very round numbers, which wind up talking about $250M:year in bandwidth costs. As for software licensing, that's a whole other question thatn the one we're discussing. Though I'd expect the server operation to produce it's own software, likely based on Linux, because no such system exists today. Just like Akamai did themselves.
The real cost is the cost of the content. Either just media or interactive apps. But again, that's not what we're discussing. When we're talking about a system that serves a billion people, a few hundred million a year isn't too much - it's the revenue from just one hit movie that most of them would never see.
HDTV is about 18.2Mbps, about 36x my estimates. so that's about 50 streams per P4/4.3GHz. Since the bandwidth is really the cost bottleneck at $5K:1Gbps:mo, that $3:mo cost for a 500Kbps stream becomes about $100:mo. It's got to become about 10x as cheap to become worth the $50:mo Americans will generally spend on it, which would pay for only half the required bandwidth at bulk wholesale cost today.
But most of the existing fiber is dark. There's at least 10x as much unlit, so that 10x price decrease is inevitable. The real problem is the killer app that creates demand. Probably community sharing short videos, including mobile "phone" interfaces as easy as making a phonecall. Then people will actually find the $50-100:mo worth it, rather than spending that money on something else, like cable or movie theaters.
I am confident he will be found guilty after a trial, as the obvious facts in this TIA case indicate. He has already been convicted after due process once before, though pardoned. The facts in this case are just as clear, and another trial will surely establish them
Poindexter is obviously a dangerous traitor to the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold in several offices he's held, to say nothing of his basic duty as a citizen. We hang traitors.
I am not a court, I do not have the power to try or sentence Poindexter, I do not propose to hang him myself. I am just an American citizen defending myself and my country from a very real traitor.
What makes any of those statements ironic?
I find your interest in finding such a contrived flaw in my statements, your assumption of jest, and baseless implication of irony to be totally inappropriate to the serious crimes Poindexter insists on perpetrating against my country. Why do you defend him?
Cringeley doesn't mention Akamai. Where does this 150K max users figure come from? If "tens of thousands" of servers is only 10K servers, then 150K streams is only 15 streams:server.
But even a $2K P4/4.3GHz can serve over 1750 simultaneous 500Kbps video streams (from my own benchmarks), for 875Mbps. Since Gbps fiberoptics cost <$5000:mo, or under $3:stream:mo, 10K servers should serve at least 17 million simultaneous users; 58K servers serve over 100 million simultaneous streams.
Use more efficient servers, like SANs coupled more directly to routers, and you're talking about <$3:stream:mo for maybe 100K servers serving over 1 billion people, for a $100M investment that can be amortized over a few years. Years which can bring maybe $1-100:mo profit on 1-10 billion consumers, or 10-10,000x ROI.
Such a network is much more efficient and economical as P2P, or multicast. But even the raw numbers sound very profitable. That's why Akamai is making so much money, even though their market is still so small.
Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make a career of abusing our Justice system with actions they know are meritless, but which might exploit an error by the court. After three rulings by a judge that they have done so, they should be barred from practicing law until after completing the qualifying requirements again: lawschool and licensing exam.
The people pay for the machine they're abusing, but they get paid to abuse it. I'd also like to see a state directory of lawyers, with their "batting average", their previous client list, the penalties assigned to them. Nothing fancy: a simple database search by name and address (with address history) and a simple report of details by category. If another person wants to package it fancy, and offer search personnel, that's a good way to recover some revenue, as a fee for bulk usage or resale. But consumers should be able to get the data collected by our government.
Effective at what? Poindexter's 1980s project, Iran/Contra, wasn't effective at deposing the Communist Nicaraguan government - that happened years after Iran/Contra folded, a result of other covert ops run by different spooks. It was effective in arming Iran, robbing Savings and Loans, arming cocaine gangs, funding arms dealers, pumping cocaine into America, killing thousands of people, and violating all kinds of laws. And putting traitor^WOliver North on TV.
I expect Poindexter's TIA is effective in finding blackmail content to protect Poindexter. But the Congressional act that killed TIA also outlawed its successors, which this current program clearly is. Poindexter and his minions should get the book thrown at them. And Poindexter should hang for sedition, a repeat traitor with obviously no chance of rehabilitation. Stop him before he spies again.
And if I'm making enough money off serving the content as Google will, what makes you think they won't try to get me to "help compensate the digitization effort" through copyright enforcement?
What will happen when I suck all Google's videos into my own archive, then offer them to the public in competition with Google? Will Google claim copyright on the videos that belong to me, an American citizen, that they got from my National Archives?
FTFA: "The Origami folds and pivots into a digital camera, video camcorder, smartphone, MP3 audio player, PDA, Internet access or Internet picture frame, email device or video conferencing terminal.
Origami utilizes Bluetooth wireless technology for network connectivity. PAN and LAN networks use a Bluetooth-equipped access point, while WAN uses a Bluetooth GSM or CDMA phone."
That's the Origami vaporware. Now, what's my SonyEricsson K750? Without folding or pivoting, it's a digital video/still camcorder, MP3 player, contacts/calendar/notes PDA, GPRS Internet, and picture frame. With Java applets, it's a "smartphone", and with applets and a Bluetooth keyboard it's an email device and maybe even "videoconferencing terminal". And it pivots images for preferred display orientation on user demand.
And it's over a year old. I'm sure there are phones with better email and "videoconferencing". What is this Microsoft astroturf?
Musk's PayPal ripped me off for thousands of dollars. There are several class action lawsuits pending against PayPal, several of which reflect the same scam they pulled on me, siphoning millions of dollars in interest on unfairly "frozen" accounts. His rockets will probably explode in space, out of reach of national liability laws.
Schwarzenegger's appointed Republican Secretary of State has recertified Diebold's ballot machines in California, despite their being barred. California prosecuted Diebold's executives for lying to the state about their rigged machines. But of course, Schwarzenegger's on the ropes, so he needs those machines to "terminate" the opposition.
This long, uncertain, high-stakes patent war shows how the patent system, even when applied by giants, makes for an unstable, unpredictable business climate. Rather than protect property rights so inventors have a stable environment into which people can invest to fund inventions, patents threaten property, reducing rights to privileges bought at a law firm, but retractable by a bigger law firm later on.
Beyond all the other arguments - constitutional, pragmatic, new-economic, philosophical - there really isn't a legitimate simple business argument in favor of the patent system any more. Let's get rid of it, and treat it patents like any monopoly: temporary, and allowed as long as they're not anticompetitive.
When you read Borland's article, keep in mind that his argument about video streaming creating unfair expenses for ISPs, without compensating them as much as the content providers, is the reason that telcos like AT&T and Verizon are demanding different charges for accessing competitors like Google. The telcos want a "2-tier Internet", with more expensive "premium" fees for fast, reliable access to content competitors like Google and Time Warner, just as the telcos start competing with them with their own video streams. But Borland doesn't mention that aspect of his argument, even though it's hot news.
As Bruce Schneier always says, if the people responsible for exposing others to security risks don't lose more than the costs of applying the security, then they never will. And of course the people exposed will always lose.
It wasn't that complicated. She heard about our project from its leader/owner, who was himself more a promoter than an entrepreneur, and was swimming in the Dysonsphere. She dropped in while we were starting up: testing SW/network platforms, narrowing down business models, choosing a market, provisionally partnering with other service companies. She practiced the simple art of reducing access to her supply of herself, after she was invited over, to create the appearance of shortage value. Then she showed up, told us our favorite ideas confirmed her own foresights (whether they did or not) to encourage us. When it was clear she couldn't get much glory, if any, because of competition from our own leader, playing her same game, she disappeared.
I already knew about her, so I spotted her game from the first mention of her name. And waited as all my low expectations were confirmed.
I had my encounter with Dyson during the Internet Bubble, and "got her" immediately. FWIW, I have no beef with her over that project: she wasn't interested in our project, and we got along fine without her. She's got a great talent for attaching herself to other people's projects, adding nothing, but making herself the center of attention. Sometimes, as in ICANN, she even inserts herself into an important role for which she's unqualified, and screws it up.
Her career is "Miss Popularity". Perhaps techies can learn from that. But I hope they don't learn from her to add nothing to a project, other than their presence, when competence is required.
Kawasaki, though "just a marketer", at least helped develop and market the original Macintosh. Which was a marketing, as well as a technological, victory. Dyson has no such successes to claim as her own.
I like paying $2-5 for used paperbacks on the street, or $0-0.25 for newspapers. When those are lost or damaged, I can forget about it. When my mobile "phone" can spring into a 9x16cm reflective display (with backlight) for long reading sessions, I'll be willing to replace paper books with nondisposable digital ones. Because then I won't be carrying around an extra thing to worry about. If I can still buy "books" for $0-5, and lend them to friends whose minds I'd like to colonize without paying a franchise fee.
What has Esther Dyson ever done, other than be born Freeman Dyson's daughter and screw up ICANN? I guess that resume does make her an expert on the value of attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Every organ transplant recipient should be strongly pressured to donate all their own organs when they die, if they're in acceptable condition. And the transplanting doctors should share some of the money they receive for the operation with the donor's family (or other beneficiary). The death of the donor should be sufficient prohibition for selling their organs. If it's not, the indestructible illegal trade will offer a market anyway.
Along these lines, I don't know why there's always such a severe blood shortage. Most people receiving blood transfusions schedule their surgery weeks or months in advance. It only takes a couple of weeks for drawn blood to regenerate. They should all have drawn the maximum they can handle from the moment their requirements are known until their surgery. And after they recover, they should submit even more. They should count primarily on their own autologous donations, which tax the healthcare system so much less by "matching the donor" without extensive tests and mistakes, as well as leaving the donations of other people alone. Everyone who receives blood from a stranger even once should have to donate at least once a year for several following years, health permitting. Maybe they should receive discounts on their own care when "giving back", maybe they should be required to donate if "in the system" for receiving from strangers. But there's absolutely no reason that scheduled blood demands should offer anything but a pool of donors, instead of the overwhelming demand we see now.
Have you ever served on a Board of Directors? Only rarely do members or the shareholders who select them "vote their shares". Most of the decisions, and the work that frames them, is nonproportional discussion, dominated by the biggest shareholders and the biggest charismas.
Jobs' famous reality distortion field will see him leading Disney soon enough, especially with his backing by the other shareholders caught in the magic.
Why would Steve Jobs bother buying Disney when he can just run it from his seat on its board of Directors?
I dunno, they earned $48.967M on $210.015M in 2004, after losing ($11.155M) on $161.259M in 2003 and ($182.536M) on $144.976M in 2002. 2005 could be about $100M net on $250M, which would mean they'd taken in 2/3 of a $billion, and spent just a little more, before their market is even arrived. Which is about how much my estimates say they'd spend to serve a billion people in 2006. Seems like the model is about correct, though it's taken them several years of investment to get there. I guess they better hope they're not obsoleted by a DIY P2P Internet before 2007, when they'll probably show a total net profit.
I already postulated a better server architecture than actual P4s: a SAN more directly coupled to the routers, with more dedicated video hardware. The P4 costs are just a basis for multiplying scale - they're not the actual hardware to use. And 60K "server units" would be distributed around the Net, with lower electric costs in many places, especially in bulk, with greater efficiencies in the actual denser HW installations. Even at $10K per server, that's not much compared to $5K:mo for 1Gbps bandwidth to the server, so the difference in cost is largely negligible. And the couple of million in staffing costs are similarly within the margin of error of my very round numbers, which wind up talking about $250M:year in bandwidth costs. As for software licensing, that's a whole other question thatn the one we're discussing. Though I'd expect the server operation to produce it's own software, likely based on Linux, because no such system exists today. Just like Akamai did themselves.
The real cost is the cost of the content. Either just media or interactive apps. But again, that's not what we're discussing. When we're talking about a system that serves a billion people, a few hundred million a year isn't too much - it's the revenue from just one hit movie that most of them would never see.
HDTV is about 18.2Mbps, about 36x my estimates. so that's about 50 streams per P4/4.3GHz. Since the bandwidth is really the cost bottleneck at $5K:1Gbps:mo, that $3:mo cost for a 500Kbps stream becomes about $100:mo. It's got to become about 10x as cheap to become worth the $50:mo Americans will generally spend on it, which would pay for only half the required bandwidth at bulk wholesale cost today.
But most of the existing fiber is dark. There's at least 10x as much unlit, so that 10x price decrease is inevitable. The real problem is the killer app that creates demand. Probably community sharing short videos, including mobile "phone" interfaces as easy as making a phonecall. Then people will actually find the $50-100:mo worth it, rather than spending that money on something else, like cable or movie theaters.
I am confident he will be found guilty after a trial, as the obvious facts in this TIA case indicate. He has already been convicted after due process once before, though pardoned. The facts in this case are just as clear, and another trial will surely establish them
Poindexter is obviously a dangerous traitor to the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold in several offices he's held, to say nothing of his basic duty as a citizen. We hang traitors.
I am not a court, I do not have the power to try or sentence Poindexter, I do not propose to hang him myself. I am just an American citizen defending myself and my country from a very real traitor.
What makes any of those statements ironic?
I find your interest in finding such a contrived flaw in my statements, your assumption of jest, and baseless implication of irony to be totally inappropriate to the serious crimes Poindexter insists on perpetrating against my country. Why do you defend him?
Cringeley doesn't mention Akamai. Where does this 150K max users figure come from? If "tens of thousands" of servers is only 10K servers, then 150K streams is only 15 streams:server.
But even a $2K P4/4.3GHz can serve over 1750 simultaneous 500Kbps video streams (from my own benchmarks), for 875Mbps. Since Gbps fiberoptics cost <$5000:mo, or under $3:stream:mo, 10K servers should serve at least 17 million simultaneous users; 58K servers serve over 100 million simultaneous streams.
Use more efficient servers, like SANs coupled more directly to routers, and you're talking about <$3:stream:mo for maybe 100K servers serving over 1 billion people, for a $100M investment that can be amortized over a few years. Years which can bring maybe $1-100:mo profit on 1-10 billion consumers, or 10-10,000x ROI.
Such a network is much more efficient and economical as P2P, or multicast. But even the raw numbers sound very profitable. That's why Akamai is making so much money, even though their market is still so small.
Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to make a career of abusing our Justice system with actions they know are meritless, but which might exploit an error by the court. After three rulings by a judge that they have done so, they should be barred from practicing law until after completing the qualifying requirements again: lawschool and licensing exam.
The people pay for the machine they're abusing, but they get paid to abuse it. I'd also like to see a state directory of lawyers, with their "batting average", their previous client list, the penalties assigned to them. Nothing fancy: a simple database search by name and address (with address history) and a simple report of details by category. If another person wants to package it fancy, and offer search personnel, that's a good way to recover some revenue, as a fee for bulk usage or resale. But consumers should be able to get the data collected by our government.
Effective at what? Poindexter's 1980s project, Iran/Contra, wasn't effective at deposing the Communist Nicaraguan government - that happened years after Iran/Contra folded, a result of other covert ops run by different spooks. It was effective in arming Iran, robbing Savings and Loans, arming cocaine gangs, funding arms dealers, pumping cocaine into America, killing thousands of people, and violating all kinds of laws. And putting traitor^WOliver North on TV.
I expect Poindexter's TIA is effective in finding blackmail content to protect Poindexter. But the Congressional act that killed TIA also outlawed its successors, which this current program clearly is. Poindexter and his minions should get the book thrown at them. And Poindexter should hang for sedition, a repeat traitor with obviously no chance of rehabilitation. Stop him before he spies again.
And if I'm making enough money off serving the content as Google will, what makes you think they won't try to get me to "help compensate the digitization effort" through copyright enforcement?
What will happen when I suck all Google's videos into my own archive, then offer them to the public in competition with Google? Will Google claim copyright on the videos that belong to me, an American citizen, that they got from my National Archives?
FTFA:
"The Origami folds and pivots into a digital camera, video camcorder, smartphone, MP3 audio player, PDA, Internet access or Internet picture frame, email device or video conferencing terminal.
Origami utilizes Bluetooth wireless technology for network connectivity. PAN and LAN networks use a Bluetooth-equipped access point, while WAN uses a Bluetooth GSM or CDMA phone."
That's the Origami vaporware. Now, what's my SonyEricsson K750? Without folding or pivoting, it's a digital video/still camcorder, MP3 player, contacts/calendar/notes PDA, GPRS Internet, and picture frame. With Java applets, it's a "smartphone", and with applets and a Bluetooth keyboard it's an email device and maybe even "videoconferencing terminal". And it pivots images for preferred display orientation on user demand.
And it's over a year old. I'm sure there are phones with better email and "videoconferencing". What is this Microsoft astroturf?
The king of closed source violates nondisclosure to demand transparency in their defense of their closed-source monopoly.
Musk's PayPal ripped me off for thousands of dollars. There are several class action lawsuits pending against PayPal, several of which reflect the same scam they pulled on me, siphoning millions of dollars in interest on unfairly "frozen" accounts. His rockets will probably explode in space, out of reach of national liability laws.
Schwarzenegger's appointed Republican Secretary of State has recertified Diebold's ballot machines in California, despite their being barred. California prosecuted Diebold's executives for lying to the state about their rigged machines. But of course, Schwarzenegger's on the ropes, so he needs those machines to "terminate" the opposition.
This long, uncertain, high-stakes patent war shows how the patent system, even when applied by giants, makes for an unstable, unpredictable business climate. Rather than protect property rights so inventors have a stable environment into which people can invest to fund inventions, patents threaten property, reducing rights to privileges bought at a law firm, but retractable by a bigger law firm later on.
Beyond all the other arguments - constitutional, pragmatic, new-economic, philosophical - there really isn't a legitimate simple business argument in favor of the patent system any more. Let's get rid of it, and treat it patents like any monopoly: temporary, and allowed as long as they're not anticompetitive.
There's a telco astroturf website tracking industry front groups posing as consumer associations. But who's funding the trackers?
When you read Borland's article, keep in mind that his argument about video streaming creating unfair expenses for ISPs, without compensating them as much as the content providers, is the reason that telcos like AT&T and Verizon are demanding different charges for accessing competitors like Google. The telcos want a "2-tier Internet", with more expensive "premium" fees for fast, reliable access to content competitors like Google and Time Warner, just as the telcos start competing with them with their own video streams. But Borland doesn't mention that aspect of his argument, even though it's hot news.
As Bruce Schneier always says, if the people responsible for exposing others to security risks don't lose more than the costs of applying the security, then they never will. And of course the people exposed will always lose.
It wasn't that complicated. She heard about our project from its leader/owner, who was himself more a promoter than an entrepreneur, and was swimming in the Dysonsphere. She dropped in while we were starting up: testing SW/network platforms, narrowing down business models, choosing a market, provisionally partnering with other service companies. She practiced the simple art of reducing access to her supply of herself, after she was invited over, to create the appearance of shortage value. Then she showed up, told us our favorite ideas confirmed her own foresights (whether they did or not) to encourage us. When it was clear she couldn't get much glory, if any, because of competition from our own leader, playing her same game, she disappeared.
I already knew about her, so I spotted her game from the first mention of her name. And waited as all my low expectations were confirmed.
I had my encounter with Dyson during the Internet Bubble, and "got her" immediately. FWIW, I have no beef with her over that project: she wasn't interested in our project, and we got along fine without her. She's got a great talent for attaching herself to other people's projects, adding nothing, but making herself the center of attention. Sometimes, as in ICANN, she even inserts herself into an important role for which she's unqualified, and screws it up.
Her career is "Miss Popularity". Perhaps techies can learn from that. But I hope they don't learn from her to add nothing to a project, other than their presence, when competence is required.
Kawasaki, though "just a marketer", at least helped develop and market the original Macintosh. Which was a marketing, as well as a technological, victory. Dyson has no such successes to claim as her own.
I like paying $2-5 for used paperbacks on the street, or $0-0.25 for newspapers. When those are lost or damaged, I can forget about it. When my mobile "phone" can spring into a 9x16cm reflective display (with backlight) for long reading sessions, I'll be willing to replace paper books with nondisposable digital ones. Because then I won't be carrying around an extra thing to worry about. If I can still buy "books" for $0-5, and lend them to friends whose minds I'd like to colonize without paying a franchise fee.
What has Esther Dyson ever done, other than be born Freeman Dyson's daughter and screw up ICANN? I guess that resume does make her an expert on the value of attention.