It's summer here (though you wouldn't think so if you looked out of the winter, I mean window) but I'm pretty sure there's been summers before, and the same kind of clothing worked fine just then.
I figure they sort of go in cycles or something.
Really? You've been dressing the same all your life? Where does your mother find all that archaic clothing any more? Or do you have a personal tailor? Tell me... how does he do socks? I always wondered how would one go about making a single pair of cotton or silk socks.
Seriously now, the natural cycle allows the fashion industry to keep pushing "The_New_ModelTM" into shops with each season. This time next year they won't sell you this year's (or the last year's) model when you go shopping to get yourself a replacement for your worn out clothing. It may not actually be as good or as fitting to your taste as your old clothing - but it will be "modern".
Also, I've lost most of my VHSs to the ravages of time, as well as a few DVDs and CDs to the scratch monster.
How did that happen if they went out of fashion so fast? And that what you are talking about is the medium - not the message.
Sure the good stuff might be pretty timeless, but there's an awful lot of stuff that enjoys popularity only briefly, and then is replaced by the next. How many S Club 7 fans do you think still listen to their albums as much as when they were new, and how many of them haven't bought new pop music since?
All that stuff is at least as culturally valid (and valuable) today as it was when if first came out. It may not be as POPULAR, but that is primarily the case with "art" that had its value artificially inflated in the first place. Like the "S Club 7" you mention.
Unlike a pair of pants, even such bad "art" can't lose its value over time. It may not have much value to begin with, but it can't become "obsolete". Because art and culture (even bad art) are not a utilitarian "product" - they are encapsulations of ideas, messages and creativity. And even the worst piece of art is still an artifact and testament of its time and culture it was created in.
Fixes to problems that should never have been there in the first place or new features you neither want nor will use really aren't the point.
That is a bit biased towards status quo? Just because you or I don't need some of those new features, it doesn't mean nobody does.
For example, I despise Office 2007 and its new UI. Not just because I am used to the old UI, but because it needlessly complicates some previously simpler actions. But... at the same time I hear from many users how the new UI is much simpler and how much they love it.
As for "should never have been there in the first place"... I am sure that somewhere out there someone is nearly finished with their work on the time machine. Then, all such problems will become history as well will be able to beta test for EVERYTHING.
You will learn for yourself what I am about to tell you now. It is a very simple truth, but many people can't quite grasp it. Particularly in our modern, fast-moving world.
I'd argue that watching free software evolve over the last 15 years or so along with the internet has set a constantly improving baseline which forced commercial software giants to stop shovelling garbage and start innovating again, rather than selling the same hashed-over junk with marginal improvements year by year, with few competitors.
Don't get too hung up on the word "sell". You can have exactly the same thing with free (and free) software.
In fact... Ubuntu is already inching towards such forced obsolescence with new versions of the OS that come out every 6 months, and killing off of updates every 18 months. You want functionality updates (like the new web browser or a media player) - replace the OS.
Only reason they can do something like that to their users and customers is because it is free (as in beer) and because their user-base are all in the upper 5% of all computer users according to their general tech skill and knowledge.
A commercial OS (or any other piece of software that interacts with any other software) can't be run on such a short forced cycle. In fact, should MS or Apple ever cut it down to a 6+18 months cycle it would be found outrageous. Even if all updates were to be free and automatic.
Cause eventually, there comes an update that means that you must buy another piece of hardware. And most users don't care for that, nor do they know how or what to buy. Or how to install it once they bought it.
It was nothing to do a new PC build every 9-12 months.
Try doing that every 3 months. You know... Spring, Summer, Autumn (Fall), Winter, Spring, Summer...
Only you don't get to keep your old OS between the seasons. Or play your old games. You like Counter Strike or Quake? Too bad - they are out of fashion. Have been for years now.
Also... again... Software industry is not the only IP-protected industry out there. Books, music, movies... "Casablanca" or "Riders On The Storm" or "The Catcher in the Rye" may go out of print but they can not become obsolete. Nor can they "wear out" like a pair of shoes.
Software actually adds additional functionality, security updates, fixes bugs and adds compatibility with new technologies. A new pair of pants does none of that.
Also, fashion industry is supposedly IP-free exactly BECAUSE it can push a new line of products down the public's ummm.. wallets every three months. Try doing the same with software and pretty soon they will try to sell you a new desktop background.
And IP-protected industry covers a lot more than just software. Books, movies, music - those can never go out of fashion. And you can't push their production cycle into a "three-month-wide" mold.
Depends how much storage space you have. I reckon every third or fourth trend is actually a revival.
Except you don't have extra bodies that could wear your winter clothing in the summer.
Fashion gets obsoleted by the change of seasons. TRENDS in the fashion get obsoleted by naturally and artificially induced changes in general and particular tastes. Which comes down to snobbery and the herd instinct. Snobs push the artificial changes and the herd adopts or rejects them depending on the size of the herd and the influence of the snob.
Both forces are under the influence of the natural obsolescence due to the changes of seasons.
There is one killer slide at 12:20 comparing the gross sales of low-IP-protection industries with those of films and books and music.
Seriously? Comparing food, cars and clothing to films, books and music?
I don't know about you... but I kinda have this habit of eating every day, sometimes even more than once. I also have this crazy need to change my clothes from time to time. Sometimes I even throw it away as I find it "unwearable", as it gets worn out OR my body changes from all that food I eat every day.
Compared to that, I am yet to throw away any of my DVDs, CDs, books etc. because it is "worn out" or "out of trend" or "I don't want to watch/listen to/read that at the moment".
And putting cars up there... Why not diamonds too? Or "space vacations"? Come on... You can't compare a price of a car to the price of a lunch, or a pair of pants, or a CD. Also, note the HUGE difference in the gross sales of the first two industries (food - which everyone buys all the time; cars - which cost much more per single item than the products of any other industry) and the rest of the "IP-freely" industries (fashion - items last a lot longer than food; furniture - lasts virtually forever). Furniture is right there at the low end with the movies. Despite the fact that a decent bed (or even a cheap one) will set you back a lot more than a fun movie.
Also, virtues of copying? Ohh... Just TRY incorporating the second two into ANY industry not based on shoe shopping.
"Induced obsolescence"? Really? How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?
Why would you have to buy it? Because of "Acceleration in creative innovation", which translates to:
Fashionistas want to stay ahead of the curve. They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing and so they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible. EVERY SEASON these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love. And this [..] is very good for the bottom line.
In other words - snobbery supported by profit margin supported by snobbery.
Sure... you might say that we already have that in constantly changing "modern" music, artsy-fartsy films or even Apple. But none of those "industries" can be pushed into fashion industry's "season based" product cycle.
Why? Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.
Bottle is bigger on the inside as it consists of 3-dimensional space folded over the 4th dimension. How does she get in and out of the bottle? Teleportation.
It's an "open source" handheld with an eager development community, and games and other apps will come quickly once the hardware is released to the wild. By the time the pre-orders are complete and anyone not in the queue will be able to purchase one (and that will take a few months at this rate), there will be dozens of games available. Give it some time.
Notice that the problem in the first article had nothing to do with internet access, but with a certification process attached to their new crop. . Not to mention that it is a straw man of epic proportions to argue that because neither technology was a silver bullet, it should never be used by anyone.
Look who's talking.
Notice that the internet was not the solution either. Nor has it done anything except add hype to the project. "WOO-HO! Internet will fix poverty! Click here to find out how!" As for the "straw man", where exactly did I say that "it should never be used by anyone"?
Oh shit! I didn't! I actually said that the tech IS useful to people in developing nations (just as it is to those living in 1st world countries). What I DID argue was it is NOT a silver bullet.
Sure. For some people in developing nations mobile phones are providing A phone for the first time. For some even a way of long distance communication of any kind for the first time. And there are bound to be benefits from that as well as some measurable increases of quality of life.
But attaching the "it alleviates poverty" label on the mobile phone is way off the target. Only people whose poverty is alleviated are mobile-phone merchants and local telecommunication companies (that practice the best kinds of monopolies - uncontrolled and rampant). For a "regular Joe" they are more of a resource drain than a "poverty alleviation".
What was that... how was it called... that thing when you present someone's position in a completely wrong way and then you make it look like you have defeated that position with your arguments? It has something to do with grass I think... or wicker... basket? Basket case?
Furthermore, what you fail to understand in your analysis of cell phone usage is that it takes only one person in the village to make one call to figure out what to do. The way it actually works is that someone who already has some money buys a used phone, and then resells phone calls to an entire village, or entire area. The costs are indeed spread out among many people, which makes the system work - as demonstrated by profits going up, not just revenue.
And how exactly does that alleviate poverty? The fact that they now have one, or ten or hundred phones in the village? It is just another commercial service. And as such it just moves resources from many small heaps to one large heap. Just like a chain of supermarkets or a corner store exists NOT to provide you with amenities but to make profit for the owner. Only in this case, they don't spend money on food but on immaterial things such as communication.
And those fishermen that were mentioned making 8% increase in profit, while the price of fish actually came down 4%... Do you realize that they are actually increasing poverty in poorer areas and pumping wealth into richer areas? Why? Cause they go and sell their fish to the highest bidder now - not where it may be needed the most. Why does the highest bidder have the best offer? Cause he can afford it. Why can he afford it? Cause he makes profit on the resale. Why does he make profit on the resale? Cause he has richer and greater number of customers. Why does he have them? Cause he is situated in a richer and larger area. Who doesn't get the fish then? Smaller and poorer communities. What can they do then? Move to the larger, more populated area. What is waiting for them there. NOTHING!
From many small heaps, onto few big heaps. Goods, money, people... That is what commercial services do. On the other hand, a public service such as organized education, universal healthcare, transport networks and such help maintain smaller communities. But, to make them grow - you need jobs that will keep people there and bring more people to the community. And one guy reselling mobile phones and phone credit to the villagers is not that kind of a job.
Internet access helps alleviate poverty in the same way that cell phones: by removing intermediaries and giving farmers access to up-to-date pricing information and buyers.
The epilogue to this project is not good. One year after the follow-up data were collected, the exporter refused to continue buying the crops from DrumNet farmers since none of the SHGs had obtained EurepGap certification. DrumNet lost money on its loan to the farmers and collapsed, but equally importantly farmers were forced to sell to middlemen, sometimes leaving a harvest to rot. As reported to us by DrumNet, the farmers were outraged but powerless, and subsequently returned to growing what they had been growing before (e.g., local crops such as maize).
As for the "cell phones" link, you don't have to go farther than the article itself:
Most of these unconnected masses live in rural areas that are much poorer and more remote than Muruguru. Now cell-phone makers and service providers understand that they can make money by bringing cell-phone service within reach of people who live on $2 a day. Users buy new phones for as little as $20--and secondhand models for far less--as well as airtime in increments of just 75 cents in Kenya, enough for nearly 10 minutes of off-peak calling. . They increased their profits by an average of 8% after they began using mobile phones to find out which coastal marketplaces were offering the best prices for sardines. Yet consumer prices for fish dropped 4% because the fishermen no longer had to throw away the catch they couldn't sell when they sailed into a port after all the buyers had left. "That's what economic efficiencies are about--everyone is better off," says Jensen.
It is simply wonderful seeing such selective blindness.
A mobile phone costs as little as 1000% of your daily costs. 10 minutes (charged by a minute, so that is less than 10 calls) of mobile-credit costs you 37.5% of your daily costs. And to even that out, your income has increased by 8%.
So, on average, that one 10-minute charge eats up that 8% increase in profit five out of seven days a weak. But all is not so dark and dreary - if they work 7 days a weak, they will earn 0.32$ of extra profit each weak. That way, they get to pay off that 20$ phone of theirs in only 1.2 years. Not accounting for interests.
After that - the sky is the limit!
Sure. For some people in developing nations mobile phones are providing A phone for the first time. For some even a way of long distance communication of any kind for the first time. And there are bound to be benefits from that as well as some measurable increases of quality of life.
But attaching the "it alleviates poverty" label on the mobile phone is way off the target. Only people whose poverty is alleviated are mobile-phone merchants and local telecommunication companies (that practice the best kinds of monopolies - uncontrolled and rampant). For a "regular Joe" they are more of a resource drain than a "poverty alleviation".
Sure, maybe you could make it tax deductible but it is not the same as someone actually paying you or your friends £20,000 for an "Boxfull of Internet". Someone, somewhere has to pay for those components - even if Zambians and Kenyans get it completely free and if the labor and transport are also donated.
Donations to developing countries are a great resource if you want to launder some money. Get your own charity and make a anonymous donation or two with that "pharmaceutical" money you have under the mattress. Then, have your charity buy the necessities for the developing nations with that money from your other company, ship them via your shipping company and distribute them to the people in need. And there you have it. Clean money and maybe even a laundered conscience. Plus you get to call yourself a philanthropist.
Basically, this is yet another fruit from the tree of philosophy of "if only Africanians had the KNOWLEDGE they would fix all their problems by themselves". Like the missing infrastructure - they would learn how to build roads and how to grow crops using only their hands by reading wikipedia. And maybe playing Civilization. And Farmville. Clean water would be provided from similar sources. Also, they would use the internet to study medicine and become doctors. In their spare time, between building roads, feeding themselves and getting their medical degree, they would figure out that whole economy shtick and kick ou.. no BUY OUT the foreign industries that keep exploiting them and their countries' natural resources. They would also inherently gravitate towards a free democratic society. Schools and hospitals and (clean industry) factories would simply pop-up everywhere when enough people learn enough things. There would be no corrupt politicians, no criminals, no dictatorships or interracial hatred or conflict.
Really... All these people need to pull the Utopia up from the sand by its umm... cables?.. is The Internet. Then they would have the same wonderful system that all the remaining people in the world have - only better, cause they would have it "ready-made". No need for pesky experimentation and all those nasty revolutions when you have all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips. Right?
There is more than one Mike in them there links. Mike Mason, the guy in the photo there and Mike Williams, the guy in the CBS' 60 Minutes". The "electrical engineer". BTW, those two Mikes talk about different cases of negligence by BP.
Also, the first link in the GPP is an analysis report by another guy called Glenn Stehle, an engineer with "extensive experience in drilling operations".
Then there is Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, who got the job to analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident. That is like.. four guys and a couple of cases of "cutting corners when it came to oil rig safety" already. Then there are couple of more guys in that second link.
So like... Do I now get my +5 Informative or a +5 Insightful?
Slashdot Mirror
What LAN parties indeed.
We have this thing now.. it's called The Inter-Net...
I was here back in the '90s (and for a short while even back in the '70s), and so I can't make such a claim.
Also... watch any Tarantino movie and then try saying that disco is dead.
Regardless of how much I wished it was so.
It's summer here (though you wouldn't think so if you looked out of the winter, I mean window) but I'm pretty sure there's been summers before, and the same kind of clothing worked fine just then.
I figure they sort of go in cycles or something.
Really? You've been dressing the same all your life? Where does your mother find all that archaic clothing any more?
Or do you have a personal tailor? Tell me... how does he do socks? I always wondered how would one go about making a single pair of cotton or silk socks.
Seriously now, the natural cycle allows the fashion industry to keep pushing "The_New_ModelTM" into shops with each season.
This time next year they won't sell you this year's (or the last year's) model when you go shopping to get yourself a replacement for your worn out clothing.
It may not actually be as good or as fitting to your taste as your old clothing - but it will be "modern".
Also, I've lost most of my VHSs to the ravages of time, as well as a few DVDs and CDs to the scratch monster.
How did that happen if they went out of fashion so fast?
And that what you are talking about is the medium - not the message.
Sure the good stuff might be pretty timeless, but there's an awful lot of stuff that enjoys popularity only briefly, and then is replaced by the next.
How many S Club 7 fans do you think still listen to their albums as much as when they were new, and how many of them haven't bought new pop music since?
All that stuff is at least as culturally valid (and valuable) today as it was when if first came out.
It may not be as POPULAR, but that is primarily the case with "art" that had its value artificially inflated in the first place.
Like the "S Club 7" you mention.
Unlike a pair of pants, even such bad "art" can't lose its value over time. It may not have much value to begin with, but it can't become "obsolete".
Because art and culture (even bad art) are not a utilitarian "product" - they are encapsulations of ideas, messages and creativity.
And even the worst piece of art is still an artifact and testament of its time and culture it was created in.
Fixes to problems that should never have been there in the first place or new features you neither want nor will use really aren't the point.
That is a bit biased towards status quo?
Just because you or I don't need some of those new features, it doesn't mean nobody does.
For example, I despise Office 2007 and its new UI. Not just because I am used to the old UI, but because it needlessly complicates some previously simpler actions.
But... at the same time I hear from many users how the new UI is much simpler and how much they love it.
As for "should never have been there in the first place"...
I am sure that somewhere out there someone is nearly finished with their work on the time machine.
Then, all such problems will become history as well will be able to beta test for EVERYTHING.
You will learn for yourself what I am about to tell you now.
It is a very simple truth, but many people can't quite grasp it. Particularly in our modern, fast-moving world.
Culture and art NEVER go "out of fashion".
They'll try - without much success.
I'd argue that watching free software evolve over the last 15 years or so along with the internet has set a constantly improving baseline which forced commercial software giants to stop shovelling garbage and start innovating again, rather than selling the same hashed-over junk with marginal improvements year by year, with few competitors.
Don't get too hung up on the word "sell". You can have exactly the same thing with free (and free) software.
In fact... Ubuntu is already inching towards such forced obsolescence with new versions of the OS that come out every 6 months, and killing off of updates every 18 months.
You want functionality updates (like the new web browser or a media player) - replace the OS.
Only reason they can do something like that to their users and customers is because it is free (as in beer) and because their user-base are all in the upper 5% of all computer users according to their general tech skill and knowledge.
A commercial OS (or any other piece of software that interacts with any other software) can't be run on such a short forced cycle.
In fact, should MS or Apple ever cut it down to a 6+18 months cycle it would be found outrageous.
Even if all updates were to be free and automatic.
Cause eventually, there comes an update that means that you must buy another piece of hardware.
And most users don't care for that, nor do they know how or what to buy. Or how to install it once they bought it.
Can't put a price on that.
And even if you could - you can't buy it.
It was nothing to do a new PC build every 9-12 months.
Try doing that every 3 months.
You know... Spring, Summer, Autumn (Fall), Winter, Spring, Summer...
Only you don't get to keep your old OS between the seasons. Or play your old games.
You like Counter Strike or Quake? Too bad - they are out of fashion. Have been for years now.
Also... again...
Software industry is not the only IP-protected industry out there.
Books, music, movies...
"Casablanca" or "Riders On The Storm" or "The Catcher in the Rye" may go out of print but they can not become obsolete.
Nor can they "wear out" like a pair of shoes.
Software actually adds additional functionality, security updates, fixes bugs and adds compatibility with new technologies.
A new pair of pants does none of that.
Also, fashion industry is supposedly IP-free exactly BECAUSE it can push a new line of products down the public's ummm.. wallets every three months.
Try doing the same with software and pretty soon they will try to sell you a new desktop background.
And IP-protected industry covers a lot more than just software.
Books, movies, music - those can never go out of fashion. And you can't push their production cycle into a "three-month-wide" mold.
Depends how much storage space you have. I reckon every third or fourth trend is actually a revival.
Except you don't have extra bodies that could wear your winter clothing in the summer.
Fashion gets obsoleted by the change of seasons.
TRENDS in the fashion get obsoleted by naturally and artificially induced changes in general and particular tastes.
Which comes down to snobbery and the herd instinct.
Snobs push the artificial changes and the herd adopts or rejects them depending on the size of the herd and the influence of the snob.
Both forces are under the influence of the natural obsolescence due to the changes of seasons.
There is one killer slide at 12:20 comparing the gross sales of low-IP-protection industries with those of films and books and music.
Seriously?
Comparing food, cars and clothing to films, books and music?
I don't know about you... but I kinda have this habit of eating every day, sometimes even more than once.
I also have this crazy need to change my clothes from time to time. Sometimes I even throw it away as I find it "unwearable", as it gets worn out OR my body changes from all that food I eat every day.
Compared to that, I am yet to throw away any of my DVDs, CDs, books etc. because it is "worn out" or "out of trend" or "I don't want to watch/listen to/read that at the moment".
And putting cars up there... Why not diamonds too? Or "space vacations"?
Come on... You can't compare a price of a car to the price of a lunch, or a pair of pants, or a CD.
Also, note the HUGE difference in the gross sales of the first two industries (food - which everyone buys all the time; cars - which cost much more per single item than the products of any other industry) and the rest of the "IP-freely" industries (fashion - items last a lot longer than food; furniture - lasts virtually forever).
Furniture is right there at the low end with the movies. Despite the fact that a decent bed (or even a cheap one) will set you back a lot more than a fun movie.
Also, virtues of copying?
Ohh... Just TRY incorporating the second two into ANY industry not based on shoe shopping.
"Induced obsolescence"? Really?
How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?
Why would you have to buy it?
Because of "Acceleration in creative innovation", which translates to:
Fashionistas want to stay ahead of the curve.
They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing and so they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible.
EVERY SEASON these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love.
And this [..] is very good for the bottom line.
In other words - snobbery supported by profit margin supported by snobbery.
Sure... you might say that we already have that in constantly changing "modern" music, artsy-fartsy films or even Apple.
But none of those "industries" can be pushed into fashion industry's "season based" product cycle.
Why?
Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.
...and took away his planet and gave it some dwarfs.
Not to mention the humiliation of naming a cartoon dog after him.
...es war Art klein...
Never has that tag been more appropriate.
Bottle is bigger on the inside as it consists of 3-dimensional space folded over the 4th dimension.
How does she get in and out of the bottle? Teleportation.
It's an "open source" handheld with an eager development community, and games and other apps will come quickly once the hardware is released to the wild. By the time the pre-orders are complete and anyone not in the queue will be able to purchase one (and that will take a few months at this rate), there will be dozens of games available. Give it some time.
http://xkcd.com/644/
...you meant to say that Apple will put them on The Dock and make them translucent?
And then everybody will say that it is a large improvement, more user friendly and much faster to use...
Notice that the problem in the first article had nothing to do with internet access, but with a certification process attached to their new crop.
.
Not to mention that it is a straw man of epic proportions to argue that because neither technology was a silver bullet, it should never be used by anyone.
Look who's talking.
Notice that the internet was not the solution either. Nor has it done anything except add hype to the project. "WOO-HO! Internet will fix poverty! Click here to find out how!"
As for the "straw man", where exactly did I say that "it should never be used by anyone"?
Oh shit! I didn't!
I actually said that the tech IS useful to people in developing nations (just as it is to those living in 1st world countries).
What I DID argue was it is NOT a silver bullet.
Sure. For some people in developing nations mobile phones are providing A phone for the first time.
For some even a way of long distance communication of any kind for the first time.
And there are bound to be benefits from that as well as some measurable increases of quality of life.
But attaching the "it alleviates poverty" label on the mobile phone is way off the target.
Only people whose poverty is alleviated are mobile-phone merchants and local telecommunication companies (that practice the best kinds of monopolies - uncontrolled and rampant).
For a "regular Joe" they are more of a resource drain than a "poverty alleviation".
What was that... how was it called... that thing when you present someone's position in a completely wrong way and then you make it look like you have defeated that position with your arguments?
It has something to do with grass I think... or wicker... basket? Basket case?
Furthermore, what you fail to understand in your analysis of cell phone usage is that it takes only one person in the village to make one call to figure out what to do. The way it actually works is that someone who already has some money buys a used phone, and then resells phone calls to an entire village, or entire area. The costs are indeed spread out among many people, which makes the system work - as demonstrated by profits going up, not just revenue.
And how exactly does that alleviate poverty?
The fact that they now have one, or ten or hundred phones in the village?
It is just another commercial service. And as such it just moves resources from many small heaps to one large heap.
Just like a chain of supermarkets or a corner store exists NOT to provide you with amenities but to make profit for the owner.
Only in this case, they don't spend money on food but on immaterial things such as communication.
And those fishermen that were mentioned making 8% increase in profit, while the price of fish actually came down 4%...
Do you realize that they are actually increasing poverty in poorer areas and pumping wealth into richer areas? Why?
Cause they go and sell their fish to the highest bidder now - not where it may be needed the most.
Why does the highest bidder have the best offer? Cause he can afford it.
Why can he afford it? Cause he makes profit on the resale.
Why does he make profit on the resale? Cause he has richer and greater number of customers.
Why does he have them? Cause he is situated in a richer and larger area.
Who doesn't get the fish then? Smaller and poorer communities.
What can they do then? Move to the larger, more populated area.
What is waiting for them there. NOTHING!
From many small heaps, onto few big heaps. Goods, money, people... That is what commercial services do.
On the other hand, a public service such as organized education, universal healthcare, transport networks and such help maintain smaller communities.
But, to make them grow - you need jobs that will keep people there and bring more people to the community.
And one guy reselling mobile phones and phone credit to the villagers is not that kind of a job.
Internet access helps alleviate poverty in the same way that cell phones: by removing intermediaries and giving farmers access to up-to-date pricing information and buyers.
This is what that "internet access" (which was actually a broker and micro-loan program) did:
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-122219-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5877.html
The epilogue to this project is not good. One year after the follow-up data were
collected, the exporter refused to continue buying the crops from DrumNet farmers since
none of the SHGs had obtained EurepGap certification. DrumNet lost money on its loan
to the farmers and collapsed, but equally importantly farmers were forced to sell to
middlemen, sometimes leaving a harvest to rot. As reported to us by DrumNet, the
farmers were outraged but powerless, and subsequently returned to growing what they
had been growing before (e.g., local crops such as maize).
As for the "cell phones" link, you don't have to go farther than the article itself:
Most of these unconnected masses live in rural areas that are much poorer and more remote than Muruguru.
Now cell-phone makers and service providers understand that they can make money by bringing cell-phone service within reach of people who live on $2 a day.
Users buy new phones for as little as $20--and secondhand models for far less--as well as airtime in increments of just 75 cents in Kenya, enough for nearly 10 minutes of off-peak calling.
.
They increased their profits by an average of 8% after they began using mobile phones to find out which coastal marketplaces were offering the best prices for sardines. Yet consumer prices for fish dropped 4% because the fishermen no longer had to throw away the catch they couldn't sell when they sailed into a port after all the buyers had left.
"That's what economic efficiencies are about--everyone is better off," says Jensen.
It is simply wonderful seeing such selective blindness.
A mobile phone costs as little as 1000% of your daily costs.
10 minutes (charged by a minute, so that is less than 10 calls) of mobile-credit costs you 37.5% of your daily costs.
And to even that out, your income has increased by 8%.
So, on average, that one 10-minute charge eats up that 8% increase in profit five out of seven days a weak.
But all is not so dark and dreary - if they work 7 days a weak, they will earn 0.32$ of extra profit each weak.
That way, they get to pay off that 20$ phone of theirs in only 1.2 years. Not accounting for interests.
After that - the sky is the limit!
Sure. For some people in developing nations mobile phones are providing A phone for the first time.
For some even a way of long distance communication of any kind for the first time.
And there are bound to be benefits from that as well as some measurable increases of quality of life.
But attaching the "it alleviates poverty" label on the mobile phone is way off the target.
Only people whose poverty is alleviated are mobile-phone merchants and local telecommunication companies (that practice the best kinds of monopolies - uncontrolled and rampant).
For a "regular Joe" they are more of a resource drain than a "poverty alleviation".
You can't sell a donation that easily.
Sure, maybe you could make it tax deductible but it is not the same as someone actually paying you or your friends £20,000 for an "Boxfull of Internet".
Someone, somewhere has to pay for those components - even if Zambians and Kenyans get it completely free and if the labor and transport are also donated.
Donations to developing countries are a great resource if you want to launder some money.
Get your own charity and make a anonymous donation or two with that "pharmaceutical" money you have under the mattress.
Then, have your charity buy the necessities for the developing nations with that money from your other company, ship them via your shipping company and distribute them to the people in need.
And there you have it. Clean money and maybe even a laundered conscience.
Plus you get to call yourself a philanthropist.
How in the hell will this alleviate poverty?
Let's take Nigeria for example.
I KNOW FOR A FACT that they've got both Internet AND a working postal system there. I've seen the evidence.
How will the "Internet in a box" magically alleviate poverty there? You can't just have the whole country running 419 scams.
... by throwing a fishing pole into his face.
Basically, this is yet another fruit from the tree of philosophy of "if only Africanians had the KNOWLEDGE they would fix all their problems by themselves".
Like the missing infrastructure - they would learn how to build roads and how to grow crops using only their hands by reading wikipedia.
And maybe playing Civilization. And Farmville. Clean water would be provided from similar sources.
Also, they would use the internet to study medicine and become doctors.
In their spare time, between building roads, feeding themselves and getting their medical degree, they would figure out that whole economy shtick and kick ou.. no BUY OUT the foreign industries that keep exploiting them and their countries' natural resources.
They would also inherently gravitate towards a free democratic society.
Schools and hospitals and (clean industry) factories would simply pop-up everywhere when enough people learn enough things.
There would be no corrupt politicians, no criminals, no dictatorships or interracial hatred or conflict.
Really... All these people need to pull the Utopia up from the sand by its umm... cables?.. is The Internet.
Then they would have the same wonderful system that all the remaining people in the world have - only better, cause they would have it "ready-made".
No need for pesky experimentation and all those nasty revolutions when you have all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips.
Right?
There is more than one Mike in them there links.
Mike Mason, the guy in the photo there and Mike Williams, the guy in the CBS' 60 Minutes". The "electrical engineer".
BTW, those two Mikes talk about different cases of negligence by BP.
Also, the first link in the GPP is an analysis report by another guy called Glenn Stehle, an engineer with "extensive experience in drilling operations".
Then there is Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, who got the job to analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident.
That is like.. four guys and a couple of cases of "cutting corners when it came to oil rig safety" already.
Then there are couple of more guys in that second link.
So like... Do I now get my +5 Informative or a +5 Insightful?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel