where did your famous 'free market competition'
lead you in this case?
To a ridiculous system where
1) you pay to receive phone calls (if you don't think it's ridiculous, try to convince home users to pay their incoming long-distance calls, for example).
That is probably an outgrowth of deregulation, with multiple companies who all want to profit from their investments. It's easier to simply charge their customer for use than to sign seperate agreements that split call revenue between carriers. It also avoids trying to setup a system to charge callers for calls to cell phones, which meant some local calls would actually be toll calls. That would have been a billing and customer service nightmare, and reduced the adoption rate for cell phones.
For many people, per minute metering is not an issue since you can get enough minutes to cover all your calling - ATT will even backdate your plan to the start of the billing cycle, so even heavier than expected usage is covered.
Free incoming long distance is a relic of teh dyas of Ma Bell - when she could cross subsidize services to promote them and all the money ultimately rolled into one pot. Once people got so used to that model, it's nearly impossible to switch. Cell phones started differently, and companies had a chance to use a different model for charges. If cell phones become "the" phone and replace landlines, we may see some changes - especially since people won't want to pay for tele-marketing and other bogus calls.
2) no text messaging between different carriers
I've never found etxt messages that complelling, and the RIM seems a better solution than hunt and peck on a phone (I've sent 1 email from my email capable Nokia). I suspect I could send email phone to phone if I had to.
3) no 'rechargeable' plan with long-lasting charges (all expire at most in 3 months).
I think that is a good example of the free market at work - short plans mean I can take advantage of better deals or dropping rates. Soumds like a win to me.
4) did I mention that you are incompatible with the rest of the world?
At the risk of being branded a narrow-minded American, I submit that most US cell phone users don't really need world-wide compatibility. Most don't regularly travel outside of the US, and so only need a phone that works here. (Mine also works in Canada, which is good because I hvae clients there). For people who travel outside the US, they can buy a worldphone (such as ATT's)for us outside of the US. They can also buy a prepaid package. yes, you have to carry to phones, but with features such as call forwarding at least you can keep in touch around the world. Sure it's expensive, but I'd bet it's generally a busines stravel who needs that, so cost is much less of a consideration, especially for the frequent traveler. If there truely was such a big market for universal phone service, several of teh big carriers would have gotten together and offered a service pack, complete with a multi-mode phone.
Let's also not forget that Europe is about the same size as the US, so standardizing across Europe is a no-brainer. I't be like each US state having its own incompatable network - no one would ever get a cell phone. At least Europe learned a lesson from having different TV standards, power and phone plugs, and railroad gauges.
Overall, it sounds like the free market has worked just fine for us. No one says it develops a solution for all needs.
PS - sorry about the previous blank post - that's what happens when preview and submit are next to each other. Operator error supported by poor human factors design.
1) you pay to receive phone calls
(if you don't think it's ridiculous,
try to convince home users to pay
their incoming long-distance calls,
for example).
2) no text messaging between different carriers
3) no 'rechargeable' plan with long-lasting
charges (all expire at most in 3 months).
4) did I mention that you are incompatible with
the rest of the world?
There seem sto be two general themes on this topic:
1. Its great that a 15 year old can show up all those highly educated lawyers.
It's not surprising that he could answer simple questions, because many laws are pretty straightforward. Company's like the Nolo Press have made money with self help legal books and software. For many disputes, a reasonable understanding of the law and a willingness to work out a reasonable solution are all that's needed. However, when things get more complicated or a lot is at stake, you need someone who:
a. Has a deeper understanding of the law so he or she can build as strong an arguement in your favor as possible;
b. Knows what they don't know and can seek out really expert advice when needed; and
c. Understands teh system. This means they don't blow a case by missing a filing deadline and know the judges/other lawyers and can work with them to craft a reasonable settlement.
You certainly don't need to go for school to leaarn the law - in fact, becoming a lawyer once was like any other trade - you studied with a master and when he or she felt you were ready, became a master yourself. Which brings us to pint 2:
2. The bar is an organization designed to keep lawyer's fees high. Welcoem to the idea that regulation works to benefit the regulated (George Stigler expalined this long ago, and is teh "economist" in my subject line). Regulation, no matter how much it is touted as for the "public good," ultimately benefits the regulated. Generally, it puts barriers to entry that keep competitors out and control the availability of products, in service industries. Why does NYC limit Taxi medallions - certainly not so the owners can get richer by selling them or renting them for more money, year after year? Tobacco companinies hid behind the Surgeon General's warning to try to avoid liability. No matter how much companies wring their hands over regulation, they ultimately benefit from it.
There are some things that the Gimp can *not* do. It's been a while since I worked in the publishing industry, but the big thing that the Gimp can't do is color separation -- and it probably never will, since the techniques are patent-encumbered. I'm guessing that the patents are still many years from expiration as well.
I say:
This may be an opportunity to demonstrate another way to make money on open source software. The patent holders could build a plug-in for GIMP and (not-K)illustrator to do color seperation. As long as they abide by the GPL to keep their software free of GPL'd code, they potentially have a commercial product that doesn't require source code release but runs on os software.
Of course, the patent holders may either have granted exclusive licenses or be the vendors of big dollar products whose revenue they want to protect.
That's because the marketting person knows how to describe his or her worth, while the techie often has trouble putting coherent sentences together so that non-techies can understand him or her.
Let's face it, no matter how great a feat of engineering or programming your latest creation is, unless you can explain its benefits to your customer, you're not going to sell it. The world is littered with great products that were killed by inferior ones with better marketing.
Of course, those techies that can communicate often realize there's more money in sales and marketting than engineering, and go over to teh dark side.
Been there, done that, still had to pay
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 1
Some thoughts, which have been mentioned elsewhere:
From the sounds of it, much of this technology isn't new. Fifteen years ago, a former employeer had a copier that would copy, insert dividers, collate and hot bind documents. Don Lancaster, in a series of Computer Shopper (back when it was a newsprint by Patch Pub) talked about self publishing with laser printers and hot glue binders at least 20 years ago.
Some problems:
1. Quality - The trouble with glue bindings is they suck. The glue craks, pages come out, and you can't lay the book flat. They were fine for our reports that got read and then stored. If you layed one down, the pages would flop shut, and after 10 or so people used it some of the pages would start seperating from the glue background. Even if you got a $30 traditional book for $24, would you be willing to put up with it falling apart after some use?
2. Cost - even if you shave $5 off of the actual printing costs, the author still wants some money, so you'd still have to pay for the file. So the difference between a "real" and instant book's price may not be all that great, especially for larger ones. Sure you save warehousing costs, but now the print shop needs to price to recover the machines cost. While it may help unknown and non-mainstream authors, don't count on it to cut textbook costs. Small print runs still me smaller royalties or higher per book payments - guess which professors will chose? As a side note, my school produced case books of readings for classes uses this type of binding (photocopy/hot glue). Thos ebooks were often double the price of a textbook - because the royalties on the articles and cases had to be paid.
3. Buying habits - Think about how you buy books - you wander a stack, where similar themed books are placed on shelves. If a title interests you , you may look at it and possibly buy it, even if it wasn't the one you were looking for. Impulse buying is part of the book sales model - and instant printing takes that away (unless you put one of each title up, but now you have printing and warehousing costs. If booksellers could make as much money by having a drive up window and auto-pickers to get stock to the window, they'r have done that, if only to cut costs. Heck, they could even put the starbucks machine by the drive up and serve (with suitable warnibgs about temperature) coffe and a scone for the yuppies. My guess is they still want you to come into the stores, which is why they have plenty of ailse and Starbucks.
My guess is this will be useful for companies that need to do manuals, handbooks, etc., because they can save on printing costs (of course, Kinko's is already tackling that market). Self published authors will also be able to produce more professional looking books. If this machine can lower teh total cost of production (vs Kinko's current method), you'll see quick copy places adopting them. If not, it will be yet another "new" idea that's been around a while.
I think there are several reasons why it's tough to get people to pay:
1. Content providers have conditioned people to the idea that content is free, just as big retail chains have conditioned people to wait for sales. Even if the service is worth what you pay, the idea of paying for something that used to be free upset people, and makes them move on to other places. How do you react when you have to put a quarter in a machine to get air to fill your tires? Do you buy gas next time at the place with free air?
2. The barrier to entry is still relatively low for web based content providers. Someone will look at a pay site and think - I can do that for free and make money on ads - and lure your customers away. Even if they fail, someone else can always step in, which makes it tought to keep charging.
3. As others have mentioned, there is no good per-view payment system in place. Micropayment is a great idea, but unless a site generates enough volume to cover the collection/payment costs it isn't worth the effort. Of course, micro-paymenst would also let companies price better - if article A is getting a lot of hits, I should raise the price until too many customers balk, then drop it slightly. A new way to maximize revenue.
4. A lot of popular web sites rely on users to post in forums to draw visitors. Much valuable content is generated that way - but would you be willing to help if the site provider suddenly is making money off your posts? I'd bet alot of forums would die, killing the sites that host them as traffic drops off.
Some sites due charge - an generally are sites that migrated from older information providing services and use the web as another way to distribute content. The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones come to mind - but those are companies who have strong brand names that companies know and hence are willing to pay for content. And tehy spend a lot of money developing that content, and spread it over numerous venues. An intersting aside is CNN an dother staht give infor for free - my guess is they 1) get enough ad revenue to help defray costs; 2) feel it drives revenue to their prime business (TV/print/etc.) 3) the cost of putting info on the web is a small part of the total cost of producing it, so since it drives 1 & 2 it makes sense to not charge.
Since most web sites have nowhere near the brand recognition as those, it's not surprising they can't charge.
What today's teenagers don't realize is that all the cash that's flowing from their parent's pockets and being converetd into Nintendos, clothes, records, and all the other stuff is just a short term loan. We'll get it all back, with interest, when their "new-new economy" companies fail.
Yes, old age and treachery will overcome youth and exuberence once again.
For those unfamiliar with Webvan, is/was an on-line grocery store. You went to their site, ordered your groceries, picked a delivery date/time and your groceries were delivered. They tried to get economies of scale by using a large warehouse to store, pick and ship the orders.
People tried them once, because they were novel, new, and their neighbors mentioned them at parties. That didn't translate into regular, large orders that Webvan needed to be a viable business.
There were a number of things that contributed to their demise:
1. Price - Food is a large part of most budgets, even for the folks Webvan targeted. Discounting is very much part of the grocery business, and Webvan didn't play that game. High margin items, such as soda, were cheaper at stores than on Webvan. The major chains have made shoppers very price sensitive, and Webvan was viewed at the upper end of the price range (whether they were or not is irrelevant), which meant people would use them in a pinch, but still went to the store for their major purchases.
2. Order Size - Grocery shopping is really impulse buying - stores want to get you in with a few specials, to get you to walk through their store. They know you'll see other items you need, adding to the total sale per customer. Even if you go in with a list, you probably would find a few things you needed that you forgot. Webvan, because of its web-based model, wasn't really good at capturing the impulse buy that drives the total sale. Much of the buying is touch and feel - people like to see the meat, fruit, and vegetables and pick what they like. Yes, Webvan would refund the money, but that doesn't do you much good when your trying to make a salad and the vegetables aren't up to your standards (although I must say everything I got from Webvan was fine - but they still need to overcome the feeling that I must see it before I buy it).
3. Advantage over stores - While it was great that Webvan delivered, they completely missed the "I need it now" market. That may have been smart, because cost of delivering a carton of eggs and some milk would be kill any profit on the order. (Webvan did add a delivery charge for small orders near the end) However, since I still had to run to the store to get one or two items, it was just as easy to make a list of other things I needed as well. This meant there was no compelling reason to use Webvan, since it really didn't cut down significantly on trips to the store.
4. Convenience - Scheduling delivery was hard - next day service was rarely available, forcing people to plan 3-4 days in advance. It's just as easy to sneak in a trip to the store.
In short, Webvan offered no clear advantages to going to the store that made buyers switch to them. Retail stores could even adopt parts of Webvan's model, making their position even weaker. In Atlanta, several stores even offered fax/online/phone ordering - they would take and pack the order for your pickup - one even offered drive through pickup.
Finally, Webvan failed to learn from history. Home delivery of groceries is nothing new - there are services that will stock your pantry on a regular schedule. Sometimes there is a reason why a business model hasn't been a roaring success - their aren't enough customers. Scaling up a business model that hasn't been successful in the past and wrapping the web around it doesn't change the fundamentals.
I'm curious how the ads will be inserted into the straem. Let's assume they use the same music straem over a broad area, with specific time segements left "blank" for ads. That means they could then send out the targeted ads automatically. So the challenge is to figure out what the "trigger" is and use it to block the ad. Suppose the ad comes from a different IP address than the stream - someone could develop an ap that rejects different IP addresses whenever the music stream goes quiet, and begin accepting them again when music restarts.
Of course, they could premix the stream and send it out as continously. That makes it more difficult - but not impossible. I saw a note about a program that could recognize music from a unique digital signature. How big is the playlist of ClearChannel? You'd have to "train" your filter by listening and marking music and rejecting adds, but after a while you ought have a pretty good list. Sharing lists would also help. Why not buffer the feed, compare it to a set of pre-identified signatures, and only pass those that are id'd as music. hell, you could even reject songs you don't like and replace them with ones you do.
Of course, that means they'll probbaly have to develop some new encrypted format and special palyer that can also pass info back on what you listen to, etc.
Technology - the new, improved Cold War - every time one side builds a better bomber, the other side builds a bigger bomb.
Interetsingly enough, the safety systems at TMI worked just fine. Unfortunately, it was the human beings in the control loop that failed and caused the accident. Had they not intervened, there would have been no accident. Instead, here's what happened:
The pressurizer relief fails open, causing water to excape from the reator's cooling system. (TMI relied on high pressure water to cool the fuel). Due to a design error, the valve is shown as closed on the control panel.
As the water level drops, emergency cooling pumps kick in to keep the level up and cool the core.
The operators, worried that the pumps would over pressurize and crack the reator vessel or piping, shut them off. At this point, water level continues to drop and confusion reigns as alarms start going off. Eventually, the water level drops low enough so that the fuel overheats and breaks. The rest is history, and well covered by PBS at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/three/filmmore/inde x. html
What is often overlooked is an almost idintical chane of event occured at the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio. Operators there shut anotther valve that stopped the water from escaping from pressurizer, preventing further problems. Even though they reported the event, there was no good way to get lessons learned to other plants, so TMI didn't benefit from experience.
What are the lessons from this for other industries:
1. Engineers and techies are generally are the wrong persons to put in front of the public. They assume everyone understand the tech the way they do, and realizes (as they do) that things that sound absolute really aren't. Put people there that can explain but understand the dynamics of dealing with the public, so you don't say stupid things that haunt you later.
2. Sharing information to solve problems is good. The airlines have done it for years, because they realize a major crash hurts everyone involved in the industry (literally and figuratively). That's the adavntage of open source - everyone helps create a more stable base, and competes based on value added services or by targeting specific market segments.
3. Nothing is fool proof - we fools can be very ingenious. As long as humans are involved, there is no fail safe computer, no perfect data security, no crash proof OS. Assume people will do stupid things at the wrong time, and train them not to.
The economic incentive for them is higher than for US citizens:
1. Earning a Phd or Masters in a technical subject does not generally provide the same bump in salary as a BS/BA does relative to a high school diploma. Forgoing an income and incurring debt does not produce the return needed to make it an attractive alternative to joining the workforce after undergrad. The payback for foreign studenst who return to their home country is probably greater than had they stopped at the undergrad level - whether in terms of prestige or pay.
2. Earning a PhD is one way to get the right to remaining and work in the US. While I would not ascribe that as the motivation for many foreign students, I have a number of friends who chose that route as a way to stay in this country.
I would bet the number of foreign students in trade schools (Law/Medical/Business) earning advanced degrees is smaller, in percentage terms, than in more scientific and technical programs. While some of this may be due to the difficulty in directly translating what is learned to a foreign s legal system or getting certification as an MD, those schools offer much higher returns for teh time and money spent. As a result, they have a much larger poll of US applicants and can fill their classes with them, unlike many traditional grad programs. Not surprisingly, business schools probabaly are the most aggressive of the trade schools in seeking foreign applicants, given the increasingly international scope of business.
Actaull, Chernobyl and Windscale point out the folly of using graphite moderates (the burn) and no containment (stuff gets into the environment without much trouble.) Windscale, btw, was not a power reactor but was part of Britian's nuclear weapons development program. Thre Mile Island (TMI), surprising, points out how well safety systems and containments protect the public. Despite multiple operator errors, the reactor vessel contained the fuel material and the concrete containment was not breached despite hydrogen explosions in the containment.
As for cost competitiveness, a well run nuke plant is competitive with fossil, even when you include decommissioning costs. In fact, it can be cheaper than building a new combined cycle gas fired plant (the current plant of choice for new production - and that doesn't emissions credits that the nuke can sell since it doesn't emit things like NOX). With plants getting their licenses extended for 20 years, the total production costs will be even more competitive.
Finally, any form of energy production has its negative side effects, but unfortunately our society depends on cheap energy to function. Hydro is great, unless you are a fish or they create a lake where your house stands. Not to mention the hegative impact of a dam breaking on the downstream populace. Solar - very nice, but what about the toxic byproducts used in production? Or the impact of covering large tracts of land to generate enough electricity to repalce even a small fossil plant? Wind energy is neat - after all, wind (like/. posts) is cheap. Unless, of course, you are a bird that flies into the blades or someone who values the view over the mountains.
Do we need to keep looking for ways to generate power that have less environmental impact? Sure. We could also do a lot more to reduce our use. But the reality is that we have no good alternatives to nuclear and fossil plants, and we will have to begin repalcing the older (mostly fossil) plants that are reaching and of their usefullife. To blindly rule out a proven energy technology based on fear, misunderstanding and clever PR is about as smart as letting MS guide your decison on using Linux.
And, all to often, understanding the way loses out to the easy way. We're not saying that slide rules should be taught over computers, we are saying that technological advances have had a negative impact on numeric literacy. We, as a society, will pay a price for that loss.
Of course, we really should teach computers over teh old ways. After all, who needs to be able to spell when there is spell check and why learn the rules of grammer and style when Word has a grammer and style checker as well? What's wrong with a world where MS, by default, dictates how the written word will appear? For my own enjoyment, I hope that the next Heinlein, Tolkien, or Jefferson amongst grows up as a Linux user.
One of my favorite pastimes at sea was celestial navigation. I found a lot of satisfaction in shooting the stars and getting a nice position fix. Part of the fun was knowing that I practicing a centuries old art much the same as the earliest navigators. (Although I must admit I also enjoyed knowing my fix would be used to reset the multi-million dollar ships inertial navigation system.)
That, to me, was what set sailors apart from everyone else: no matter where you were, or what side of the cold war you were on, you shared a long heritage and a common mistress - the sea. Even nominal enemies could share beers, swap lies and toast those on permanent patrol. It was why, when the Glomar Explorer raised a Russian nuke we buried, at sea with honors, those we found inside.
Somewhere Megellan and Vasco da Gama must be smiling.
The real beauty of using a sliderule was that you developed a feel for the numbers and what the results should be. After you had some experience estimating magnitude, if someone came up with some calculations, they'd either feel right or you'd get a gut feeling that something is wrong. I am still amazed that people can multiple two three digit numbers in the form of x.xx and y.yy) and come up with zz.zzzz or however many places their calculator displays. Or misplace a decimal point and not realize the result is wrong. People assume because the work has been done by a bunch of electrons that it must be right.
While I would not want to go back to only using a sliderule, the one thing that I did learn was how to estimate results in my head - a tool that has been very useful over the years.
Spreadsheets and handheld calculators are great - you can do more more quickly than you ever could with a slide rule.
You can also make bigger mistakes more often.
If your really think the EU is about protecting its citizens and not about protecting its industries before it protects its citizens, think again.
The EU (and its member states for their own industries) wants to provide as many benefits for its companies as possible, at the expense of non-EU competitors. that's ultimately what regulation does (in the US as well, BTW). For example, look at European Airlines - despite the financial problems of many flag carriers, there has been no effort to truely open the skies and let carriers compete. Want to fly Frankfurt Lisbon? Lufthansa or Air Portugal, OK, Air France - gotta go via Paris, sorry. And if you're a small start-up low fare carrier, don't make fun of Sabena unless you want to end up in court.
For a long time, Germany's strict laws on operating hours, sales and pricing kept many marginal competitors in operation and the Wal-Marts of the world from entering. You can argue that having local stores benefits a community, but if the ommunity really wants them, they'd shop there instead of at the hyper-mart. The empty parking lots and lack of customers at Wal-Mart in Germany shows how highly the Germans value shopping locally.
Ultimately, regulations evolve to benefit the regulated by keeping competitors out. It doesn't matter if you are in the EU, the US, Canada or China.
Actually, the concrete conoe has a long and proud (?) history. Way bak in the stone age (mid 70's) University Civil Eng. studnets were competing in concrete canoe races. Teams form schools would apply the latest technology to produce lighter, stronger, and better canoes. Of course, teh races could be fun - I've seen canoes break in two, and watched as inexperienced paddlers tried to turn a canoe around unsuccessfully.
As with many things, you say something (concrete) and people immediately go to the familar (the stuff their driveways made of), which makes for interesting headlines but often misses the point.
Even if you agree that spam is free speech, it's protected only from governmental restrictions, not private ones. If I, or my ISP, wants to stop your mail from coming through, absent any contractual agreements, they have every right to. If I don't want them to use a black-list, I can pick another ISP. Fee speech or not, private organizations and people have the right to decide what they want and don't want to hear, and how they deal with it.
a couple of real-world examples:
People often complain that spam is bad cause the reciepient, not the sender pays for it. That's fine, but I can pay someone to sort my mail after the postoffice delivers it. Does that impact the sender's rights - no - they got what they paid for - delivery. I got what I want - a private arrangement to get rid of junk mail. Who pays for mail or spam is irrelevent in this context - I still can sort it by any means I chose. And where the sorting occurs is irrelvent as well. My company regularly discards junk mail I (and others) get at work before forwarding it, saving them the cost of forwarding it. It's the same with spam - an upstream point (the ISP) doesn't forward mail based on a predetermined conditon (The OSRB instead of bulk rate/presorted mail stamp).
Where I live, companies like to drop flyers at my mailbox, or soemtimes in a baggy tossed on my driveway. While they have a right to print them, once they leave them, they're guilty of littering, and the police will gladly tke complaints. Guess what - when enough peopl complain, and companies get fined, tehy stop dropping junk off in our neighborhood. DOes that infringe on their free speech rights - no, they still can stand on a streetcorner and pass out flyers, drive through with a sign; they just can't litter. Similarly, an ISP has a right to limit spammers ability to litter their servers - they are, afetr all private property.
First of all, a person probably has a higher expectation of privacy on private property than public. Given that you are "exposing" yourself for viewing by anyone who walks by, you probably don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public. Given that police can stand on a corner and watch you go by indicates to me that someone walking down the street doesn't expect to be free from surveillance. What the cameras change is the scope, not the actual act of surveillance. Tampa could hire 1000 extra cops and put them on the streets of the Ybor and accomplish the same thing. If that is Constitutionally permitted, then use of a camera ought to be as well.
Which brings me to my point - the only way to stop this sort of thing is by generating a large public outcry. If politicians feel heat (read - worry about getting re-elected), they'll put a stop to this. (of course, one could be hoist by his/her own petard when their caught with a non-spousal companion). It's all about how you frame the issue and build public support.
Of course, Tampa's also the city that enacted a rule that forbids nude dancing withing 6 feet or so of a patron.
Slashdot Mirror
where did your famous 'free market competition'
lead you in this case?
To a ridiculous system where
1) you pay to receive phone calls (if you don't think it's ridiculous, try to convince home users to pay their incoming long-distance calls, for example).
That is probably an outgrowth of deregulation, with multiple companies who all want to profit from their investments. It's easier to simply charge their customer for use than to sign seperate agreements that split call revenue between carriers. It also avoids trying to setup a system to charge callers for calls to cell phones, which meant some local calls would actually be toll calls. That would have been a billing and customer service nightmare, and reduced the adoption rate for cell phones.
For many people, per minute metering is not an issue since you can get enough minutes to cover all your calling - ATT will even backdate your plan to the start of the billing cycle, so even heavier than expected usage is covered.
Free incoming long distance is a relic of teh dyas of Ma Bell - when she could cross subsidize services to promote them and all the money ultimately rolled into one pot. Once people got so used to that model, it's nearly impossible to switch. Cell phones started differently, and companies had a chance to use a different model for charges. If cell phones become "the" phone and replace landlines, we may see some changes - especially since people won't want to pay for tele-marketing and other bogus calls.
2) no text messaging between different carriers
I've never found etxt messages that complelling, and the RIM seems a better solution than hunt and peck on a phone (I've sent 1 email from my email capable Nokia). I suspect I could send email phone to phone if I had to.
3) no 'rechargeable' plan with long-lasting charges (all expire at most in 3 months).
I think that is a good example of the free market at work - short plans mean I can take advantage of better deals or dropping rates. Soumds like a win to me.
4) did I mention that you are incompatible with the rest of the world?
At the risk of being branded a narrow-minded American, I submit that most US cell phone users don't really need world-wide compatibility. Most don't regularly travel outside of the US, and so only need a phone that works here. (Mine also works in Canada, which is good because I hvae clients there). For people who travel outside the US, they can buy a worldphone (such as ATT's)for us outside of the US. They can also buy a prepaid package. yes, you have to carry to phones, but with features such as call forwarding at least you can keep in touch around the world. Sure it's expensive, but I'd bet it's generally a busines stravel who needs that, so cost is much less of a consideration, especially for the frequent traveler. If there truely was such a big market for universal phone service, several of teh big carriers would have gotten together and offered a service pack, complete with a multi-mode phone.
Let's also not forget that Europe is about the same size as the US, so standardizing across Europe is a no-brainer. I't be like each US state having its own incompatable network - no one would ever get a cell phone. At least Europe learned a lesson from having different TV standards, power and phone plugs, and railroad gauges.
Overall, it sounds like the free market has worked just fine for us. No one says it develops a solution for all needs.
PS - sorry about the previous blank post - that's what happens when preview and submit are next to each other. Operator error supported by poor human factors design.
To a ridiculous system where
1) you pay to receive phone calls
(if you don't think it's ridiculous,
try to convince home users to pay
their incoming long-distance calls,
for example).
2) no text messaging between different carriers
3) no 'rechargeable' plan with long-lasting
charges (all expire at most in 3 months).
4) did I mention that you are incompatible with
the rest of the world?
There seem sto be two general themes on this topic:
1. Its great that a 15 year old can show up all those highly educated lawyers.
It's not surprising that he could answer simple questions, because many laws are pretty straightforward. Company's like the Nolo Press have made money with self help legal books and software. For many disputes, a reasonable understanding of the law and a willingness to work out a reasonable solution are all that's needed. However, when things get more complicated or a lot is at stake, you need someone who:
a. Has a deeper understanding of the law so he or she can build as strong an arguement in your favor as possible;
b. Knows what they don't know and can seek out really expert advice when needed; and
c. Understands teh system. This means they don't blow a case by missing a filing deadline and know the judges/other lawyers and can work with them to craft a reasonable settlement.
You certainly don't need to go for school to leaarn the law - in fact, becoming a lawyer once was like any other trade - you studied with a master and when he or she felt you were ready, became a master yourself. Which brings us to pint 2:
2. The bar is an organization designed to keep lawyer's fees high. Welcoem to the idea that regulation works to benefit the regulated (George Stigler expalined this long ago, and is teh "economist" in my subject line). Regulation, no matter how much it is touted as for the "public good," ultimately benefits the regulated. Generally, it puts barriers to entry that keep competitors out and control the availability of products, in service industries. Why does NYC limit Taxi medallions - certainly not so the owners can get richer by selling them or renting them for more money, year after year? Tobacco companinies hid behind the Surgeon General's warning to try to avoid liability. No matter how much companies wring their hands over regulation, they ultimately benefit from it.
You forgot the ever present submarine, that's out there, you just don't know where.
There are two kinds of ships:
Submarines, and targets
Sail Navy,
OK - so what's the active ingredient in navel lint?
In repsonse to:
There are some things that the Gimp can *not* do. It's been a while since I worked in the publishing industry, but the big thing that the Gimp can't do is color separation -- and it probably never will, since the techniques are patent-encumbered. I'm guessing that the patents are still many years from expiration as well.
I say:
This may be an opportunity to demonstrate another way to make money on open source software. The patent holders could build a plug-in for GIMP and (not-K)illustrator to do color seperation. As long as they abide by the GPL to keep their software free of GPL'd code, they potentially have a commercial product that doesn't require source code release but runs on os software.
Of course, the patent holders may either have granted exclusive licenses or be the vendors of big dollar products whose revenue they want to protect.
That's because the marketting person knows how to describe his or her worth, while the techie often has trouble putting coherent sentences together so that non-techies can understand him or her.
Let's face it, no matter how great a feat of engineering or programming your latest creation is, unless you can explain its benefits to your customer, you're not going to sell it. The world is littered with great products that were killed by inferior ones with better marketing.
Of course, those techies that can communicate often realize there's more money in sales and marketting than engineering, and go over to teh dark side.
Some thoughts, which have been mentioned elsewhere:
From the sounds of it, much of this technology isn't new. Fifteen years ago, a former employeer had a copier that would copy, insert dividers, collate and hot bind documents. Don Lancaster, in a series of Computer Shopper (back when it was a newsprint by Patch Pub) talked about self publishing with laser printers and hot glue binders at least 20 years ago.
Some problems:
1. Quality - The trouble with glue bindings is they suck. The glue craks, pages come out, and you can't lay the book flat. They were fine for our reports that got read and then stored. If you layed one down, the pages would flop shut, and after 10 or so people used it some of the pages would start seperating from the glue background. Even if you got a $30 traditional book for $24, would you be willing to put up with it falling apart after some use?
2. Cost - even if you shave $5 off of the actual printing costs, the author still wants some money, so you'd still have to pay for the file. So the difference between a "real" and instant book's price may not be all that great, especially for larger ones. Sure you save warehousing costs, but now the print shop needs to price to recover the machines cost. While it may help unknown and non-mainstream authors, don't count on it to cut textbook costs. Small print runs still me smaller royalties or higher per book payments - guess which professors will chose? As a side note, my school produced case books of readings for classes uses this type of binding (photocopy/hot glue). Thos ebooks were often double the price of a textbook - because the royalties on the articles and cases had to be paid.
3. Buying habits - Think about how you buy books - you wander a stack, where similar themed books are placed on shelves. If a title interests you , you may look at it and possibly buy it, even if it wasn't the one you were looking for. Impulse buying is part of the book sales model - and instant printing takes that away (unless you put one of each title up, but now you have printing and warehousing costs. If booksellers could make as much money by having a drive up window and auto-pickers to get stock to the window, they'r have done that, if only to cut costs. Heck, they could even put the starbucks machine by the drive up and serve (with suitable warnibgs about temperature) coffe and a scone for the yuppies. My guess is they still want you to come into the stores, which is why they have plenty of ailse and Starbucks.
My guess is this will be useful for companies that need to do manuals, handbooks, etc., because they can save on printing costs (of course, Kinko's is already tackling that market). Self published authors will also be able to produce more professional looking books. If this machine can lower teh total cost of production (vs Kinko's current method), you'll see quick copy places adopting them. If not, it will be yet another "new" idea that's been around a while.
I think there are several reasons why it's tough to get people to pay:
1. Content providers have conditioned people to the idea that content is free, just as big retail chains have conditioned people to wait for sales. Even if the service is worth what you pay, the idea of paying for something that used to be free upset people, and makes them move on to other places. How do you react when you have to put a quarter in a machine to get air to fill your tires? Do you buy gas next time at the place with free air?
2. The barrier to entry is still relatively low for web based content providers. Someone will look at a pay site and think - I can do that for free and make money on ads - and lure your customers away. Even if they fail, someone else can always step in, which makes it tought to keep charging.
3. As others have mentioned, there is no good per-view payment system in place. Micropayment is a great idea, but unless a site generates enough volume to cover the collection/payment costs it isn't worth the effort. Of course, micro-paymenst would also let companies price better - if article A is getting a lot of hits, I should raise the price until too many customers balk, then drop it slightly. A new way to maximize revenue.
4. A lot of popular web sites rely on users to post in forums to draw visitors. Much valuable content is generated that way - but would you be willing to help if the site provider suddenly is making money off your posts? I'd bet alot of forums would die, killing the sites that host them as traffic drops off.
Some sites due charge - an generally are sites that migrated from older information providing services and use the web as another way to distribute content. The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones come to mind - but those are companies who have strong brand names that companies know and hence are willing to pay for content. And tehy spend a lot of money developing that content, and spread it over numerous venues. An intersting aside is CNN an dother staht give infor for free - my guess is they 1) get enough ad revenue to help defray costs; 2) feel it drives revenue to their prime business (TV/print/etc.) 3) the cost of putting info on the web is a small part of the total cost of producing it, so since it drives 1 & 2 it makes sense to not charge.
Since most web sites have nowhere near the brand recognition as those, it's not surprising they can't charge.
What today's teenagers don't realize is that all the cash that's flowing from their parent's pockets and being converetd into Nintendos, clothes, records, and all the other stuff is just a short term loan. We'll get it all back, with interest, when their "new-new economy" companies fail.
Yes, old age and treachery will overcome youth and exuberence once again.
For those unfamiliar with Webvan, is/was an on-line grocery store. You went to their site, ordered your groceries, picked a delivery date/time and your groceries were delivered. They tried to get economies of scale by using a large warehouse to store, pick and ship the orders.
People tried them once, because they were novel, new, and their neighbors mentioned them at parties. That didn't translate into regular, large orders that Webvan needed to be a viable business.
There were a number of things that contributed to their demise:
1. Price - Food is a large part of most budgets, even for the folks Webvan targeted. Discounting is very much part of the grocery business, and Webvan didn't play that game. High margin items, such as soda, were cheaper at stores than on Webvan. The major chains have made shoppers very price sensitive, and Webvan was viewed at the upper end of the price range (whether they were or not is irrelevant), which meant people would use them in a pinch, but still went to the store for their major purchases.
2. Order Size - Grocery shopping is really impulse buying - stores want to get you in with a few specials, to get you to walk through their store. They know you'll see other items you need, adding to the total sale per customer. Even if you go in with a list, you probably would find a few things you needed that you forgot. Webvan, because of its web-based model, wasn't really good at capturing the impulse buy that drives the total sale. Much of the buying is touch and feel - people like to see the meat, fruit, and vegetables and pick what they like. Yes, Webvan would refund the money, but that doesn't do you much good when your trying to make a salad and the vegetables aren't up to your standards (although I must say everything I got from Webvan was fine - but they still need to overcome the feeling that I must see it before I buy it).
3. Advantage over stores - While it was great that Webvan delivered, they completely missed the "I need it now" market. That may have been smart, because cost of delivering a carton of eggs and some milk would be kill any profit on the order. (Webvan did add a delivery charge for small orders near the end) However, since I still had to run to the store to get one or two items, it was just as easy to make a list of other things I needed as well. This meant there was no compelling reason to use Webvan, since it really didn't cut down significantly on trips to the store.
4. Convenience - Scheduling delivery was hard - next day service was rarely available, forcing people to plan 3-4 days in advance. It's just as easy to sneak in a trip to the store.
In short, Webvan offered no clear advantages to going to the store that made buyers switch to them. Retail stores could even adopt parts of Webvan's model, making their position even weaker. In Atlanta, several stores even offered fax/online/phone ordering - they would take and pack the order for your pickup - one even offered drive through pickup.
Finally, Webvan failed to learn from history. Home delivery of groceries is nothing new - there are services that will stock your pantry on a regular schedule. Sometimes there is a reason why a business model hasn't been a roaring success - their aren't enough customers. Scaling up a business model that hasn't been successful in the past and wrapping the web around it doesn't change the fundamentals.
I'm curious how the ads will be inserted into the straem. Let's assume they use the same music straem over a broad area, with specific time segements left "blank" for ads. That means they could then send out the targeted ads automatically. So the challenge is to figure out what the "trigger" is and use it to block the ad. Suppose the ad comes from a different IP address than the stream - someone could develop an ap that rejects different IP addresses whenever the music stream goes quiet, and begin accepting them again when music restarts.
Of course, they could premix the stream and send it out as continously. That makes it more difficult - but not impossible. I saw a note about a program that could recognize music from a unique digital signature. How big is the playlist of ClearChannel? You'd have to "train" your filter by listening and marking music and rejecting adds, but after a while you ought have a pretty good list. Sharing lists would also help. Why not buffer the feed, compare it to a set of pre-identified signatures, and only pass those that are id'd as music. hell, you could even reject songs you don't like and replace them with ones you do.
Of course, that means they'll probbaly have to develop some new encrypted format and special palyer that can also pass info back on what you listen to, etc.
Technology - the new, improved Cold War - every time one side builds a better bomber, the other side builds a bigger bomb.
Interetsingly enough, the safety systems at TMI worked just fine. Unfortunately, it was the human beings in the control loop that failed and caused the accident. Had they not intervened, there would have been no accident. Instead, here's what happened:
e x. html
The pressurizer relief fails open, causing water to excape from the reator's cooling system. (TMI relied on high pressure water to cool the fuel). Due to a design error, the valve is shown as closed on the control panel.
As the water level drops, emergency cooling pumps kick in to keep the level up and cool the core.
The operators, worried that the pumps would over pressurize and crack the reator vessel or piping, shut them off. At this point, water level continues to drop and confusion reigns as alarms start going off. Eventually, the water level drops low enough so that the fuel overheats and breaks. The rest is history, and well covered by PBS at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/three/filmmore/ind
What is often overlooked is an almost idintical chane of event occured at the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio. Operators there shut anotther valve that stopped the water from escaping from pressurizer, preventing further problems. Even though they reported the event, there was no good way to get lessons learned to other plants, so TMI didn't benefit from experience.
What are the lessons from this for other industries:
1. Engineers and techies are generally are the wrong persons to put in front of the public. They assume everyone understand the tech the way they do, and realizes (as they do) that things that sound absolute really aren't. Put people there that can explain but understand the dynamics of dealing with the public, so you don't say stupid things that haunt you later.
2. Sharing information to solve problems is good. The airlines have done it for years, because they realize a major crash hurts everyone involved in the industry (literally and figuratively). That's the adavntage of open source - everyone helps create a more stable base, and competes based on value added services or by targeting specific market segments.
3. Nothing is fool proof - we fools can be very ingenious. As long as humans are involved, there is no fail safe computer, no perfect data security, no crash proof OS. Assume people will do stupid things at the wrong time, and train them not to.
Side note on foreign nationals in grad school:
The economic incentive for them is higher than for US citizens:
1. Earning a Phd or Masters in a technical subject does not generally provide the same bump in salary as a BS/BA does relative to a high school diploma. Forgoing an income and incurring debt does not produce the return needed to make it an attractive alternative to joining the workforce after undergrad. The payback for foreign studenst who return to their home country is probably greater than had they stopped at the undergrad level - whether in terms of prestige or pay.
2. Earning a PhD is one way to get the right to remaining and work in the US. While I would not ascribe that as the motivation for many foreign students, I have a number of friends who chose that route as a way to stay in this country.
I would bet the number of foreign students in trade schools (Law/Medical/Business) earning advanced degrees is smaller, in percentage terms, than in more scientific and technical programs. While some of this may be due to the difficulty in directly translating what is learned to a foreign s legal system or getting certification as an MD, those schools offer much higher returns for teh time and money spent. As a result, they have a much larger poll of US applicants and can fill their classes with them, unlike many traditional grad programs. Not surprisingly, business schools probabaly are the most aggressive of the trade schools in seeking foreign applicants, given the increasingly international scope of business.
Actaull, Chernobyl and Windscale point out the folly of using graphite moderates (the burn) and no containment (stuff gets into the environment without much trouble.) Windscale, btw, was not a power reactor but was part of Britian's nuclear weapons development program. Thre Mile Island (TMI), surprising, points out how well safety systems and containments protect the public. Despite multiple operator errors, the reactor vessel contained the fuel material and the concrete containment was not breached despite hydrogen explosions in the containment.
/. posts) is cheap. Unless, of course, you are a bird that flies into the blades or someone who values the view over the mountains.
As for cost competitiveness, a well run nuke plant is competitive with fossil, even when you include decommissioning costs. In fact, it can be cheaper than building a new combined cycle gas fired plant (the current plant of choice for new production - and that doesn't emissions credits that the nuke can sell since it doesn't emit things like NOX). With plants getting their licenses extended for 20 years, the total production costs will be even more competitive.
Finally, any form of energy production has its negative side effects, but unfortunately our society depends on cheap energy to function. Hydro is great, unless you are a fish or they create a lake where your house stands. Not to mention the hegative impact of a dam breaking on the downstream populace. Solar - very nice, but what about the toxic byproducts used in production? Or the impact of covering large tracts of land to generate enough electricity to repalce even a small fossil plant? Wind energy is neat - after all, wind (like
Do we need to keep looking for ways to generate power that have less environmental impact? Sure. We could also do a lot more to reduce our use. But the reality is that we have no good alternatives to nuclear and fossil plants, and we will have to begin repalcing the older (mostly fossil) plants that are reaching and of their usefullife. To blindly rule out a proven energy technology based on fear, misunderstanding and clever PR is about as smart as letting MS guide your decison on using Linux.
And, all to often, understanding the way loses out to the easy way. We're not saying that slide rules should be taught over computers, we are saying that technological advances have had a negative impact on numeric literacy. We, as a society, will pay a price for that loss.
Of course, we really should teach computers over teh old ways. After all, who needs to be able to spell when there is spell check and why learn the rules of grammer and style when Word has a grammer and style checker as well? What's wrong with a world where MS, by default, dictates how the written word will appear? For my own enjoyment, I hope that the next Heinlein, Tolkien, or Jefferson amongst grows up as a Linux user.
One of my favorite pastimes at sea was celestial navigation. I found a lot of satisfaction in shooting the stars and getting a nice position fix. Part of the fun was knowing that I practicing a centuries old art much the same as the earliest navigators. (Although I must admit I also enjoyed knowing my fix would be used to reset the multi-million dollar ships inertial navigation system.)
That, to me, was what set sailors apart from everyone else: no matter where you were, or what side of the cold war you were on, you shared a long heritage and a common mistress - the sea. Even nominal enemies could share beers, swap lies and toast those on permanent patrol. It was why, when the Glomar Explorer raised a Russian nuke we buried, at sea with honors, those we found inside.
Somewhere Megellan and Vasco da Gama must be smiling.
The real beauty of using a sliderule was that you developed a feel for the numbers and what the results should be. After you had some experience estimating magnitude, if someone came up with some calculations, they'd either feel right or you'd get a gut feeling that something is wrong. I am still amazed that people can multiple two three digit numbers in the form of x.xx and y.yy) and come up with zz.zzzz or however many places their calculator displays. Or misplace a decimal point and not realize the result is wrong. People assume because the work has been done by a bunch of electrons that it must be right.
While I would not want to go back to only using a sliderule, the one thing that I did learn was how to estimate results in my head - a tool that has been very useful over the years.
Spreadsheets and handheld calculators are great - you can do more more quickly than you ever could with a slide rule.
You can also make bigger mistakes more often.
Ads new meaning to the term "backend server"
If your really think the EU is about protecting its citizens and not about protecting its industries before it protects its citizens, think again.
The EU (and its member states for their own industries) wants to provide as many benefits for its companies as possible, at the expense of non-EU competitors. that's ultimately what regulation does (in the US as well, BTW). For example, look at European Airlines - despite the financial problems of many flag carriers, there has been no effort to truely open the skies and let carriers compete. Want to fly Frankfurt Lisbon? Lufthansa or Air Portugal, OK, Air France - gotta go via Paris, sorry. And if you're a small start-up low fare carrier, don't make fun of Sabena unless you want to end up in court.
For a long time, Germany's strict laws on operating hours, sales and pricing kept many marginal competitors in operation and the Wal-Marts of the world from entering. You can argue that having local stores benefits a community, but if the ommunity really wants them, they'd shop there instead of at the hyper-mart. The empty parking lots and lack of customers at Wal-Mart in Germany shows how highly the Germans value shopping locally.
Ultimately, regulations evolve to benefit the regulated by keeping competitors out. It doesn't matter if you are in the EU, the US, Canada or China.
Actually, the concrete conoe has a long and proud (?) history. Way bak in the stone age (mid 70's) University Civil Eng. studnets were competing in concrete canoe races. Teams form schools would apply the latest technology to produce lighter, stronger, and better canoes. Of course, teh races could be fun - I've seen canoes break in two, and watched as inexperienced paddlers tried to turn a canoe around unsuccessfully. As with many things, you say something (concrete) and people immediately go to the familar (the stuff their driveways made of), which makes for interesting headlines but often misses the point.
No, it's that sudden stop at the end that's the problem...
Even if you agree that spam is free speech, it's protected only from governmental restrictions, not private ones. If I, or my ISP, wants to stop your mail from coming through, absent any contractual agreements, they have every right to. If I don't want them to use a black-list, I can pick another ISP. Fee speech or not, private organizations and people have the right to decide what they want and don't want to hear, and how they deal with it. a couple of real-world examples: People often complain that spam is bad cause the reciepient, not the sender pays for it. That's fine, but I can pay someone to sort my mail after the postoffice delivers it. Does that impact the sender's rights - no - they got what they paid for - delivery. I got what I want - a private arrangement to get rid of junk mail. Who pays for mail or spam is irrelevent in this context - I still can sort it by any means I chose. And where the sorting occurs is irrelvent as well. My company regularly discards junk mail I (and others) get at work before forwarding it, saving them the cost of forwarding it. It's the same with spam - an upstream point (the ISP) doesn't forward mail based on a predetermined conditon (The OSRB instead of bulk rate/presorted mail stamp). Where I live, companies like to drop flyers at my mailbox, or soemtimes in a baggy tossed on my driveway. While they have a right to print them, once they leave them, they're guilty of littering, and the police will gladly tke complaints. Guess what - when enough peopl complain, and companies get fined, tehy stop dropping junk off in our neighborhood. DOes that infringe on their free speech rights - no, they still can stand on a streetcorner and pass out flyers, drive through with a sign; they just can't litter. Similarly, an ISP has a right to limit spammers ability to litter their servers - they are, afetr all private property.
First of all, a person probably has a higher expectation of privacy on private property than public. Given that you are "exposing" yourself for viewing by anyone who walks by, you probably don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public. Given that police can stand on a corner and watch you go by indicates to me that someone walking down the street doesn't expect to be free from surveillance. What the cameras change is the scope, not the actual act of surveillance. Tampa could hire 1000 extra cops and put them on the streets of the Ybor and accomplish the same thing. If that is Constitutionally permitted, then use of a camera ought to be as well.
Which brings me to my point - the only way to stop this sort of thing is by generating a large public outcry. If politicians feel heat (read - worry about getting re-elected), they'll put a stop to this. (of course, one could be hoist by his/her own petard when their caught with a non-spousal companion). It's all about how you frame the issue and build public support.
Of course, Tampa's also the city that enacted a rule that forbids nude dancing withing 6 feet or so of a patron.
with password choice are brain-dead forms for entering passwords.
Take slashdot for instance:
You can enter more characters than the 12 limit in its password selection box. So when I entered my password:
RAS_macintosh
it left off the h. It wasn't until I had my password emailed to me did I realize what happened and start leaving off teh h when I logged in.
No wonder peopel pick simple passwords...