This may seem a contrary view, but I did (and do) telecommuting for a government agency. I find it saves the taxpayer money, but costs _me_ more.
See, I have a little counter/clock. I tap 'start when I work', and 'stop' when I step away from my desk (to get a drink, to do a personal call, to check the mail, to play games on my personal-use PC, et cetera).
So in 8 hours of clock time, I only tally up maybe 5 hours of billable time. My paycheck is less, but my employer is getting a bargain because he's only paying for honest actual-work time.
Problem for me is, if I was onsite, coffee breaks and chatting with people and playing a quick solitaire game wouldn't be seen as amiss, and I'd get paid for those hours!
The theory is 'few people are really productive for a straight 8 hours, so some distraction is useful for the thinking process'. And further, networking with colleagues casually _does_ reap benefits in later work (whereas dithering at home is always useless for work).
But if you're telecommuting and tracking work-versus-play honestly, you don't get the freebie perks of being onsite.
That said, I don't mind stiffing myself because I don't have the stress of thinking, "I'm not productive today!" If I'm not productive, I'm not paid. That's a good thing, but it's kind of contrary to the "9-5 grind".
So the question of whether _you_ should telecommute is, do you prefer to have a job, or to work? If you just want a job, telecommuting will result in less pay. If you're more project oriented and enjoy your work, though, telecommuting is great-- the pay is less but so is the stress, and the flexibility is great.
Or, you can be like too many people and just charge each day regardless of whether you did project work or not, but we won't go there...
Most analyses don't cover google's main 'product'-- for $X, they'll give you a box you hook up to your intranet and *presto*, you now have google searching internally.
$X tends to be 'about one full-time salary per year' for each box you need, and you get a number of boxes based on how many internal pages you need archived. So if you have a large site, you might need 2, 3, 4 boxes.
But it all works off the shelf, minimal integration, it's wonderful.
Problem is, most places think, "wait, we can't afford $100k for internal search! Let's just make our own!" So they pull 2 guys and have them half-time to make their own 'solution', those two end up dragging in a sysadmin at quarter time, a web designer for a couple of months, and before you know it, you've blown 6 months for 4 FTE equiv and have a bad implementation that requires a half-timer permanently assigned to keep it going.
So google has a pricey but superior solution for doing internal searching for any large corporate or gov't site... the only problem is convincing the customers it's a) better and b) cheaper, really!
But you sell 1,000 $200k annual systems that keep contracts for 5 years, that's an easy billion dollars of revenue that's almost pure profit, just reselling your existing tech. Finding 20 customers per US state isn't hard-- each state gov't division, each state-wide corp, toss in a multinational or megacorp that's based in that state, you could make it.
>I had a history teacher who would have us play "Propaganda". We'd look at adverts and have to figure out how many lies they were telling, how they slanted the truth, etc.
Nowerdays, they call that 'hobby teaching' and you get reprimanded for doing it. You have to teach to the test, using approved materials only.
*sigh*
Re:For Those That Don't Know
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 5, Funny
... and if he uses the same idiotic writing gimmick of pretentious wine tasting mixed with bad french food metaphors for his book, that he overuses in his column, well, I'll just go insane right now.
"Is it just me, or are scientists trying to make science fit the theory?"
It's neither:) The main thing is, when faced with a problem in the current theory, the scientists are saying "Okay, maybe it's _X_"-- but they make sure _X_ is testable.
That's what keeps it from just being pseudoscience or fiction. As long as a theory is testable, it can be as wacky as you want.
Subject to the usual criteria and Occam's Razor, of course-- really wacky ideas (like 'the Big Bang' or 'Sun is center of solar system') take a little time for the advancements needed to test them.
Dark Matter may be a hack or totally wrong, but at least it's well-defined and _testable_. Alternative theories (like a modified gravity law or a new particle type) are equally wacky and equally testable. I can't wait to see which wins!
So, as a complete idiot here... can any of these setups under Linux use SoundFonts (like the Proteus ones, e.g. http://www.soundfont.com/cds/mmbundle.asp Module Mania Bundle)?
I'd love to be able to ditch my Proteus racks and put my PC in instead, if this is the case. $99 for 5 modules instead of $80/rack would be great!
Yeah, reminds me of what this one guitar tech wrote (wish I could recall the book... Basic Amp Repair?), when Eric Clapton showed up backstage. Clapton said he was just watching, then last-minute said he wanted to go onstage for the encore. Tech freaks-- he hadn't set up a guitar... but Clapton just walked up to one of the stock backup rigs, *strum*, tweaked a knob or two... and then played just like Clapton.
_He_ knew his own tone:)
And hey, Neil Young is the only guy who can do a one note solo... and make it sound good:) (quote courtesy of 98 Rock).
But I think we're delving into music esoterica here now:)
I love reports that tell us what is musically "better". It reminds me of the debate over, of all things, guitar strings.
Some people (Angus Young of AC/DC, for example) swear by using new guitar strings, replacing them as soon as they get a bit worn. Others (e.g. Neil Young) won't use 'new' ones and actually have roadies break their strings in before they will play them.
(Angus also likes to use no effects pedals, while Neil loves effects. Just picking those 2 at random 'cuz I read up on them. Which is better-- straight guitar or with effects?)
Which is "better"? The answer is 'whatever gives you _your_ sound'. You like tubes, go for it! Solid state give you what you want, more power to you!
With amps, people get distracted by engineering gobblygook, but the truth is: to get 'killer tone', you need to choose your own mix. Guitar choice, strings, amps, heads, effects, EQ, there's a fucking reason you can buy a million and one of each-- there is no one right path!
You can't define sound. It's experiential*. There's no one right set of gear. There's no one best type of music. There's no one best musician. There's no best album of all time.
Freebird! Freebird!
*(sonically, you can usually define 'sucky' due to poor audio quality, but when you get into 'good' you start getting into taste as much as specs)
I accidentally dragged an Atari Portfolio (old super-portable) behind my car for 40 miles. The trunk had opened, the duffle bag was sticking out, and dragging on the ground. The Portfolio was at the bottom of the dragged part.
It abraded the dragging corner, but the sucker still worked. In fact, by remaining in the duffle and not falling it, it also prevented me from losing any other items in the luggage.
> It's not like this software has to be on board the spacecraft.
Actually, it does-- satellites only have a limited number of contact passes each orbit. For LEO, you can easily have 50 minutes 'latency' or more while communicating.
A satellite in low earth orbit takes 90 minutes to go around. So if you have one ground station, you get maybe 10-20 minutes of 'I can talk to you' time each orbit. If you book time on TDRSS, well, you're competing with other satellites for time, so you'll still only get a few contact passes.
And, if you're doing planning on the ground, you have to a) get the data, b) run the software to make the plan, c) create a new command plan, d) upload that new plan.
And, during your contact passes, you really want to download data, not be changing the command loads in real time.
For astronomy, XTE managed, I think, a 4-hour turn-around between "found something new" and "got there", and that was really, really fast. SWIFT is designed to automatically spot 'interesting new things' and go to them automatically, cutting that time down to _minutes_. If you have something like a supernova, where the big afterglow after the flash fades in 15 minutes, that's all the difference in the world.
In astronomy, the review process is straightforward-- I've had reviewers email me directly, or have emails forwarded by editors. An email being forwarded keeps anonymity and, if the editor is professional, adds little drag to the process. Perhaps a 1-day delay on what is typically a 2-week process of review.
That said, since eBay, half.com, etc all have "send question to seller" that maintains anonymity but allows direct communication, I'd think a peer-review journal site could easily manage that.
Already, things like ApJ prefer/almost require electronic submission, and have a page for authors to check on their progress. It'd be easy to implement.
Finally, on anonymity-- the best reviewer comments I've received were from reviewers who declined to be anonymous. They were comfortable enough to communicate directly, and the work was better for it. So perhaps the very requirement of anonymity could be reconsidered.
So, in short:
1) Use electronic marketplace ideas to streamline and improve the review process, 2) All anonymity to (like on slashdot) be optional.
I was doing the order pyramid for the purely physiological. Sex is a physiological need, whereas 'love' is above the physiological. Problem is, I was taught the pyramid for physiological but can't find it on the web, where they are usually covering his higher-order stuff.
The physiological one is based on 'which will a person completely deprived skip for something else?' Sleep is first-- if you _need_ sleep, you fall asleep no matter what (at the wheel, etc). Next is food, you'll risk leaving safety if you are starving, and you'll pass up nookie if you are starving and presented with the choice of sex or food. Next is sex-- you'll risk leaving safety if sex is offered (hey, 'unsafe sex' is an evolutionary risk!). Safety is last on the physiological, because you'll leave safety for sleep, food, or sex if you are deprived of any of those, but if they are satisfied, then you'll go for safety. And after _all_ of that, comes the higher order stuff (what the websites you cite then give).
There, the physiological Maslow pyramid, sans citation.
Sort of fits Maslow's pyramid of needs. First you need food, then sex, then safety, then intellectual pursuits. Hunter/gatherer, prostitute/mate, spy/politician, shaman.
The debate on the 2nd is whether you prefer the Old Testament or Reagon as a source:)
> with an average of 17 to 25 hours to check on the validity of a patent application
Wow, this seems off. They have 2-3 business days per patent? With that, there wouldn't be a problem-- anyone who has done a research project knows you can become a mini-expert on anything in 2 days.
But 3000 workers, 360,000 patents/year, that's 116 patents/year per person... at 24 wks/year 5 working days/wk (note the 2 weeks off for vacation), that's about 1 patent a day.
1/day is a lot different than 3 days per. Plus they likely have meetings, interruptions, etc. Worse, that's an average.
Still, 1 day to a) check patent database for priors, b) google, c) encyclopedia, d) quick call to Encyclopedia Brown or the Baker Street Irregulars or Buckaroo Banzai, then write it up and *poof*
It should work. I suspect the numbers given aren't the full picture, as one patent/day is something a trained person should be able to do a better job.
I think the patent office culture (when it doubt, pass it and let the courts decide) is at fault. And funding won't help that.
Problem is, they misunderstood how people shop for music.
They probably should have just had the usual CD shelves with lots of CDs. But they only need 1 copy of everything. Maybe put a little sticker on it saying "store copy-- bring this to the counter to get your own copy!" You bring your (nice tangible) stack of CDs to the counter and they just run the barcode under a laser scanner, take your money, and say "your order is at the end of the counter there, here's your receipt to get it".
(Just like fast food 'pay' versus 'pickup' windows). Clerk then puts the CDs to reshelve (probably should be done quickly).
To streamline, do what Toys-R-Us does for computer games-- big wall of games and nice big coupon/tags in a pocket, you look at what you want then just grab the tag to pick up your item at the register.
Point is, they need to minimize the change (change=barriers) to how people shop. Let the customers continue to browse the physical merchanidize.
>If you have 2 options: Net $10M doing A and net $8M >doing B, and you chose option B, even though you >are $8M richer than before, you still lost $2M. > >It's the difference between accounting and economic profit.
Yes, but you also need to factor in cash flow and inventory. Profit is _not_ king.
If method B gets you $8M and you have only $1M tied up in inventory and such (kiosks, etc), versus $10M in profit but $20M tied up in inventory (CDs in stores), then you go for the $8M because your risk is lower and your cash flow is stronger. Also, a changing market means you may lose part of your $20M inventory value in method A, but your exposure is only $1M in method B.
(Note that debt is not bad per se, debt can be good, but presumably your cash flow is stronger and thus you are better able to react to changing market conditions if all your cash isn't tied up in inventory).
So the kiosk idea really is utterly brilliant. You (both RIAA and record store) have almost no cash tied up in backstock and unsold inventory, but you still have the full backstock to provide shopping depth to the customers. Your cash then goes towards hits and fad groups, and you can presumably react quickly to that because you don't have to worry about pressing and shipping the small stuff. Only thing you might lose is 'economy of scale' but that's not significant considering you're still moving large amounts of the hits using your existing physical channels.
[AKnightCowboy]> If you've got tons of viruses being introduced into the wild, it's probably coming from an anti-virus company whose entire life depends on them existing and being a threat.... [AC]>Symantec survives only as long as malware.
Frankly, the latter makes more sense. Symantec will instantly be doomed once everyone becomes nice. So the future looks rosy for them.
In similar news, cops were told that, as soon as crime goes away, they're all out of a job. I don't think most people think crimes are caused by cops for job security.
Unfortunately, anti-virus and anti-spam companies are going to have long, rosy futures until people learn to universally behave decently towards one another.
Someone in NY broke into my car (VW Beetle). They skipped the car stereo-- which was laying on the seat since I hadn't installed it yet. They skipped the speakers, which were in plain site screwed to the back seat.
But they did steal a laundry bag full of my friend's clothing.
Apparently, used clothing has a solid market in NY (flea markets, etc).
It's "Brooklyn Project" by William Tenn, aka Philip Klass, anthologized in "The Road to Science Fiction" Volume 1 or 2 or 3 (I forget which), and probably anthologized elsewhere.
This is proof that Windows is easier to install than Linux-- obviously, Linux users are too scared to reinstall their OS every month, whereas for Windows, it's a joy!
The old rationalization was "we outsource to increase value for our shareholders". How generous! Now, this rationalization, it's "we outsource so at least some people in the US can keep their jobs". How noble!
Prediction: later it will be "we outsource because otherwise we'd have to move entirely out of country and then the US wouldn't get our taxes." How civic!
All have the same underlying message they wish to send, "we want to help people!" But corporations don't generally exist to help people, they exist to make money.
There are 2 _good_ reasons to outsource, both based on the fact that labor is always the number one expense for a company.
1) We can stay in business, whereas otherwise we can't. 2) It makes us more money long-term (not just short-term profit sheets). Unfortunately, both may be true right now.
Slashdot Mirror
This may seem a contrary view, but I did (and do) telecommuting for a government agency. I find it saves the taxpayer money, but costs _me_ more.
See, I have a little counter/clock. I tap 'start when I work', and 'stop' when I step away from my desk (to get a drink, to do a personal call, to check the mail, to play games on my personal-use PC, et cetera).
So in 8 hours of clock time, I only tally up maybe 5 hours of billable time. My paycheck is less, but my employer is getting a bargain because he's only paying for honest actual-work time.
Problem for me is, if I was onsite, coffee breaks and chatting with people and playing a quick solitaire game wouldn't be seen as amiss, and I'd get paid for those hours!
The theory is 'few people are really productive for a straight 8 hours, so some distraction is useful for the thinking process'. And further, networking with colleagues casually _does_ reap benefits in later work (whereas dithering at home is always useless for work).
But if you're telecommuting and tracking work-versus-play honestly, you don't get the freebie perks of being onsite.
That said, I don't mind stiffing myself because I don't have the stress of thinking, "I'm not productive today!" If I'm not productive, I'm not paid. That's a good thing, but it's kind of contrary to the "9-5 grind".
So the question of whether _you_ should telecommute is, do you prefer to have a job, or to work? If you just want a job, telecommuting will result in less pay. If you're more project oriented and enjoy your work, though, telecommuting is great-- the pay is less but so is the stress, and the flexibility is great.
Or, you can be like too many people and just charge each day regardless of whether you did project work or not, but we won't go there...
Most analyses don't cover google's main 'product'-- for $X, they'll give you a box you hook up to your intranet and *presto*, you now have google searching internally.
$X tends to be 'about one full-time salary per year' for each box you need, and you get a number of boxes based on how many internal pages you need archived. So if you have a large site, you might need 2, 3, 4 boxes.
But it all works off the shelf, minimal integration, it's wonderful.
Problem is, most places think, "wait, we can't afford $100k for internal search! Let's just make our own!" So they pull 2 guys and have them half-time to make their own 'solution', those two end up dragging in a sysadmin at quarter time, a web designer for a couple of months, and before you know it, you've blown 6 months for 4 FTE equiv and have a bad implementation that requires a half-timer permanently assigned to keep it going.
So google has a pricey but superior solution for doing internal searching for any large corporate or gov't site... the only problem is convincing the customers it's a) better and b) cheaper, really!
But you sell 1,000 $200k annual systems that keep contracts for 5 years, that's an easy billion dollars of revenue that's almost pure profit, just reselling your existing tech. Finding 20 customers per US state isn't hard-- each state gov't division, each state-wide corp, toss in a multinational or megacorp that's based in that state, you could make it.
>I had a history teacher who would have us play "Propaganda". We'd look at adverts and have to figure out how many lies they were telling, how they slanted the truth, etc.
Nowerdays, they call that 'hobby teaching' and you get reprimanded for doing it. You have to teach to the test, using approved materials only.
*sigh*
... and if he uses the same idiotic writing gimmick of pretentious wine tasting mixed with bad french food metaphors for his book, that he overuses in his column, well, I'll just go insane right now.
"Is it just me, or are scientists trying to make science fit the theory?"
:) The main thing is, when faced with a problem in the current theory, the scientists are saying "Okay, maybe it's _X_"-- but they make sure _X_ is testable.
It's neither
That's what keeps it from just being pseudoscience or fiction. As long as a theory is testable, it can be as wacky as you want.
Subject to the usual criteria and Occam's Razor, of course-- really wacky ideas (like 'the Big Bang' or 'Sun is center of solar system') take a little time for the advancements needed to test them.
Dark Matter may be a hack or totally wrong, but at least it's well-defined and _testable_. Alternative theories (like a modified gravity law or a new particle type) are equally wacky and equally testable. I can't wait to see which wins!
So, as a complete idiot here... can any of these setups under Linux use SoundFonts (like the Proteus ones, e.g. http://www.soundfont.com/cds/mmbundle.asp Module Mania Bundle)?
I'd love to be able to ditch my Proteus racks and put my PC in instead, if this is the case. $99 for 5 modules instead of $80/rack would be great!
Let me know?
Yeah, reminds me of what this one guitar tech wrote (wish I could recall the book... Basic Amp Repair?), when Eric Clapton showed up backstage. Clapton said he was just watching, then last-minute said he wanted to go onstage for the encore. Tech freaks-- he hadn't set up a guitar... but Clapton just walked up to one of the stock backup rigs, *strum*, tweaked a knob or two... and then played just like Clapton.
:)
:) (quote courtesy of 98 Rock).
:)
_He_ knew his own tone
And hey, Neil Young is the only guy who can do a one note solo... and make it sound good
But I think we're delving into music esoterica here now
I love reports that tell us what is musically "better". It reminds me of the debate over, of all things, guitar strings.
Some people (Angus Young of AC/DC, for example) swear by using new guitar strings, replacing them as soon as they get a bit worn. Others (e.g. Neil Young) won't use 'new' ones and actually have roadies break their strings in before they will play them.
(Angus also likes to use no effects pedals, while Neil loves effects. Just picking those 2 at random 'cuz I read up on them. Which is better-- straight guitar or with effects?)
Which is "better"? The answer is 'whatever gives you _your_ sound'. You like tubes, go for it! Solid state give you what you want, more power to you!
With amps, people get distracted by engineering gobblygook, but the truth is: to get 'killer tone', you need to choose your own mix. Guitar choice, strings, amps, heads, effects, EQ, there's a fucking reason you can buy a million and one of each-- there is no one right path!
You can't define sound. It's experiential*. There's no one right set of gear. There's no one best type of music. There's no one best musician. There's no best album of all time.
Freebird! Freebird!
*(sonically, you can usually define 'sucky' due to poor audio quality, but when you get into 'good' you start getting into taste as much as specs)
I accidentally dragged an Atari Portfolio (old super-portable) behind my car for 40 miles. The trunk had opened, the duffle bag was sticking out, and dragging on the ground. The Portfolio was at the bottom of the dragged part.
It abraded the dragging corner, but the sucker still worked. In fact, by remaining in the duffle and not falling it, it also prevented me from losing any other items in the luggage.
Man those suckers were tough.
> It's not like this software has to be on board the spacecraft.
Actually, it does-- satellites only have a limited number of contact passes each orbit. For LEO, you can easily have 50 minutes 'latency' or more while communicating.
A satellite in low earth orbit takes 90 minutes to go around. So if you have one ground station, you get maybe 10-20 minutes of 'I can talk to you' time each orbit. If you book time on TDRSS, well, you're competing with other satellites for time, so you'll still only get a few contact passes.
And, if you're doing planning on the ground, you have to a) get the data, b) run the software to make the plan, c) create a new command plan, d) upload that new plan.
And, during your contact passes, you really want to download data, not be changing the command loads in real time.
For astronomy, XTE managed, I think, a 4-hour turn-around between "found something new" and "got there", and that was really, really fast. SWIFT is designed to automatically spot 'interesting new things' and go to them automatically, cutting that time down to _minutes_. If you have something like a supernova, where the big afterglow after the flash fades in 15 minutes, that's all the difference in the world.
In astronomy, the review process is straightforward-- I've had reviewers email me directly, or have emails forwarded by editors. An email being forwarded keeps anonymity and, if the editor is professional, adds little drag to the process. Perhaps a 1-day delay on what is typically a 2-week process of review.
That said, since eBay, half.com, etc all have "send question to seller" that maintains anonymity but allows direct communication, I'd think a peer-review journal site could easily manage that.
Already, things like ApJ prefer/almost require electronic submission, and have a page for authors to check on their progress. It'd be easy to implement.
Finally, on anonymity-- the best reviewer comments I've received were from reviewers who declined to be anonymous. They were comfortable enough to communicate directly, and the work was better for it. So perhaps the very requirement of anonymity could be reconsidered.
So, in short:
1) Use electronic marketplace ideas to streamline and improve the review process,
2) All anonymity to (like on slashdot) be optional.
Not to beat this to death, but...
I was doing the order pyramid for the purely physiological. Sex is a physiological need, whereas 'love' is above the physiological. Problem is, I was taught the pyramid for physiological but can't find it on the web, where they are usually covering his higher-order stuff.
The physiological one is based on 'which will a person completely deprived skip for something else?' Sleep is first-- if you _need_ sleep, you fall asleep no matter what (at the wheel, etc). Next is food, you'll risk leaving safety if you are starving, and you'll pass up nookie if you are starving and presented with the choice of sex or food. Next is sex-- you'll risk leaving safety if sex is offered (hey, 'unsafe sex' is an evolutionary risk!). Safety is last on the physiological, because you'll leave safety for sleep, food, or sex if you are deprived of any of those, but if they are satisfied, then you'll go for safety. And after _all_ of that, comes the higher order stuff (what the websites you cite then give).
There, the physiological Maslow pyramid, sans citation.
Great post. But still, shaman is the 3rd oldest profession.
:)
0th = (you) = hunter/gatherer
1st = prostitute
2nd = spying or politics
3rd = shaman
Sort of fits Maslow's pyramid of needs. First you need food, then sex, then safety, then intellectual pursuits. Hunter/gatherer, prostitute/mate, spy/politician, shaman.
The debate on the 2nd is whether you prefer the Old Testament or Reagon as a source
Hi,
> with an average of 17 to 25 hours to check on the validity of a patent application
Wow, this seems off. They have 2-3 business days per patent? With that, there wouldn't be a problem-- anyone who has done a research project knows you can become a mini-expert on anything in 2 days.
But 3000 workers, 360,000 patents/year, that's 116 patents/year per person... at 24 wks/year 5 working days/wk (note the 2 weeks off for vacation), that's about 1 patent a day.
1/day is a lot different than 3 days per. Plus they likely have meetings, interruptions, etc. Worse, that's an average.
Still, 1 day to a) check patent database for priors, b) google, c) encyclopedia, d) quick call to Encyclopedia Brown or the Baker Street Irregulars or Buckaroo Banzai, then write it up and *poof*
It should work. I suspect the numbers given aren't the full picture, as one patent/day is something a trained person should be able to do a better job.
I think the patent office culture (when it doubt, pass it and let the courts decide) is at fault. And funding won't help that.
Problem is, they misunderstood how people shop for music.
They probably should have just had the usual CD shelves with lots of CDs. But they only need 1 copy of everything. Maybe put a little sticker on it saying "store copy-- bring this to the counter to get your own copy!" You bring your (nice tangible) stack of CDs to the counter and they just run the barcode under a laser scanner, take your money, and say "your order is at the end of the counter there, here's your receipt to get it".
(Just like fast food 'pay' versus 'pickup' windows). Clerk then puts the CDs to reshelve (probably should be done quickly).
To streamline, do what Toys-R-Us does for computer games-- big wall of games and nice big coupon/tags in a pocket, you look at what you want then just grab the tag to pick up your item at the register.
Point is, they need to minimize the change (change=barriers) to how people shop. Let the customers continue to browse the physical merchanidize.
>If you have 2 options: Net $10M doing A and net $8M >doing B, and you chose option B, even though you >are $8M richer than before, you still lost $2M.
>
>It's the difference between accounting and economic profit.
Yes, but you also need to factor in cash flow and inventory. Profit is _not_ king.
If method B gets you $8M and you have only $1M tied up in inventory and such (kiosks, etc), versus $10M in profit but $20M tied up in inventory (CDs in stores), then you go for the $8M because your risk is lower and your cash flow is stronger. Also, a changing market means you may lose part of your $20M inventory value in method A, but your exposure is only $1M in method B.
(Note that debt is not bad per se, debt can be good, but presumably your cash flow is stronger and thus you are better able to react to changing market conditions if all your cash isn't tied up in inventory).
So the kiosk idea really is utterly brilliant. You (both RIAA and record store) have almost no cash tied up in backstock and unsold inventory, but you still have the full backstock to provide shopping depth to the customers. Your cash then goes towards hits and fad groups, and you can presumably react quickly to that because you don't have to worry about pressing and shipping the small stuff. Only thing you might lose is 'economy of scale' but that's not significant considering you're still moving large amounts of the hits using your existing physical channels.
These are 2 completely different concepts:
...
[AKnightCowboy]> If you've got tons of viruses being introduced into the wild, it's probably coming from an anti-virus company whose entire life depends on them existing and being a threat.
[AC]>Symantec survives only as long as malware.
Frankly, the latter makes more sense. Symantec will instantly be doomed once everyone becomes nice. So the future looks rosy for them.
In similar news, cops were told that, as soon as crime goes away, they're all out of a job. I don't think most people think crimes are caused by cops for job security.
Unfortunately, anti-virus and anti-spam companies are going to have long, rosy futures until people learn to universally behave decently towards one another.
That's why 'man in the loop' is worth keeping. Fully automated systems are not just 'risky', but absolutely totally insane.
You read about trying to cut people out of the loop to save costs, think about this and just pay the $40k/year salary, for goodness sake.
Someone in NY broke into my car (VW Beetle). They skipped the car stereo-- which was laying on the seat since I hadn't installed it yet. They skipped the speakers, which were in plain site screwed to the back seat.
But they did steal a laundry bag full of my friend's clothing.
Apparently, used clothing has a solid market in NY (flea markets, etc).
It's "Brooklyn Project" by William Tenn, aka Philip Klass, anthologized in "The Road to Science Fiction" Volume 1 or 2 or 3 (I forget which), and probably anthologized elsewhere.
This post brought to you by Insomnia[tm].
Anyone curious about the day-to-day stuff with Opportunity can read her live journal. Err... probably not official NASA. But funny-- and accurate!
live journal, 'opportunitygrrl'
(Her sister has one too)
This is proof that Windows is easier to install than Linux-- obviously, Linux users are too scared to reinstall their OS every month, whereas for Windows, it's a joy!
'round here, they can't even keep the little reflective bevels in the road. Snowplows tend to rip them up, though it takes a few snowfalls.
So expensive little sensors, they're just snowplow bait. Roads take a tremendous amount of abuse.
Bruce Campbell in "If Chins Could Kill" relates some of the improvised steady-cams used in 'Evil Dead', especially for running shots or window shots.
They just had 2 people carry a heavy board with the camera through the forest, and had a 'camera plus battering ram' for the crash-through bits.
A lot less elegant than this design, basically, the idea of "really heavy = not much vibation or wobble" worked for them.
The old rationalization was "we outsource to increase value for our shareholders". How generous!
Now, this rationalization, it's "we outsource so at least some people in the US can keep their jobs". How noble!
Prediction: later it will be "we outsource because otherwise we'd have to move entirely out of country and then the US wouldn't get our taxes." How civic!
All have the same underlying message they wish to send, "we want to help people!" But corporations don't generally exist to help people, they exist to make money.
There are 2 _good_ reasons to outsource, both based on the fact that labor is always the number one expense for a company.
1) We can stay in business, whereas otherwise we can't. 2) It makes us more money long-term (not just short-term profit sheets). Unfortunately, both may be true right now.