I drink directly from the tab. I live in Amsterdam; quality of tab water here is better than the quality of bottled water. There is even a campaign going calling people to quit buying bottled water because of the CO2 footprint.
Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.
No. That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute. One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it. One has to keep to the law. The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.
I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.
If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.
Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.
Humorous, but this is exactly what we should be fearing. If this decision is used as a precedent, imagine the implications.
The precedent is: abuse your monopoly powers in the EU and you will get slapped. I very much like this precedent. I am a fan of Neelie Kroes' work in going after companies that are anti-competitive and damaging to the free market.
For Windows--or any operating system--a list of all programs that could possibly compete with those included in the OS would have to be listed.
No, that is simply the punishment (this time) for Microsoft. This punishment is in no way precedent for any company that simply ships OSes and abides by (EU) law.
If person A writes a book and person B makes copies of that book and distributes them, person B infringes upon person A's ability to profit from that book.
Infringe upon someone's ability to make a profit? And that is illegal? It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
If person A relies upon proceeds from that book in order to pay rent, person B has effectively cheated person A out of rent money.
So? Person A has chosen a very bad business model. He should try something else to make the rent.
In this case, person A should have some legal recourse. Person A should be able to sue for relief.
So if I were to sell bread for 10 a loaf and my next door neighbor sells the same bread for 2 a loaf, he infringes on my ability to make a profit and I can sue him for that? Is that your point?
No one *takes away*. Taking away is theft. Taking away is when person A has something, person B comes along and takes is and now person A is empty handed. That is theft, that is taking away.
If person A has a fire burning and person B holds a wooden stick in the fire, both person A as well as person B now have a fire burning. Nothing is taken away.
If person A has an idea and person B makes a copy of that idea, again nothing is taken away.
If person A has a book and person B makes a copy of that book, again nothing is taken away.
You do not have the right to own anything you want simply because it's easy to get it for free.
Do you mean to say that we should pay for the sunrise every morning? Or that we should pay for the O2 we consume when we breathe? And 'own'? You seem to be confusing property (which you can own) with ideas and stories. Ideas and stories are not property. Copyright does not make stories 'owned' by anyone.
Hmmm. Most people do not know how computer viruses work. Installing anti-virus software can lull people in a false sense of security since they also do not know how the anti-virus software does (not) work, but hey, it's not called 'anti' for nuttin, right?
Railroad crossing gates are intuitive for most people: train may pass by crushing and killing you, so such a crossing calls for extra attention automatically.
Smoke detectors do not cause most people to suddenly leave their burning candles unattended or to start playing with matches.
'Bridge out' warning signs call on the viewer to pay extra attention.
So, anti virus software makes ppl less attentive, railroad crossings and warning signs make ppl more attentive and smoke detectors do not alter behaviour. I am afraid I fail to see your point.
I wasn't talking about the scientific theory, I was talking about the model itself being dependent on life being present (...)
Yes, it is very hard to model something that does not exist. Do you always claim such obvious facts?
But let's go back to your original statement:
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution(1) theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing. Evolution(2) also relies on Abiogenesis (...) [numbers mine]
So you talk about evolution as a scientific theory on point (1), and then bring up evolution at point 2, but it is not the evolution theory? As evolution can be interpreted as observable evolution as well as the scientific theory and model of evolution, it is ambiguous to not explicitly specify which of the two you are referring to. Calling me an idiot because of this miscommunication is unnecessarily rude in my book.
It was still E-coli bacteria and no one connected with the experiment that I know of has claimed it to be a new species outside of a variant of the existing species (...)
What you say could be right in that you may not know anyone who has made such claim. However, please re-read my original post: it says 'speciation'. Now look at the title of the quoted article: "Mechanisms of diversification and speciation (...). It is right there. This is a scientific paper stating facts. Do you still want to go against this article? Please write a scientific rebuttal.
You can participate in science. If you have different findings that contradict this scientific report, do your own experiments and put the results up for peer review. That is how science works. Don't bring up strawman arguments abouts dogs and 1 generation. Put up or shut up is an appropriate US expression, I believe.
You call me an idiot while you cannot even grasp the basics of what we are discussing here. Try to understand this:
The scientific theory and model of evolution does not give a rats ass on how life started, it is concerned only how life changes, evolves.
Because of this, almost all atheist and most smart religious people can agree with this piece of science. Whether you think that a magician came by and waved his want to start life, or whether some god snipped his fingers, or whether it was a matter of change and probability has nothing to do whatsoever with the theory of evolution. The pope believes the christian god bootstrapped the process, science is still trying to find out how it started. Both think equal about evolution. Now do you get it?
Place one in New York City and one in London, oh wait, now their pups are separate species even though they can still all be pure breed border hound collies. That's really something that makes sense right?
No, it does not make sense, but that is because you use a strawman argument (which I think reveals the weakness of your position). No evolutionary scientist ever claimed that speciation will occur in one specific generation of your choosing. It happens gradually, over time, where it is often difficult to exactly pinpoint a discrete point in time where you suddenly have 2 different species. To stick with your dogs, try to make a male saint bernard dog to mate with a female maltese. It is physically impossible, while they belong to the same species. This is possibly a case of speciation in progress.
(...) Dawkins has made it clear that he believe there is nothing else right on the subject except what he believes (...)
Bearing false witness again? Please place a quote here where Dawkins says something like that. Dawkins makes it quite clear that he follows reason and thinks, not believes. I have every reason to think he is right, because he thinks. I have no reason to believe someone based on the contents of ancient scrolls.
One word: bullshit. The theory of evolution gives a scientific model on the observed changes within species, the observed extinction of species and the observed appearance of new species.
In no way is this model 'dependent' on how life started; it just models what happens after that. You are actively misstating the truth, which could easily be seen a mortal sin if you are a christian. (Thou shallt not bear false witness.)
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing.
There is also a complete practical lack of testability whether or not the theory of gravitivity will still be a valid model in exactly 100 years. That does NOT mean anyone expects apples to suddenly fall upward in 100 years.
Ah, cheers. I was trying to confirm (or deny) what you said by looking in the CIA factbook, but couldn't find it. That I did not even think of wikipedia is an indication of my state of fatigue.:-/
TGIF!
If your ox doesn't want to walk, hitting it repeatedly may change its mind. The human mind is not evolutionary adapted to remote controls and computers.
Two things I'd lke to add: with 'intuitive' I mean catering to how the brain is wired. For instance: people feel better if they have to choose between a maximum of 5; offering 20 things to choose from sort of overloads most brains, so we should not offer more than 5. That's intuitive.
(...) but in general I am amazed at how little people apply their brains (...)
Ah, if with 'their brains' you mean the analytical part, the part that actively and consciously makes decisions, then yes, you are absolutely right. However, evolution gave us also the parts that say "makes me feel good, wanna have, wanna have!" and those parts drive most people. And the worst thing is that most people are not aware of this.
I think we share more of the same views than what comes out on a thread like this; I feel a difference in that you seem to look at this from a more pessimistic point of view while I like to be more neutral/optimistic. IRL I think we'd probably only differ on nuances.
Yes, as long as there are alternatives, it is certainly crazy to try the same thing over and over again. If however you need something and there is only one way of getting it, one is likely to try the same thing a few times. If I push the power button on any device and it does not switch on, I push the power button again. It is the only way I know to turn the device on. If the second time the device does nothing, I check the power cord. Other people might push the button a third or forth time or even hit the device, which ironically might even help.
It is not human nature, to repeat a failed action in the hopes that the results change...
As a matter of fact, it is. Maybe not for you and me, but we both read/., so we are not exactly the norm. Have you not seen people talking to or screaming at their computer? Things like "work, bloody @#%#$@#%!!!"? Repeatedly pressing the same button in anger?
And you speak of a different approach: most people do not know how to do a task on a computer any other way than what was shown to them. A computer is a big black box for them, and they now that if they do A, then B, then C normally X happens. You and me might try B' instead of B or even B'', but most people just have not got the faintest idea. We know what goes on inside a computer, most people don't; they simply copy behaviour.
This by the way, is what sets us apart from smart simians: we both mimic actions done by others if we see a desired effect, but we humans surprisingly enough are less criticizing when it comes to copying other's actions.
There is no reason that people can't learn to try a different approach with computers than they do when speaking with people.
Yes, there enough reason: computers do not understand us. Period. My mother can perfectly explain to me, even in different ways, what she wants her computer to do. But while working with her computer, she is simply at a loss because she should speak the computer's language insteaad of the computer understanding her language.
You say my view is what's wrong with IT...
I did no such thing. Reaction != view; indicative != is. I was merely reflecting on the fact that most of IT is (still) not intuitive enough. I cannot explain to my mother that on one occasion she should retry an action, while on other occasions she should simply wait.
I say catering to the LCD of users/people is what's wrong with society.
That is a broad statement, you may be right there, may be wrong as well. More intuitive software would certainly harm no one. Even very smart people are more happy when something is intuitive.
We're more and more a lazy stupid people, and I think it's attitudes like yours that enable it to continue.
Attitudes like mine? Aren't you being just a tad too generalizing here? Or drawing conclusions prematurely? And 500 years ago we were burning women because they had sex with the devil. 150 years ago scientists were determining people's character by reading lumps on their skulls. 50 years ago one could not be openly gay in western Europe. I think general stupidity is actually getting less, at least where I live (The Netherlands). And lazyness is part of the human psyche. If not for being lazy, we would not have invented all these things to do work for us.
Seriously, this is the #1 annoyance for me when roaming in stupid user land... if you click something, and your computer slows down or freezes up... don't click it again until the first request resolves.
Your reaction is indicative for what is wrong in IT: when in the real world something does not work, you try it again and again, maybe even in different ways. That is normal behaviour for most people and most animals as well. It is in fact indicative of problem solving behaviour, also known as intelligence. Software should adjust to this normality, people should not have to adjust to the abnormality of computer software.
And after hearing about how good your product is, by reading a blog or hearing about it via word of mouth, a more than sizeable chunk will still use google to try and find you.
Oh, please... Blogs can have (gasp!) hyperlinks to other sites! And any business who makes a new product named, say rabostak, but fails to register rabostak.com, has no idea how the net works. No search engine is needed to find rabostak.com. And pagerank works in such a way that if the search term is part of the host name, the ranking is pretty high. If google would not return rabostak.com on the first page when I search for 'rabostak', the rabostak business has a very valid reason for either making a fuss through the press (streisand effect), making a complaint at the anti-trust authorities or even starting a civil lawsuit.
I don't get to choose what company supplies my electricity either (...)
I fail to see the relevance. We were talking about monopolies and possible abuse of it by google. Do you mean to say that delivering electricity is comparable to how google present search results on lists? Delivery of electricity is between the electric co. and you. 2 parties. Showing search results concerns the search engine, the sites found and the end-user. 3 or more parties. And google is not the only souce of customers. In all ways totally not comparable.
"Any company that relies on only 1 other company for electricity puts itself in high risk; its a very bad business model."
Do you have any idea how silly you are starting to sound to me? You cannot take an argument, change a term in that argument to create a new argument and say that the validity of the two arguments should be the same. Look:
A shop that only sells pork cannot be called vegetarian. (valid)
A shop that only sells chicken cannot be called vegetarian. (valid)
A shop that only sells vegetables cannot be called vegetarian. (INVALID)
See? The invalidity of your electricity claim says nothing about the validity of my customers claim.
Also, google is NOT a monopoly when it comes to getting your customers. You DO get to choose where to get your customers, you DON'T get to choose your electric co. (actually, in The Netherlands, you do have that choice, but for the sake of argument let's leave that out). Electric co.-s _must_ supply you with electricity because of their monopoly. Building your business on the assumption that most of the time you will get electricity is not high risk. Building your business and artificialy resticting your source of customers to one source is very much high risk.
Slashdot Mirror
I drink directly from the tab. I live in Amsterdam; quality of tab water here is better than the quality of bottled water. There is even a campaign going calling people to quit buying bottled water because of the CO2 footprint.
Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.
No. That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute. One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it. One has to keep to the law. The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.
I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.
If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.
Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.
Humorous, but this is exactly what we should be fearing. If this decision is used as a precedent, imagine the implications.
The precedent is: abuse your monopoly powers in the EU and you will get slapped. I very much like this precedent. I am a fan of Neelie Kroes' work in going after companies that are anti-competitive and damaging to the free market.
For Windows--or any operating system--a list of all programs that could possibly compete with those included in the OS would have to be listed.
No, that is simply the punishment (this time) for Microsoft. This punishment is in no way precedent for any company that simply ships OSes and abides by (EU) law.
+1, Funny
For those who do not get the joke: go here and search for 'No synthesizers'.
If person A writes a book and person B makes copies of that book and distributes them, person B infringes upon person A's ability to profit from that book.
Infringe upon someone's ability to make a profit? And that is illegal? It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
If person A relies upon proceeds from that book in order to pay rent, person B has effectively cheated person A out of rent money.
So? Person A has chosen a very bad business model. He should try something else to make the rent.
In this case, person A should have some legal recourse. Person A should be able to sue for relief.
So if I were to sell bread for 10 a loaf and my next door neighbor sells the same bread for 2 a loaf, he infringes on my ability to make a profit and I can sue him for that? Is that your point?
If person A has a fire burning and person B holds a wooden stick in the fire, both person A as well as person B now have a fire burning. Nothing is taken away.
If person A has an idea and person B makes a copy of that idea, again nothing is taken away.
If person A has a book and person B makes a copy of that book, again nothing is taken away.
You do not have the right to own anything you want simply because it's easy to get it for free.
Do you mean to say that we should pay for the sunrise every morning? Or that we should pay for the O2 we consume when we breathe? And 'own'? You seem to be confusing property (which you can own) with ideas and stories. Ideas and stories are not property. Copyright does not make stories 'owned' by anyone.
I am with you on that one; I actually thought: even MS cannot be that evil.
Hmmm. Most people do not know how computer viruses work. Installing anti-virus software can lull people in a false sense of security since they also do not know how the anti-virus software does (not) work, but hey, it's not called 'anti' for nuttin, right?
Railroad crossing gates are intuitive for most people: train may pass by crushing and killing you, so such a crossing calls for extra attention automatically.
Smoke detectors do not cause most people to suddenly leave their burning candles unattended or to start playing with matches.
'Bridge out' warning signs call on the viewer to pay extra attention.
So, anti virus software makes ppl less attentive, railroad crossings and warning signs make ppl more attentive and smoke detectors do not alter behaviour. I am afraid I fail to see your point.
You mean this one?
I wasn't talking about the scientific theory, I was talking about the model itself being dependent on life being present (...)
Yes, it is very hard to model something that does not exist. Do you always claim such obvious facts?
But let's go back to your original statement:
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution(1) theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing. Evolution(2) also relies on Abiogenesis (...) [numbers mine]
So you talk about evolution as a scientific theory on point (1), and then bring up evolution at point 2, but it is not the evolution theory? As evolution can be interpreted as observable evolution as well as the scientific theory and model of evolution, it is ambiguous to not explicitly specify which of the two you are referring to. Calling me an idiot because of this miscommunication is unnecessarily rude in my book.
It was still E-coli bacteria and no one connected with the experiment that I know of has claimed it to be a new species outside of a variant of the existing species (...)
What you say could be right in that you may not know anyone who has made such claim. However, please re-read my original post: it says 'speciation'. Now look at the title of the quoted article: "Mechanisms of diversification and speciation (...). It is right there. This is a scientific paper stating facts. Do you still want to go against this article? Please write a scientific rebuttal.
You can participate in science. If you have different findings that contradict this scientific report, do your own experiments and put the results up for peer review. That is how science works. Don't bring up strawman arguments abouts dogs and 1 generation. Put up or shut up is an appropriate US expression, I believe.
Oh. As an active os x user for about 2 years now, I must say that I would not place it in 3... Neither in 2 nor 1.
In which of your three choices would you categorize MacOS X? And this is a genuine question, not fanboism.
You call me an idiot while you cannot even grasp the basics of what we are discussing here. Try to understand this:
The scientific theory and model of evolution does not give a rats ass on how life started, it is concerned only how life changes, evolves.
Because of this, almost all atheist and most smart religious people can agree with this piece of science. Whether you think that a magician came by and waved his want to start life, or whether some god snipped his fingers, or whether it was a matter of change and probability has nothing to do whatsoever with the theory of evolution. The pope believes the christian god bootstrapped the process, science is still trying to find out how it started. Both think equal about evolution. Now do you get it?
Place one in New York City and one in London, oh wait, now their pups are separate species even though they can still all be pure breed border hound collies. That's really something that makes sense right?
No, it does not make sense, but that is because you use a strawman argument (which I think reveals the weakness of your position). No evolutionary scientist ever claimed that speciation will occur in one specific generation of your choosing. It happens gradually, over time, where it is often difficult to exactly pinpoint a discrete point in time where you suddenly have 2 different species. To stick with your dogs, try to make a male saint bernard dog to mate with a female maltese. It is physically impossible, while they belong to the same species. This is possibly a case of speciation in progress.
And speciation has been observed, google for it. Quite recently there was a repeatable case of speciation with e-coli bacteria, so please stop spreading misinformation.
(...) Dawkins has made it clear that he believe there is nothing else right on the subject except what he believes (...)
Bearing false witness again? Please place a quote here where Dawkins says something like that. Dawkins makes it quite clear that he follows reason and thinks, not believes. I have every reason to think he is right, because he thinks. I have no reason to believe someone based on the contents of ancient scrolls.
Evolution also relies on Abiogenesis (...)
One word: bullshit. The theory of evolution gives a scientific model on the observed changes within species, the observed extinction of species and the observed appearance of new species.
In no way is this model 'dependent' on how life started; it just models what happens after that. You are actively misstating the truth, which could easily be seen a mortal sin if you are a christian. (Thou shallt not bear false witness.)
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing.
There is also a complete practical lack of testability whether or not the theory of gravitivity will still be a valid model in exactly 100 years. That does NOT mean anyone expects apples to suddenly fall upward in 100 years.
Ah, cheers. I was trying to confirm (or deny) what you said by looking in the CIA factbook, but couldn't find it. That I did not even think of wikipedia is an indication of my state of fatigue. :-/
TGIF!
Is Taiwan #1? I always thought Bangladesh was the most populated country in the world. Surprising.
Actually, our Dutch train system is the second most densely used in the world; Japan is first on that list.
If your ox doesn't want to walk, hitting it repeatedly may change its mind. The human mind is not evolutionary adapted to remote controls and computers.
(...) but in general I am amazed at how little people apply their brains (...)
Ah, if with 'their brains' you mean the analytical part, the part that actively and consciously makes decisions, then yes, you are absolutely right. However, evolution gave us also the parts that say "makes me feel good, wanna have, wanna have!" and those parts drive most people. And the worst thing is that most people are not aware of this.
I think we share more of the same views than what comes out on a thread like this; I feel a difference in that you seem to look at this from a more pessimistic point of view while I like to be more neutral/optimistic. IRL I think we'd probably only differ on nuances.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Yes, as long as there are alternatives, it is certainly crazy to try the same thing over and over again. If however you need something and there is only one way of getting it, one is likely to try the same thing a few times. If I push the power button on any device and it does not switch on, I push the power button again. It is the only way I know to turn the device on. If the second time the device does nothing, I check the power cord. Other people might push the button a third or forth time or even hit the device, which ironically might even help.
It is not human nature, to repeat a failed action in the hopes that the results change...
As a matter of fact, it is. Maybe not for you and me, but we both read /., so we are not exactly the norm. Have you not seen people talking to or screaming at their computer? Things like "work, bloody @#%#$@#%!!!"? Repeatedly pressing the same button in anger?
And you speak of a different approach: most people do not know how to do a task on a computer any other way than what was shown to them. A computer is a big black box for them, and they now that if they do A, then B, then C normally X happens. You and me might try B' instead of B or even B'', but most people just have not got the faintest idea. We know what goes on inside a computer, most people don't; they simply copy behaviour.
This by the way, is what sets us apart from smart simians: we both mimic actions done by others if we see a desired effect, but we humans surprisingly enough are less criticizing when it comes to copying other's actions.
There is no reason that people can't learn to try a different approach with computers than they do when speaking with people.
Yes, there enough reason: computers do not understand us. Period. My mother can perfectly explain to me, even in different ways, what she wants her computer to do. But while working with her computer, she is simply at a loss because she should speak the computer's language insteaad of the computer understanding her language.
You say my view is what's wrong with IT...
I did no such thing. Reaction != view; indicative != is. I was merely reflecting on the fact that most of IT is (still) not intuitive enough. I cannot explain to my mother that on one occasion she should retry an action, while on other occasions she should simply wait.
I say catering to the LCD of users/people is what's wrong with society.
That is a broad statement, you may be right there, may be wrong as well. More intuitive software would certainly harm no one. Even very smart people are more happy when something is intuitive.
We're more and more a lazy stupid people, and I think it's attitudes like yours that enable it to continue.
Attitudes like mine? Aren't you being just a tad too generalizing here? Or drawing conclusions prematurely? And 500 years ago we were burning women because they had sex with the devil. 150 years ago scientists were determining people's character by reading lumps on their skulls. 50 years ago one could not be openly gay in western Europe. I think general stupidity is actually getting less, at least where I live (The Netherlands). And lazyness is part of the human psyche. If not for being lazy, we would not have invented all these things to do work for us.
Seriously, this is the #1 annoyance for me when roaming in stupid user land... if you click something, and your computer slows down or freezes up... don't click it again until the first request resolves.
Your reaction is indicative for what is wrong in IT: when in the real world something does not work, you try it again and again, maybe even in different ways. That is normal behaviour for most people and most animals as well. It is in fact indicative of problem solving behaviour, also known as intelligence. Software should adjust to this normality, people should not have to adjust to the abnormality of computer software.
And after hearing about how good your product is, by reading a blog or hearing about it via word of mouth, a more than sizeable chunk will still use google to try and find you.
Oh, please... Blogs can have (gasp!) hyperlinks to other sites! And any business who makes a new product named, say rabostak, but fails to register rabostak.com, has no idea how the net works. No search engine is needed to find rabostak.com. And pagerank works in such a way that if the search term is part of the host name, the ranking is pretty high. If google would not return rabostak.com on the first page when I search for 'rabostak', the rabostak business has a very valid reason for either making a fuss through the press (streisand effect), making a complaint at the anti-trust authorities or even starting a civil lawsuit.
I don't get to choose what company supplies my electricity either (...)
I fail to see the relevance. We were talking about monopolies and possible abuse of it by google. Do you mean to say that delivering electricity is comparable to how google present search results on lists? Delivery of electricity is between the electric co. and you. 2 parties. Showing search results concerns the search engine, the sites found and the end-user. 3 or more parties. And google is not the only souce of customers. In all ways totally not comparable.
"Any company that relies on only 1 other company for electricity puts itself in high risk; its a very bad business model."
Do you have any idea how silly you are starting to sound to me? You cannot take an argument, change a term in that argument to create a new argument and say that the validity of the two arguments should be the same. Look:
See? The invalidity of your electricity claim says nothing about the validity of my customers claim.
Also, google is NOT a monopoly when it comes to getting your customers. You DO get to choose where to get your customers, you DON'T get to choose your electric co. (actually, in The Netherlands, you do have that choice, but for the sake of argument let's leave that out). Electric co.-s _must_ supply you with electricity because of their monopoly. Building your business on the assumption that most of the time you will get electricity is not high risk. Building your business and artificialy resticting your source of customers to one source is very much high risk.