It's probably bad form to reply twice to the same post, but I found another article. A quick internet search led to this story on the Chinese single-child issue in USA Today. The article is a couple of years old, but it is a very interesting read.
As for the problems? I note a lot of people asserting a priori there will be "a lot of social unrest"...I'd like to see some reasoning before I accept that as true.
How about this article in Asia News? The article was written in January, 2005. It refers to the rising crime rate that results from increased male-related gang activity.
An imbalance in the number of men to women (or women to men) doesn't means the extra men "don't get a relationship".
In a Developing Society (like China), having a wife and many children is very important. What do you do with the thousands of Chinese men that will not have wives and children? Those men feel cultural pressure to get a wife, at any cost.
China already has a huge problem with a surplus of males, and they don't even allow you to choose.
In many developing countries, it is possible to find hundreds of "sonogram clinics" on the street. Pregnant women go into the clinic in order to find out the sex of the child. If the child is female, there is a high likeliehood that the child will be aborted.
Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?
Just to be a Devil's Advocate, I can think of at least one reason. That would be the inevitable inbalance that would occur in the sexes. In China right now, with it's one-child policy, there is a large inbalance in the number of male versus female children. There will be thousands (millions?) of young Chinese men that will not be able to find a mate, simply because there aren't enough women around.
The inability these men will have in finding a mate could have huge negative consequences for the entire Chinese Society. These negative consequences would be one reason why government should be able to prevent you from choosing a male over a female child.
Thanks, I'd been wondering for a long time whether it was that way, or if the networks paid the cable companies for providing a way to distribute all their advertising. The case can be made for both.
My present client is in New York. right now, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision (the owner of Madison Square Garden) are having a battle of how much money Cablevision should receiving from Time Warner. Note that if Time Warner doesn't pay and drops MSG, many New Yorkers simply have to switch to DirecTV and they will suddenly be able to get the MSG network.
Each provider has to pay for all of those things on their own, so they are not included in any of the costs that you would consider as being 'free' for the new guys on the block.
Maybe, but the poster's based his profit calculation on a $40 a month cable bill. Most of that $40 a month pays for content. The posters profit figures are simply wrong and based on completely false assumptions.
Uh, what? You say you pay $40 a month for cable TV and you use that figure to in your multiplication. Then, you point out the profit the cable company makes at $40 a month for Television service. When I point out that a portion of that "profit" has to pay for content, you say, it doesn't count. Most of that $40 a month you pay to Comcast ends up in Disney's (ESPN), General Electric (BRAVO), Viacom (MTV) and News Corp's (FOX) pocket.
I do not understand how you can simply not count that money in your calculation.
Uh, your math is off. You forgot that the cable company has to pay for the content. ESPN isn't free. They also have to pay for office space, utlities (to provide power to the office space), vehicles and insurance.
Note that, in general, I am in favor of opening up the cable "pipe" to competition. I was just pointing that there are infrastructure costs (and, contents costs--thanks for reminding me).
anyone can generate power...and sell it back to the power company
The only reason power companies do this is because the government forces them to purchase the excess power from the homeowners who tie their solar panels into the electric grid. I think it was a cort case, but I don't have a link.
The phone company charges a carrier free to pay for their infrastructure, and the rest of the money goes to the phone company you use. There is no reason this can't happen with cable.
I thought about this reply of yours (along with other replies I have seen). And, I think I can point out how cable is constrained versus your 'traditional' utility firms. Most gas and electric utilities are very regionalized, and do not serve customers all over the country. As such, there are hundreds of potential energy suppliers around the country. A gas company in Pennsylvania does have an interest in finding another market to sell it's natural gas to.
Cable TV (and Telco for that matter) is now becoming condensed into a few large national firms. These firms do not have an interest in competing against each other. So, even if you open up the cable pipe, the small firms that gain access will not be able to become strong competitors (at least for a very, very long time).
Kind of a defeatist attitude on my part, since I do wish they would allow for the competition...
There is competition for cable networks. It's called Satellite TV and/or DSL (I do know the limits of both forms of competition as they relate to both television and internet service). And, in order to overcome those inherent limitations, cable companiesshould be forced to open their internet and TV "pipes" to competing firms. I was simply pointing out that the infrastructure costs have to be accounted for.
The pole line at my old house was over my property -
I have a pole line on my property right now. Note that the right-of-way is granted not only to power lines; it is granted to public highways, sewerage lines and various other items that are deemed necessary for the public welfare. If the government did not grant the right of way over your old property, then cost of the infrastructure would have increased dramatically.
Can you imagine the cost of paying every private property owner in the country for the "right" to deliver power to their neighbor? That would have raised rates to the point where many people would not have been able to afford to use electricity.
Just FYI, deregulation started in the 90s, under Clinton...
Actually, REAL deregulation began under Reagan. I should also point out that Nixon (a Replublican) is the president that institued national Wage and Price controls in an effort to combat inflation. Talk about government regulation....
I note that you are using the past tense. The cost of the infrastructure (in this case "wires") is NOT a one time cost. You have to maintain the wires. The infrastructure is highly complex and, therefore, expensive to maintain.
Before someone calls me a lover of cable TV companies or Telcos note that I do agree with the idea of competition.
When government stops protecting companies and allows FREE MARKET we will all prosper.
I agree with you in theory. But, remember that cable companies have been treated like public utility companies (gas, electric, phone, etc.) since the invention of cable TV. While I agree that there should be some competition, there are limits on how you can provide cable (and or "real" utility) competition.
For example, the electric company has put all of the infrastructure into place for your house to be on the electric grid. Those are sunk capital costs. What if another electric company comes along an offers electricity at half the cost of your present company? Why should your present company allow the new company to use their infrastructure to provide you with power? How does your existing electric company cover the cost of installing and maintaining the infrastructure to and from your house?
Now, replace the word "electric" above with the words either "gas" or "sewerage" or "Cable TV".
Note that I live in Pennsylvania, where the government has made a general effort to promote choice in most of our utility options (with the exception of government sponsored wireless computing). I tend to support free market. However, it is not as simple as most people think. You have to pay for the creation and upkeep of a very complex and expensive infrastructure that interacts directly with the consumer's household.
In your county's defense, not everyone in this country has high-speed options even today, and that is not your county's fault. That is simply the amount of time it takes to put it all of the switches/routers and other equipment to make the high-speed options work. Even so, most of the folks in your county eventually DID have a high-speed choice. It's called DirecTV. They offer a high speed internet option (it's a bit pricey - and it has lag issues, but it is an option).
I think that guy who likes buying spam stuff is driving the average up.
BTW, I would like to make the public announcement that I have a basement filled with cases of VI@AGRA. If anyone wants any, please reply to this post, I'll be more than happy to ship some to you at a reduced cost.
I do not think that word "compile" means what you think it means.
Maybe. Maybe not. I think it means option 3 on this link. The Poster was complaining about the amount of time it took to "compile". I was pointing out that there are multiple reasons why it takes apps a long time to compile, not just chip speed.
One of our companies' apps takes a half hour or so to compile on my 2.4ghz P4M laptop, that's an long, awkward, span of time to sit there drumming your fingers in front of a client.
Since most corporate desktops are rarely 3.2GHz gaming machines with 1 Gig of RAM (in fact, most of the corporate desktops I use are barely more powerful than your laptop), I would first guess that you are running on a wireless network or cable modem. A cable modem is not a T1 line, after all. And, since it is not a T1 line, it takes much longer to compile.
Keep using your laptop with a three hour battery. It may take me five more seconds to open up MS Excel each time, but that five seconds will be meaningless when your machine has run out of battery power.
I think that was about 5 google articles in the past 24 hours.
I win! I had chosen 5 Google articles in 24 hours as part of the pool! Now, Taco, make sure you send the check to my HOME address this time. Not my office.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably bad form to reply twice to the same post, but I found another article. A quick internet search led to this story on the Chinese single-child issue in USA Today. The article is a couple of years old, but it is a very interesting read.
How about this article in Asia News? The article was written in January, 2005. It refers to the rising crime rate that results from increased male-related gang activity.
In a Developing Society (like China), having a wife and many children is very important. What do you do with the thousands of Chinese men that will not have wives and children? Those men feel cultural pressure to get a wife, at any cost.
In many developing countries, it is possible to find hundreds of "sonogram clinics" on the street. Pregnant women go into the clinic in order to find out the sex of the child. If the child is female, there is a high likeliehood that the child will be aborted.
Just to be a Devil's Advocate, I can think of at least one reason. That would be the inevitable inbalance that would occur in the sexes. In China right now, with it's one-child policy, there is a large inbalance in the number of male versus female children. There will be thousands (millions?) of young Chinese men that will not be able to find a mate, simply because there aren't enough women around.
The inability these men will have in finding a mate could have huge negative consequences for the entire Chinese Society. These negative consequences would be one reason why government should be able to prevent you from choosing a male over a female child.
My present client is in New York. right now, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision (the owner of Madison Square Garden) are having a battle of how much money Cablevision should receiving from Time Warner. Note that if Time Warner doesn't pay and drops MSG, many New Yorkers simply have to switch to DirecTV and they will suddenly be able to get the MSG network.
Maybe, but the poster's based his profit calculation on a $40 a month cable bill. Most of that $40 a month pays for content. The posters profit figures are simply wrong and based on completely false assumptions.
Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up with the airline business recently.
Uh, what? You say you pay $40 a month for cable TV and you use that figure to in your multiplication. Then, you point out the profit the cable company makes at $40 a month for Television service. When I point out that a portion of that "profit" has to pay for content, you say, it doesn't count. Most of that $40 a month you pay to Comcast ends up in Disney's (ESPN), General Electric (BRAVO), Viacom (MTV) and News Corp's (FOX) pocket.
I do not understand how you can simply not count that money in your calculation.
Uh, your math is off. You forgot that the cable company has to pay for the content. ESPN isn't free. They also have to pay for office space, utlities (to provide power to the office space), vehicles and insurance.
Note that, in general, I am in favor of opening up the cable "pipe" to competition. I was just pointing that there are infrastructure costs (and, contents costs--thanks for reminding me).
The only reason power companies do this is because the government forces them to purchase the excess power from the homeowners who tie their solar panels into the electric grid. I think it was a cort case, but I don't have a link.
The phone company charges a carrier free to pay for their infrastructure, and the rest of the money goes to the phone company you use. There is no reason this can't happen with cable.I thought about this reply of yours (along with other replies I have seen). And, I think I can point out how cable is constrained versus your 'traditional' utility firms. Most gas and electric utilities are very regionalized, and do not serve customers all over the country. As such, there are hundreds of potential energy suppliers around the country. A gas company in Pennsylvania does have an interest in finding another market to sell it's natural gas to.
Cable TV (and Telco for that matter) is now becoming condensed into a few large national firms. These firms do not have an interest in competing against each other. So, even if you open up the cable pipe, the small firms that gain access will not be able to become strong competitors (at least for a very, very long time).
Kind of a defeatist attitude on my part, since I do wish they would allow for the competition...
There is competition for cable networks. It's called Satellite TV and/or DSL (I do know the limits of both forms of competition as they relate to both television and internet service). And, in order to overcome those inherent limitations, cable companiesshould be forced to open their internet and TV "pipes" to competing firms. I was simply pointing out that the infrastructure costs have to be accounted for.
I have a pole line on my property right now. Note that the right-of-way is granted not only to power lines; it is granted to public highways, sewerage lines and various other items that are deemed necessary for the public welfare. If the government did not grant the right of way over your old property, then cost of the infrastructure would have increased dramatically.
Can you imagine the cost of paying every private property owner in the country for the "right" to deliver power to their neighbor? That would have raised rates to the point where many people would not have been able to afford to use electricity.
Actually, REAL deregulation began under Reagan. I should also point out that Nixon (a Replublican) is the president that institued national Wage and Price controls in an effort to combat inflation. Talk about government regulation....
I note that you are using the past tense. The cost of the infrastructure (in this case "wires") is NOT a one time cost. You have to maintain the wires. The infrastructure is highly complex and, therefore, expensive to maintain.
Before someone calls me a lover of cable TV companies or Telcos note that I do agree with the idea of competition.
I agree with you in theory. But, remember that cable companies have been treated like public utility companies (gas, electric, phone, etc.) since the invention of cable TV. While I agree that there should be some competition, there are limits on how you can provide cable (and or "real" utility) competition.
For example, the electric company has put all of the infrastructure into place for your house to be on the electric grid. Those are sunk capital costs. What if another electric company comes along an offers electricity at half the cost of your present company? Why should your present company allow the new company to use their infrastructure to provide you with power? How does your existing electric company cover the cost of installing and maintaining the infrastructure to and from your house?
Now, replace the word "electric" above with the words either "gas" or "sewerage" or "Cable TV".
Note that I live in Pennsylvania, where the government has made a general effort to promote choice in most of our utility options (with the exception of government sponsored wireless computing). I tend to support free market. However, it is not as simple as most people think. You have to pay for the creation and upkeep of a very complex and expensive infrastructure that interacts directly with the consumer's household.
In your county's defense, not everyone in this country has high-speed options even today, and that is not your county's fault. That is simply the amount of time it takes to put it all of the switches/routers and other equipment to make the high-speed options work. Even so, most of the folks in your county eventually DID have a high-speed choice. It's called DirecTV. They offer a high speed internet option (it's a bit pricey - and it has lag issues, but it is an option).
BTW, I would like to make the public announcement that I have a basement filled with cases of VI@AGRA. If anyone wants any, please reply to this post, I'll be more than happy to ship some to you at a reduced cost.
Maybe. Maybe not. I think it means option 3 on this link. The Poster was complaining about the amount of time it took to "compile". I was pointing out that there are multiple reasons why it takes apps a long time to compile, not just chip speed.
Since most corporate desktops are rarely 3.2GHz gaming machines with 1 Gig of RAM (in fact, most of the corporate desktops I use are barely more powerful than your laptop), I would first guess that you are running on a wireless network or cable modem. A cable modem is not a T1 line, after all. And, since it is not a T1 line, it takes much longer to compile.
Keep using your laptop with a three hour battery. It may take me five more seconds to open up MS Excel each time, but that five seconds will be meaningless when your machine has run out of battery power.
A google story? You should submit it. If it's about Google, you know that the /. editors will accept it.
I have three for you:
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color (or is that colour)?
Just wait, Slashdot will be announcing the Google Cafeteria lunch menu in about an hour.
The editor didn't read it, either.
I win! I had chosen 5 Google articles in 24 hours as part of the pool! Now, Taco, make sure you send the check to my HOME address this time. Not my office.