I don't mean to offend, but if you missed your 500 channels of drivel, why didn't your get cable or satellite? I lived for over a decade in the UK (and some time in Italy too) and saw quite a bit of boring TV, but always appreciated the BBC even when I had hundreds of channels at my click-and-call.
Also, for the record, the while the BBC is a public service, it is not govenrment per se. It is independent - witnessed by the tendency of both Labour and Conservative governments to complain about it for being too anti-governemnt. While I generally think that government should restrict its actions to a very small range of activities, the BBC and its independent funding (the "license" which I disliked paying - call it a user-fee, call it anything but a license) is able to take risks that advertising supported broadcasters do not seem to be able to do. Sure they produce some turkeys, but so does HBO.
Having at one point had the dubious distinction of guiding a company that I worked for through the ISO 9001 certification process, then acting as the "quality manager", perhaps I can shed a bit of light. First of all, for all its reputation, ISO 9001 basically certifies that you follow your own processes, if they are bad processes and you can show that you follow them, then you are in compliance with the standard. Even if you are getting customer complaints, if you have and follow procedures to deal with them, then you are in compliance with the standard. If your regular internal and periodic external audits find "discrepancies", you have a period of time to address them, usually at least 6 months and then be re-audited. The whole process of re-auditing, probation and theoretical revocation takes quite a bit of time - and to be honest, the certification companies do not want to take the drastic step because they get paid to do these audits. Re-audits make them money. Revocation looses them a customer. Expect Diebold to remain ISO 9001 certified for some time.
Hmmm, I stand corrected. Thanks... another childhood recollection bites the dust. But you can't deny the facts about the Easter Bunny, it was here just the other day. That too? How sad, but the day has not been wasted, I have learned something new, and oddly enough been at least temporarily modded up for the effort.
I don't know why I am responding to an AC, but for the record, and to clear this up once and for all, the World Series is not named so as to imply global significance, its orginal sponsor was a newspaper called the New York World.
On the subject of similar ideas, does anyone remember ThirdVoice? It started out as a way for users to leave comments on websites, but before it died in 2001, I seem to remember it transforming into more of an ad network. Feel free to correct me on this point. At any rate, it was quite close to the smart tags idea.
Choice is nothing new, it's just that the types of choices we all have are changing.
people may feel overwhelmed by the breadth of choices
All, true, we have always had to choose, but now, not only are the types of choices changing, so people are having to make choices in new areas where they have little information, but in the explosion of choices, the basis for choosing between options is often not clear. Many consumer markets are full of "me too" competitors or product, brand and sub-brand proliferation where there is little meaningfull difference between options with respect to my needs for I a DPA, car, phone, shampoo or breakfast ceral- too much information with little differentiation is produces just as much uncertainty as too little information. "Analysis paralysis" is less likely to occur where meaningful differences exist, but with the lack of real, lasting proprietary innovation in a marketplace full of "fast followers" in too many product areas, these differences often don't exist. Choice good, let's have better choices. In the meantime, pass the cognac please
Re:Seems Like the Wrong Way to Do Things
on
ICANN Meets Annan
·
· Score: 2
Sounds to me like the lesser of two evils--we've all seen the types of politics involved in the UN
What makes this even worse, is that when some one says "the UN should have a greater role in regulating the Internet" they are being vague in the extreme. Have a look at the UN system,
there is an incredible range of how various bodies operate - so what exactly are they thinking about? Surely not a politicized talking shop? Then what, something like the ILO, ITU or World Bank? How would it increase technical efficiency? What are the problems that have to be solved and how would the specific institutional proposal address these. There is nothing on the table aside from "we can't trust the Americans" and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this. I am a big fan of the UN and impressed at what has been achieved by bodies such as the WHO, but to argue that such bodies make quicker decisions than ICAAN can or are superior technically than other models of standards bodies such as the WWW Consortium without actually proposing anything is a bit premature.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
I fully agree with you that the narrow focus on economic rationales for space programs, and well, pretty much anything else. Our lives - and our societies - are more than a pareto optimality with the end result prefaced by a dollar sign. The problem for policy makers is, among other things, how do you spend money on grand space visions when social security is running out of money, public services have little money and millions of Americans are without primary healthcare? For the moon program, there was the political justification Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. It would be difficult to fit space exploration into the current national security focus on terrorism. Should China finally get it's act together, there might be something in that, but Sino-US rivalry would have to develop well beyond what it is now.
The problem as I see it is, that while money is easy to measure - which is why everyone defaults to metrics based on money - and national security never seems to need hard data to launch a vision, on what basis do you make a substantial national commitment to space exploration that will get broad support. While it would not be too difficult to get support from the likes of Slashdot readers for the kinds of reasons that you cite:
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages
How do you get broad popular support behind a vision like this and sustain in for the time required to see it though? A vision like the one articulated earlier this year by President Bush is largely meaningless because the long time-frame suggested that it was a commitment for other presidents to keep and fight for the budget appropriations. In contrast, while JFK's decade long vision would have extended beyond a second term, a sizable proportion of the program would have been completed under his administration. A commitment that you do not have to keep is not really a serious commitment and even this painless promise did not really take off - although, of course, it does not look like there will be any serious political capital expended on it.
Perhaps the problem boils down to how to ignite a real vision in this area when the country is split down the middle poltically, every thing becomes a partisan issue and so becames part of the "Culture Wars" and fewer and fewer Americans are actively engaged in the poltical process. With all this, what is the argument that is going to make the case for space exploration and who is going to make it?
It's possible that everyone who posts to this thread will actually RTFA
Maybe... It was only on my second run through the slide show that I actually noticed that there was text underneath the picture saying what the technology was and what it is supposed to do. Of course, how often do you "re-read" the article, so you are right, it is a first.
I'll lay money on it that they outlaw personal RFID blockers/jammers
Should such things become available, they may focus on regulating them to restrict their ability to interfer with other systems. Personal radio systems are allowed for things such as Bluetooth, and, of more relevance, devices, ranging from in-car hands-free cell phone units to homekaraoke mikes, that make use of the otherwise heavily regulated FM frequencies.
Any regulation may limit the effectiveness of the devices, but I would expect clever designers to come out with things like wallets, purses, backpacks, briefcases etc. Of course, I am still looking for a foil lined baseball cap, but I am sure that they are out there.
Stations can keep broadcasting in both standards later than 2006 if fewer than 85% of the viewers in their markets own the necessary equipment to receive digital signals. If they meet the 85% mark (fat chance, I agree), then they can turn off the "old fashioned" signals and the bandwidth will be auctioned off.
2006 is a noteworthy point because the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has mandated a changeover from NTSC to ATSC by the end of 2006, provided that the technology has achieved 85% market penetration by then.
Lets everyone get away from the term "loyalty card" that was used in the summary (the term "club card" has been used in anther post too.) Face it, when you think about how most people actually used them, they are not about loyalty. Where there are competing local suppliers in any given category people tend to have more than one "loyalty card". The stores are not buying loyalty, they are buying information. Perhaps more people should be aware of what they are actually doing - they might want to sell their privacy a little more dearly, then again they might not. I would imagine that many people will figure that they will be buying food anyway, and stores can collect transaction data, even if they can't link it to one household, so they might as well get something out of it. Now if only list sellers that turn our magazine subscriptions into junk mail flows would pay us for our information.
It's interesting that this story should break at the same time that
Wired News is running
a story (or rather another story, they ran the first yesterday) about
Perverted Justice an organisation that takes it upon
itself to expose perverts hunting for children in chatrooms. The techniques and tactics of the two
sets of vigilantes are completely different, but both are examples of what are in effect user
regulation of the online environment.
It astonishes me that people don't care to learn about something they use every day, for perhaps hours on end.
For better or worse, the only way that a technology can really take off to this extent is for it to become "easy to use". In the long run you get near ubiquitous diffusion not by having to be aware of something, but by it becoming invisible. How many drivers can repair their cars? How many people really undestand how the elecricity in their house works? When people can use something without caring about how it works, it takes off. Unfortunately, with computer technology, that leaves them open to ID theft, viruses etc. I suspect that the answer will not be educated users but more idiot proof systems to hand over to them.
I think the main "advantage" is really more of a difference - i.e. that it can be more easily adapted (and adopted) as a technology for transactions and exchanges because of the contact element. This, presumably assumes that there will be less user resistance to a transaction technology that requires a positive action controlled by the user rather than a passive "sweep" by an external reader or even a (theoretically) interceptable transmission. Just a guess, I am sure that I will be "corrected".
Re:After reading the article all I can say is
on
Junkie Loves His Spam
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
FREAK!!!
I think the term you were looking for is "sad pathetic freak!!!". Bookmark this page and if you are ever feeling a little down, re-read this and reflect on the sad empty life that this guy leads. He responds to spam as a way to get gratification, sure all impulse shoppers do this, but at some point, you have to wonder if the attraction of spam over surfing for the same trash is that the direct request gives him the impression that some one is paying attention to him, so he responds positively in order to please the attention giver . So very sad, especially when you consider that his actions impose third party costs on all of us by encouraging spammers.
i've seen these machines in operation, it is very cool to see
I've seen them too, and with reference to some of the other posts on this subject questionning the level of detail for windows and contours etc., let me add that the detail from these machines is outstanding, if the extrusion nozzle(s) for the house building system can come close there is really nothing that it couldn't put in, even if it were to be the grooves and fittings for other materials to be added once the main structure has been build - after all, you wouldn't necessarily make the window frames and sills from the same material that you build the main structure.
This seems to be a larger version (albeit by an order of magnitudes) of the kind of technology that has been employed in rapid prototyping and model making for manufacturing an other applications for quite some time. See, for example
this and this.
Good question, I tend to share your indifference about things like Orkut and Friendster, however I can see why they are of interest.
The internet and WWW are more than information technologies or even communications technologies, one of the most complelling uses for them are as technologies for maintaining relationships aka relationship technologies (and yes, I realize that differentiating this from communications might seem difficult, but for now lets leave it at communications being an important part of a relationship). The importance of relationship technologies can be seen in how instant messaging, chat and especially email have driven the widespread adoption of technology. These social networks are really just the latest experiment. Whether or not it will succeed to the point where they are as ubiquitous as email or IM is questionable. Nevertheless they are worthy of some attention, and possibly even the occassional front page post on Slashdot as examples of how technology is being applied to the important aspects of peoples daily lives and thus being ever more embedded in these lives.
More generally, the study of social networks are helpful for understanding things ranging from power relationships in society to the adoption and diffusion of innovation, not, of course, that Orkut or Friendster is likely to help with this aspect.
Agreed, that (a) the author's conclusions about productivity gains is a complete non sequitur and (b) this should be nipped in the bud, so I will lay aside my own essay in micro-economics, which as you might guess, would have focused a great deal on the elasticity of demand. In the end we would both be right because there are a number of different definitions of *commodity* depending on where you are in economics, and I suspect that we are both too busy for this and would be modded to the floor.
I think you were closer with the first part of your answer i.e. usually a commodity is cheap and has lots of competition. It is not necessarily something that is used to make other stuff - that is a raw material or an intermediate product. A commodity is an undifferentiated product for which the output of any one producer can not be meaningfully distinguished from that of any other producer. The point is, therefore, that the producer has little or no pricing power in the absence of a producers' cartel or other market distorting mechanism.
This would seem to be the perfect additional functionality to the
proposed video cell phone technology proposed by a Hong Kong company that would enable users to set a background picture of there choice. Having the righ background noise would make much more effective. Here's the missing ??? before profit!
Presumably if a company wants to claim intellectual property rights over, for example, a consumer information database, they will pay me for use of information about me. I happen to keep quite a lot of data in various records. I would be willing license use of this information to other database providers for a small payment. Kidding aside, if they are going to claim some form of rights over data and not just how it is presented, they are going to have recognise the interests of individual data subjects.
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I was responding the original poster's assertion that in general two parties are on equal grounds when one has pertinent information that the other does not.
What I meant to convey was an equally general point about the importance of information symmetry/asymmetry in decision making and by extension to point out that in the question he poses, that it might indeed be the employer's role to let employees know about the risks that they face. That is, if one party has important information about the risks involved that the other party does not have, then the two parties are not on 'equal ground' with respect to their ability to decide on risk. That's it: questioning the validity of a statement that seemed to have a logical inconsistency. No 'pushing' for legislation. No absolution of individuals for taking responsibility for their actions, even in the presence of information asymmetries.
Whether or not this is insightful is another question, the answer to which depends on the black-box that is the moderating system and your own view as to the potential impact of information asymmetries on parties' ability to assess risk meaningfully. You are correct that it is reasonable to assume that a party will ask a relevant question, just as it is to assume that a party will disclose all relevant information spontaineously. However, I think that there is a greater burden on the party with the information. Information symmetry is critical to the operation of a free market and at the heart of many of the Wall Street criminal investigations of the past few years.
In terms of the sort of issue referred to in the post to which I was responding, we take on risk everyday with an implicit assumption that aspects of that risk are being controlled by other parties and so not enquiring as to the specifics of our exposure to risk. When I go to a restaurant, I do not ask the waiter if the food that they are providing me is fit for human consumption. In the absence of rotting meat or mould on the cutlery, I assume that it is and would be surprised to come down with food poisoning afterwards. Were it to transpire that the restaurant had known that it was contaminated, I do not think that the fact that I didn't ask would absolve the restaurant's operators of liability. As another example, since IBM provided safety gear, it might have been reasonable for the employees to expect that so far as the company knew, it was adequate protection. In this instance, the court decision suggests that company acted reasonably. At the same time, it is possible that employees (in general rather than with reference to a specific case) can act reasonably in the face of an unknown information asymmetry and still not ask the questions that you or I would ask.
We seem to agree on the importance of individuals taking reasonable care for their own welfare but that wasn't the point that I was trying to make. I suspect that we also agree that there are too many drones around.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to offend, but if you missed your 500 channels of drivel, why didn't your get cable or satellite? I lived for over a decade in the UK (and some time in Italy too) and saw quite a bit of boring TV, but always appreciated the BBC even when I had hundreds of channels at my click-and-call. Also, for the record, the while the BBC is a public service, it is not govenrment per se. It is independent - witnessed by the tendency of both Labour and Conservative governments to complain about it for being too anti-governemnt. While I generally think that government should restrict its actions to a very small range of activities, the BBC and its independent funding (the "license" which I disliked paying - call it a user-fee, call it anything but a license) is able to take risks that advertising supported broadcasters do not seem to be able to do. Sure they produce some turkeys, but so does HBO.
Having at one point had the dubious distinction of guiding a company that I worked for through the ISO 9001 certification process, then acting as the "quality manager", perhaps I can shed a bit of light. First of all, for all its reputation, ISO 9001 basically certifies that you follow your own processes, if they are bad processes and you can show that you follow them, then you are in compliance with the standard. Even if you are getting customer complaints, if you have and follow procedures to deal with them, then you are in compliance with the standard. If your regular internal and periodic external audits find "discrepancies", you have a period of time to address them, usually at least 6 months and then be re-audited. The whole process of re-auditing, probation and theoretical revocation takes quite a bit of time - and to be honest, the certification companies do not want to take the drastic step because they get paid to do these audits. Re-audits make them money. Revocation looses them a customer. Expect Diebold to remain ISO 9001 certified for some time.
Hmmm, I stand corrected. Thanks... another childhood recollection bites the dust. But you can't deny the facts about the Easter Bunny, it was here just the other day. That too? How sad, but the day has not been wasted, I have learned something new, and oddly enough been at least temporarily modded up for the effort.
I don't know why I am responding to an AC, but for the record, and to clear this up once and for all, the World Series is not named so as to imply global significance, its orginal sponsor was a newspaper called the New York World.
On the subject of similar ideas, does anyone remember ThirdVoice? It started out as a way for users to leave comments on websites, but before it died in 2001, I seem to remember it transforming into more of an ad network. Feel free to correct me on this point. At any rate, it was quite close to the smart tags idea.
Choice is nothing new, it's just that the types of choices we all have are changing.
people may feel overwhelmed by the breadth of choices
All, true, we have always had to choose, but now, not only are the types of choices changing, so people are having to make choices in new areas where they have little information, but in the explosion of choices, the basis for choosing between options is often not clear. Many consumer markets are full of "me too" competitors or product, brand and sub-brand proliferation where there is little meaningfull difference between options with respect to my needs for I a DPA, car, phone, shampoo or breakfast ceral- too much information with little differentiation is produces just as much uncertainty as too little information. "Analysis paralysis" is less likely to occur where meaningful differences exist, but with the lack of real, lasting proprietary innovation in a marketplace full of "fast followers" in too many product areas, these differences often don't exist. Choice good, let's have better choices. In the meantime, pass the cognac please
Sounds to me like the lesser of two evils--we've all seen the types of politics involved in the UN
What makes this even worse, is that when some one says "the UN should have a greater role in regulating the Internet" they are being vague in the extreme. Have a look at the UN system, there is an incredible range of how various bodies operate - so what exactly are they thinking about? Surely not a politicized talking shop? Then what, something like the ILO, ITU or World Bank? How would it increase technical efficiency? What are the problems that have to be solved and how would the specific institutional proposal address these. There is nothing on the table aside from "we can't trust the Americans" and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this. I am a big fan of the UN and impressed at what has been achieved by bodies such as the WHO, but to argue that such bodies make quicker decisions than ICAAN can or are superior technically than other models of standards bodies such as the WWW Consortium without actually proposing anything is a bit premature.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
I fully agree with you that the narrow focus on economic rationales for space programs, and well, pretty much anything else. Our lives - and our societies - are more than a pareto optimality with the end result prefaced by a dollar sign. The problem for policy makers is, among other things, how do you spend money on grand space visions when social security is running out of money, public services have little money and millions of Americans are without primary healthcare? For the moon program, there was the political justification Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. It would be difficult to fit space exploration into the current national security focus on terrorism. Should China finally get it's act together, there might be something in that, but Sino-US rivalry would have to develop well beyond what it is now.
The problem as I see it is, that while money is easy to measure - which is why everyone defaults to metrics based on money - and national security never seems to need hard data to launch a vision, on what basis do you make a substantial national commitment to space exploration that will get broad support. While it would not be too difficult to get support from the likes of Slashdot readers for the kinds of reasons that you cite:
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages
How do you get broad popular support behind a vision like this and sustain in for the time required to see it though? A vision like the one articulated earlier this year by President Bush is largely meaningless because the long time-frame suggested that it was a commitment for other presidents to keep and fight for the budget appropriations. In contrast, while JFK's decade long vision would have extended beyond a second term, a sizable proportion of the program would have been completed under his administration. A commitment that you do not have to keep is not really a serious commitment and even this painless promise did not really take off - although, of course, it does not look like there will be any serious political capital expended on it.
Perhaps the problem boils down to how to ignite a real vision in this area when the country is split down the middle poltically, every thing becomes a partisan issue and so becames part of the "Culture Wars" and fewer and fewer Americans are actively engaged in the poltical process. With all this, what is the argument that is going to make the case for space exploration and who is going to make it?
It's possible that everyone who posts to this thread will actually RTFA
Maybe... It was only on my second run through the slide show that I actually noticed that there was text underneath the picture saying what the technology was and what it is supposed to do. Of course, how often do you "re-read" the article, so you are right, it is a first.
I'll lay money on it that they outlaw personal RFID blockers/jammers
Should such things become available, they may focus on regulating them to restrict their ability to interfer with other systems. Personal radio systems are allowed for things such as Bluetooth, and, of more relevance, devices, ranging from in-car hands-free cell phone units to homekaraoke mikes, that make use of the otherwise heavily regulated FM frequencies.
Any regulation may limit the effectiveness of the devices, but I would expect clever designers to come out with things like wallets, purses, backpacks, briefcases etc. Of course, I am still looking for a foil lined baseball cap, but I am sure that they are out there.
Stations can keep broadcasting in both standards later than 2006 if fewer than 85% of the viewers in their markets own the necessary equipment to receive digital signals. If they meet the 85% mark (fat chance, I agree), then they can turn off the "old fashioned" signals and the bandwidth will be auctioned off.
2006 is a noteworthy point because the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has mandated a changeover from NTSC to ATSC by the end of 2006, provided that the technology has achieved 85% market penetration by then.
Lets everyone get away from the term "loyalty card" that was used in the summary (the term "club card" has been used in anther post too.) Face it, when you think about how most people actually used them, they are not about loyalty. Where there are competing local suppliers in any given category people tend to have more than one "loyalty card". The stores are not buying loyalty, they are buying information. Perhaps more people should be aware of what they are actually doing - they might want to sell their privacy a little more dearly, then again they might not. I would imagine that many people will figure that they will be buying food anyway, and stores can collect transaction data, even if they can't link it to one household, so they might as well get something out of it. Now if only list sellers that turn our magazine subscriptions into junk mail flows would pay us for our information.
It's interesting that this story should break at the same time that Wired News is running a story (or rather another story, they ran the first yesterday) about Perverted Justice an organisation that takes it upon itself to expose perverts hunting for children in chatrooms. The techniques and tactics of the two sets of vigilantes are completely different, but both are examples of what are in effect user regulation of the online environment.
It astonishes me that people don't care to learn about something they use every day, for perhaps hours on end.
For better or worse, the only way that a technology can really take off to this extent is for it to become "easy to use". In the long run you get near ubiquitous diffusion not by having to be aware of something, but by it becoming invisible. How many drivers can repair their cars? How many people really undestand how the elecricity in their house works? When people can use something without caring about how it works, it takes off. Unfortunately, with computer technology, that leaves them open to ID theft, viruses etc. I suspect that the answer will not be educated users but more idiot proof systems to hand over to them.
I think the main "advantage" is really more of a difference - i.e. that it can be more easily adapted (and adopted) as a technology for transactions and exchanges because of the contact element. This, presumably assumes that there will be less user resistance to a transaction technology that requires a positive action controlled by the user rather than a passive "sweep" by an external reader or even a (theoretically) interceptable transmission. Just a guess, I am sure that I will be "corrected".
FREAK!!!
I think the term you were looking for is "sad pathetic freak!!!". Bookmark this page and if you are ever feeling a little down, re-read this and reflect on the sad empty life that this guy leads. He responds to spam as a way to get gratification, sure all impulse shoppers do this, but at some point, you have to wonder if the attraction of spam over surfing for the same trash is that the direct request gives him the impression that some one is paying attention to him, so he responds positively in order to please the attention giver . So very sad, especially when you consider that his actions impose third party costs on all of us by encouraging spammers.
i've seen these machines in operation, it is very cool to see
I've seen them too, and with reference to some of the other posts on this subject questionning the level of detail for windows and contours etc., let me add that the detail from these machines is outstanding, if the extrusion nozzle(s) for the house building system can come close there is really nothing that it couldn't put in, even if it were to be the grooves and fittings for other materials to be added once the main structure has been build - after all, you wouldn't necessarily make the window frames and sills from the same material that you build the main structure.
This seems to be a larger version (albeit by an order of magnitudes) of the kind of technology that has been employed in rapid prototyping and model making for manufacturing an other applications for quite some time. See, for example this and this.
Good question, I tend to share your indifference about things like Orkut and Friendster, however I can see why they are of interest.
The internet and WWW are more than information technologies or even communications technologies, one of the most complelling uses for them are as technologies for maintaining relationships aka relationship technologies (and yes, I realize that differentiating this from communications might seem difficult, but for now lets leave it at communications being an important part of a relationship). The importance of relationship technologies can be seen in how instant messaging, chat and especially email have driven the widespread adoption of technology. These social networks are really just the latest experiment. Whether or not it will succeed to the point where they are as ubiquitous as email or IM is questionable. Nevertheless they are worthy of some attention, and possibly even the occassional front page post on Slashdot as examples of how technology is being applied to the important aspects of peoples daily lives and thus being ever more embedded in these lives.
More generally, the study of social networks are helpful for understanding things ranging from power relationships in society to the adoption and diffusion of innovation, not, of course, that Orkut or Friendster is likely to help with this aspect.
Agreed, that (a) the author's conclusions about productivity gains is a complete non sequitur and (b) this should be nipped in the bud, so I will lay aside my own essay in micro-economics, which as you might guess, would have focused a great deal on the elasticity of demand. In the end we would both be right because there are a number of different definitions of *commodity* depending on where you are in economics, and I suspect that we are both too busy for this and would be modded to the floor.
I think you were closer with the first part of your answer i.e. usually a commodity is cheap and has lots of competition. It is not necessarily something that is used to make other stuff - that is a raw material or an intermediate product. A commodity is an undifferentiated product for which the output of any one producer can not be meaningfully distinguished from that of any other producer. The point is, therefore, that the producer has little or no pricing power in the absence of a producers' cartel or other market distorting mechanism.
This would seem to be the perfect additional functionality to the proposed video cell phone technology proposed by a Hong Kong company that would enable users to set a background picture of there choice. Having the righ background noise would make much more effective. Here's the missing ??? before profit!
Presumably if a company wants to claim intellectual property rights over, for example, a consumer information database, they will pay me for use of information about me. I happen to keep quite a lot of data in various records. I would be willing license use of this information to other database providers for a small payment. Kidding aside, if they are going to claim some form of rights over data and not just how it is presented, they are going to have recognise the interests of individual data subjects.
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I was responding the original poster's assertion that in general two parties are on equal grounds when one has pertinent information that the other does not.
What I meant to convey was an equally general point about the importance of information symmetry/asymmetry in decision making and by extension to point out that in the question he poses, that it might indeed be the employer's role to let employees know about the risks that they face. That is, if one party has important information about the risks involved that the other party does not have, then the two parties are not on 'equal ground' with respect to their ability to decide on risk. That's it: questioning the validity of a statement that seemed to have a logical inconsistency. No 'pushing' for legislation. No absolution of individuals for taking responsibility for their actions, even in the presence of information asymmetries.
Whether or not this is insightful is another question, the answer to which depends on the black-box that is the moderating system and your own view as to the potential impact of information asymmetries on parties' ability to assess risk meaningfully. You are correct that it is reasonable to assume that a party will ask a relevant question, just as it is to assume that a party will disclose all relevant information spontaineously. However, I think that there is a greater burden on the party with the information. Information symmetry is critical to the operation of a free market and at the heart of many of the Wall Street criminal investigations of the past few years.
In terms of the sort of issue referred to in the post to which I was responding, we take on risk everyday with an implicit assumption that aspects of that risk are being controlled by other parties and so not enquiring as to the specifics of our exposure to risk. When I go to a restaurant, I do not ask the waiter if the food that they are providing me is fit for human consumption. In the absence of rotting meat or mould on the cutlery, I assume that it is and would be surprised to come down with food poisoning afterwards. Were it to transpire that the restaurant had known that it was contaminated, I do not think that the fact that I didn't ask would absolve the restaurant's operators of liability. As another example, since IBM provided safety gear, it might have been reasonable for the employees to expect that so far as the company knew, it was adequate protection. In this instance, the court decision suggests that company acted reasonably. At the same time, it is possible that employees (in general rather than with reference to a specific case) can act reasonably in the face of an unknown information asymmetry and still not ask the questions that you or I would ask.
We seem to agree on the importance of individuals taking reasonable care for their own welfare but that wasn't the point that I was trying to make. I suspect that we also agree that there are too many drones around.