Re:Thinkgeek has been making these for ages
on
Aquarium Modcase
·
· Score: 1
"my German is just a little rusty"
Its very rusty.
The article is in Danish for a start.
So's my Danish
Thinkgeek has been making these for ages
on
Aquarium Modcase
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Thinkgeek has been selling these very things for ages. Same case, same aquarium kit. Did he buy the thing from Thinkgeek? (apologies if it says in the article... my German is just a little rusty;))
palladium's only hope for adoption, is in possible restrictions on running unsigned code.
Even if palladium restricted unsigned code, it should be very easy to slip hidden code intended to break DRM into a seemingly valid package waiting to get signed. The only way to prevent this is to inspect the source code, but obviously, this approach would never work. Anyone who's traced program execution knows this is time consuming work; to exhaustively audit all software packages is simply impossible. It's like airport security; MS makes everyone go through a security check to get into the airport. The longer the check, the greater the security, and the more frustrated everyone gets with the wait. But it all goes for naught when someone does get past the security. Okay, it's oversimplified, but you get the idea. That doesn't even include the fact that the security people have a conflict of interest; they'll be keeping anyone they want from "catching their flight", so to speak.
How in the world do you go about deciding whether to sign code or not? I don't see any practical way to achieve this kind of security.
Less efficient production means either lower wages (i.e. lower than in the existing factories, which are on the poverty line already)
Though I agree with the idea that making more, cheaper, would be an excellent solution, this isn't always a practical solution to implement. More often than not, more efficient means fewer humans involved in production. This is great when factories can just keep cropping up thanks to the availability of capital to employ the workforce, but to my knowledge the human resources tend to outstrip factory employment opportunities in third world countries.
The idea is that there may be an advantage in that these bicycles aren't practical for factory production. The design works best when made by hand; if many should be built, this would require a large number of hands working on many bicycles all at once. Considering the extremely large number of people with absolutely NO income, at least it offers the opportunity to put food on the table, or pay for medicine, or what have you.
Less efficient production means either lower wages (i.e. lower than in the existing factories, which are on the poverty line already) or higher prices
Yes, workers building these bicycles for production would either be producing at incredibly low wages, or would be producing a madly expensive product. But if you can make the small, yet critical leap from essentially scavenging for food and clean water to being able to afford at least a shot at a healthier life, then that's an improvement. It won't put them over the poverty line, but it will distance these people struggling to eke out an existance from disease and death. These people are at a point where any little bit counts.
Again, I see evidence of the modern concept of economics being put into play where perhaps a "blast to the past" might work better. I'm not talking about yanking countries into the 21st century in one giant leap, but slowly building more of a barebones economy sufficient to improve quality of life to some degree, in the regions that most need it. Perhaps approaching production by aligning a large number of people on a single task could transform extremely poor, isolated communities into just really, really poor communities.
Furthermore, it costs virtually nothing to get a group of people started at this, other than time learning how to make bamboo bicycles. Opening a factory costs money that the vast majority of people and even groups can't afford. If people are willing to work at shockingly low rates for the shot at gaining a little control over their destinies, then that's an improvement.
As for the actual safety of the bikes, that's obviously something to take into account when considering whether the market can work at all or not. However, so far there isn't any real data to tell you that these are particularly unreliable. Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't bamboo have a tiny bit more give to it than metal, thus allowing it to withstand shock a little better? I seem to remember something about bamboo structures withstanding earthquakes remarkably well.
Given how eco-friendly a steel-framed bike is, it's probably counterproductive to devote attention to an alternative that would probably be fundamentally unsuited to mass production.
Perhaps the modern mindset focusing on cheap, automated labour processes isn't the best suited for third world countries?
Not only are third world countries generally lacking in affordable and effective public transport systems, they're high in unemployment. Even if a bamboo bike offers no functional advantage over steel bikes, the very fact that it is innefficient to produce (according to our industrialized standards) may actually be a boon for third world production. It is low tech, requires very little existing infrastructure, and has the added benefit that it needs a great deal of manual labour and care to build. As far as I can tell, mass producing these bicycles would open up a very large number of regularly paid, unskilled jobs, in addition to a number of trained jobs.
Splitting the design process into bamboo harvest, selection, sorting, cutting to size/shape and whatever other processes are needed, then reselection and finally the master craft of assembly opens up an alternative to industrial mass production that relies instead on untapped human resources. Perhaps it's this sort of "back to the basics" production plan that is better suited to improving the economic infrastructure neccessary to improve the standard of living in 3rd world countries? Maybe this is the real reason a bamboo bike makes sense?
I'm not an economist, obviously, so correct me if I'm wrong.
BTW... FIRST POST!
Slashdot Mirror
"my German is just a little rusty"
Its very rusty.
The article is in Danish for a start.
So's my Danish
Thinkgeek has been selling these very things for ages. Same case, same aquarium kit. Did he buy the thing from Thinkgeek? (apologies if it says in the article... my German is just a little rusty ;))
As Chagatai (524580) mentioned earlier, that'd take a lot of cooperation from the cows ;)
palladium's only hope for adoption, is in possible restrictions on running unsigned code.
Even if palladium restricted unsigned code, it should be very easy to slip hidden code intended to break DRM into a seemingly valid package waiting to get signed. The only way to prevent this is to inspect the source code, but obviously, this approach would never work. Anyone who's traced program execution knows this is time consuming work; to exhaustively audit all software packages is simply impossible. It's like airport security; MS makes everyone go through a security check to get into the airport. The longer the check, the greater the security, and the more frustrated everyone gets with the wait. But it all goes for naught when someone does get past the security. Okay, it's oversimplified, but you get the idea. That doesn't even include the fact that the security people have a conflict of interest; they'll be keeping anyone they want from "catching their flight", so to speak.
How in the world do you go about deciding whether to sign code or not? I don't see any practical way to achieve this kind of security.
Less efficient production means either lower wages (i.e. lower than in the existing factories, which are on the poverty line already)
Though I agree with the idea that making more, cheaper, would be an excellent solution, this isn't always a practical solution to implement. More often than not, more efficient means fewer humans involved in production. This is great when factories can just keep cropping up thanks to the availability of capital to employ the workforce, but to my knowledge the human resources tend to outstrip factory employment opportunities in third world countries.
The idea is that there may be an advantage in that these bicycles aren't practical for factory production. The design works best when made by hand; if many should be built, this would require a large number of hands working on many bicycles all at once. Considering the extremely large number of people with absolutely NO income, at least it offers the opportunity to put food on the table, or pay for medicine, or what have you.
Less efficient production means either lower wages (i.e. lower than in the existing factories, which are on the poverty line already) or higher prices
Yes, workers building these bicycles for production would either be producing at incredibly low wages, or would be producing a madly expensive product. But if you can make the small, yet critical leap from essentially scavenging for food and clean water to being able to afford at least a shot at a healthier life, then that's an improvement. It won't put them over the poverty line, but it will distance these people struggling to eke out an existance from disease and death. These people are at a point where any little bit counts.
Again, I see evidence of the modern concept of economics being put into play where perhaps a "blast to the past" might work better. I'm not talking about yanking countries into the 21st century in one giant leap, but slowly building more of a barebones economy sufficient to improve quality of life to some degree, in the regions that most need it. Perhaps approaching production by aligning a large number of people on a single task could transform extremely poor, isolated communities into just really, really poor communities.
Furthermore, it costs virtually nothing to get a group of people started at this, other than time learning how to make bamboo bicycles. Opening a factory costs money that the vast majority of people and even groups can't afford. If people are willing to work at shockingly low rates for the shot at gaining a little control over their destinies, then that's an improvement. As for the actual safety of the bikes, that's obviously something to take into account when considering whether the market can work at all or not. However, so far there isn't any real data to tell you that these are particularly unreliable. Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't bamboo have a tiny bit more give to it than metal, thus allowing it to withstand shock a little better? I seem to remember something about bamboo structures withstanding earthquakes remarkably well.
Given how eco-friendly a steel-framed bike is, it's probably counterproductive to devote attention to an alternative that would probably be fundamentally unsuited to mass production. Perhaps the modern mindset focusing on cheap, automated labour processes isn't the best suited for third world countries? Not only are third world countries generally lacking in affordable and effective public transport systems, they're high in unemployment. Even if a bamboo bike offers no functional advantage over steel bikes, the very fact that it is innefficient to produce (according to our industrialized standards) may actually be a boon for third world production. It is low tech, requires very little existing infrastructure, and has the added benefit that it needs a great deal of manual labour and care to build. As far as I can tell, mass producing these bicycles would open up a very large number of regularly paid, unskilled jobs, in addition to a number of trained jobs. Splitting the design process into bamboo harvest, selection, sorting, cutting to size/shape and whatever other processes are needed, then reselection and finally the master craft of assembly opens up an alternative to industrial mass production that relies instead on untapped human resources. Perhaps it's this sort of "back to the basics" production plan that is better suited to improving the economic infrastructure neccessary to improve the standard of living in 3rd world countries? Maybe this is the real reason a bamboo bike makes sense? I'm not an economist, obviously, so correct me if I'm wrong. BTW... FIRST POST!