I'm not blaming: it's normal that small print runs cost a lot... I don't have a problem with that. I also think it is a good idea to keep a relationship with a printer that produces good quality work.
The previous poster said that $3-4 would cover all the costs including printing, and that's manifestly false if the printing alone costs that much.
Try again. I've seen printing costs be as much as CAD$4.5 per book- the smaller the print run, the more expensive it is. And no, that does not include labor costs, which on runs of about 2,000 for some Canadian small runs- well, it's a different situation than a big 1st year American textbook.
Look, I thought I was clear: you ARE being gouged. By resellers and big publishers. Know your enemy, and know that your whining about wanting $20 textbooks make you sound like a goof. You'll never get anything changed that way.
Few professors adopt a text the first year, and by year 5 it starts dropping off rather dramatically. You wouldn't want to print 10 years worth of textbooks at once, as it costs more to have it in a warehouse than order a reprint. Plus, if you don't put out a new edition, professors often buy another one- it's to profs we push the books, and their behaviour makes it expensive to "push some books on a class".
I assure you that if publishers could cut the price of salespeople, they only would be too glad to do so.
As for the cost of foreign books... a lot of them are cheaper because they are co-published, and a lot of those (say) Indian books are edited in North America and sold at cut-rate to publishing houses there because that is what the market will bear. With a few rare exceptions, cheap foreign books are poorly printed, and importantly for university social science markets- not relevant to the national context. Canadian professors want Canadian examples, Americans want to study American rather than British examples. But generally we don't offshore for many of the same reasons we don't want to offshore strategic IT work- the cost savings simply do not justify the risk. And when we do have one nice big print run to lower prices, shipping the damned things takes a pretty hefty hunk of change.
If you don't believe me, read up on the industry, or go ask a publisher (especially a small one). What I say might start to sound less ridiculous.:)
I worked 2 years in publishing and sales representation to the academic market.
*Advice on bringing down the prices of books appear below the rant*
[rant] So there's a few things I'd like to set straight, especially for the whiny bunch (you can't bring prices down if you don't know who's responsible): -trade stores buy books at 60% of the cover price -university bookstores buy at 80% of the cover (a 25% markup) -print runs on all but the most popular books (think 1st year intro) are ridiculously small -professors are lucky if they make 10% of the cover price. Even if that amounts to $5,000, a tenured professor would expect to make more money than that for a few hundred hours of work. (It's not the money: it's publish or perish).
So, the university bookstore is obviously not making massive amounts of money, nor is the author(s). So, the publisher makes a killing, right? Well, sometimes. The guys cranking out a new edition of that $120 first year text every 4 years is making entirely too much money, as are those that bundle materials or otherwise force you to buy a new copy.
Smaller publishers that can't get professors to publish that big first year textbook with them generally aren't doing so well. Publishing any book cost several thousand dollars. Printing is not the biggest expense, and goes down fast as print run size increases (per unit, obviously). Editing and layout eats up most of the budget, then you have to add sales and distribution.
Yeah, there's a few people that think we could let professors write things on a wiki, and not bother with editing. Sometimes, you're right: there are some professors that can actually write. Let me be blunt: we reject 90%+ of manuscripts, and the other half can be unreadable without major editorial adjustments. Editors have to be highly educated, and it is not uncommon for them to be PhDs- and that doesn't come cheap.
An index also cost money and you can't just use a software package to tell you what words are on what page, as that's pretty useless.
Having spent a good part of my time in the sales side of things... do you realize how many books we have to outright GIVE to professors so they will consider the book for their class? They're only a few dollars a pop to print, but having to meet professors, find out what they are teaching the following year, mail them books once printed... all that costs a lot of money. In upper-level classes with small enrollments, you can be giving out 2% of the books, and some free copies for TAs (up to 1 per 25 students).
And don't get me going on the price of an ad in an academic journal, or sending sales reps to their conventions.
Moral of the story: it cost an awful lot of money to put out a book. There are profiteers - the first year textbook sellers that put out a new edition every 3-4 years, and the folks that would give you $4 for that $120 book.
This is not the music industry. Publishers -especially the smaller ones- are nerds that want to put out good books. [/rant]
To get back to the prices though... as I said, there are profiteers: resellers and big publishers.
The resellers ought to be put out of business. Use eBay, whatever it takes, but don't sell them books.
There is another player in this market that has enormous power to set things straight, but is often overlooked: the professor.
If your professor wrote one of those fat 1st year texts which comes bundled- lobby them. Tell them you find such practices appalling, and that you would much rather spend money on beer.:) Seriously, be polite but firm, and be prepared to reiterate- some have been so high up in their ivory towers that oxygen is sometimes rare. The publishers can put out a new edition every 3-4 years only with the complicity of the professor.
If your professor asks you to buy those expensive books, ask them to complain to the publishing house. A couple professors that tell the sales reps they won't use the text again unle
Neat. I did a quick search on Overture's Term suggestion tool: 63138 rockefeller center 869 center rockafeller 310 center rockafella 128 center rockafellar 56 center rockefella
If you think that is hyperbole, then you should spare us the non-sequitur. Monbiot's pronouncements on Bin Laden had nothing to do with the article posted; the only logical inference I could make was you thought this man should not be taken seriously because he had some views that were not acceptable on another topic.
Otherwise, what relevance would that quote have? If not thought crimes, what non-hyperbolic expression would you use?
Perhaps you also do not realize how often some of us on the "margins" (of US/Canadian discourse) get attacked for pointing out some of the basic facts- such as the number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarfing the 911 victim count. We have been labelled, and continue to be labelled as heretics.
Less than a week after 9/11, it was unclear whether or not Bin Laden had ordered the deed.
I'm all for figuring out whodunnit before going after them, or god forbid, bombing countries. Since we killed more people than were killed on 911, and *we still haven't killed Bin Laden*, it seems to me a bit of contrarian thinking is exactly what we need.
Such thinkers as Monbiot consistently make accurate predictions based on thorough research. To dismiss them for thought crimes is fool-hardy.
That is not at all surprising, given their history. They have done PR for some of the most abject dictators in the world, worked for tobacco companies, etc...
They are professional liers, having helped spin Enron, Iraq, and many, many more.
The fact they helped defeat outsourcing while making extensive use of it themselves barely registers on the radar of hypocrisy.
Therefore one way we could remain competitive is to make it cheaper to have a good quality of life here.
[rant] Instead of polluted, gridlocked, sprawling cities, we could build high-density neighbourhoods where everything is just a 5-10 minute walk away, and transit to other parts of town is convenient and fast.
Yep, remove a car and that's $5-7k/year, make rent affordable and there's $1-4k more. Less health care costs due to pollution and taxes due to sprawl cost (sewerage, roads) $1-2k/year. Free education (like France, Germany, etc...), and you get rid of those #%^&@ student loans with pretty minimal impact to the government (increased taxes more than make up for it).
But of course, politicians would rather go after immigrants that have historically driven innovation by restricting visas and pretend they never supported free-trade. Oh, well, here's to another round of dumb, boring, unimaginative ideological battles. [/rant]
Everyone I know that is doing service is doing extremely well.
Some of the things you could do for individuals or small businesses: -setting up internet connection -install a router so that people can share an internet connection -setting up that printer on the network so everyone can use it -install and update anti-virus software -install and teach people how to use OSS such as OpenOffice, Firebird and Thunderbird. Heck, you might sometimes get away with installing Linux/KDE.
Use affiliate programs or resell web-hosting, computers and computer parts, as well as various software. Clients love to have one trusted person that can advise them on all their IT needs.
And if after your first on-site visit you set up the computer so that you can securely login to make more changes, I'll even recommend my parents hire you. Geeks that don't want to do tech support for their families will probably be the first ones to refer customers.
The company "hopes to have a prototype ready for use within a few years". Vaporware?
Also, are there real cost advantages to use that over, say, little rovers with metal detectors? What percentage of the cost of clearing landmines is spent on detection?
And, as many people have mentionned already, there are a few places with desert conditions where this approach won't be useful.
While this is nice technology (and they at least took care to make the plants infertile, which is great), I don't know if it will have any practical applications. In the meantime, I suggest either badgering your gummint to fund clean up efforts and/or donating to NGOs that are de-mining.
B-52 bombers could be refitted to modern ones using a third less fuel to achieve up to half again as much range. There are hundreds more similar examples.
fuel was assumed to cost $1/gallon, but actual delivery costs can put that at $400-600 on the battlefield.
Hopefully this article is a sign that the RMI's work is finally paying off, and we might see some of that technology percolate down to we unwashed masses. And maybe, just maybe, there will be less structural incentive to go to war next time.
Actually, volume is not the only thing that counts- with a smaller motor, we can devote more space to a fuel tank.
We also squeeze more actual energy out of a fuel-cell than we can out of an ICE. What is it, 38% that is lost in heat exhaust, 6% in motor friction? IIRC, some fuel cells are around 80% efficiency- that is 80% of the stored energy in hydrogen is converted to usable electricity.
What's more, lighter motors mean less total energy is required to move the whole thing.
Aah, efficient war-making. According to critics, if we had put in place higher efficiency guidelines, we wouldn't be there in the first place. Oh, the irony!:)
It's nice to see other people do the math, providing a reality check.
This is a subsidy to high-tech, military technology. Even though it's really neat to send people to the moon, talk about mining it for energy is just PR. When the US military policy wonks announce they want "full-spectrum dominance", we should doubt whatever humanitarian rationalizations they come up with afterwards.
If we wanted to subsidize civilian-oriented tech that is equally as cool, but would have a positive effect on climate and also reduce reliance on Gulf imports, here's some things we could do:
Fund R&D for aerogel so that large-scale production becomes affordable.
Mandate 40mpg vehicles (you'll probably get rid of the US's need for all gulf oil imports)
Subsidize full-spectrum LED cluster light-bulbs. With as much light output with 4W as 100W bulbs it could save a few thermal plants and reduce SAD costs.
And there's literally hundreds of other cheap, affordable technologies the folks at/. could come up with which combined would reduce our need for all forms of energy.
It just takes a bit more imagination, but if people will do the math, they'll see it's often an order of magnitude cheaper to choose efficiency than shooting for the moon.
I don't know about ICEs, but it's not a misconception when talking about TGVs- I have travelled on them, been on the platform when they whizzed by, and was in France when people living besides tracks started protesting.
In a lot of countries, more cell-phones are in use than regular land-lines. This bypassing of stages of development is being called "leap-frogging" by some analysts.
Many people here seem to think that the Maglev could be one of those technologies, where China leapfrogs TGV/ICE trains. While it's cheaper in the long-term, in other cases of leap-frogging the capital outlay has often been lower for more advanced solutions. Installing the infrastructure for a cell-phone network, for example, is 10 times cheaper than putting in old-fashioned land-lines.
In some cases, the capital outlay is a bit higher, but the pay-back period is very short.
Compact fluorescent light-bulbs are more expensive than regular ones, but if you have it on 4 hours a day you will save more in energy cost than the cost of the light-bulb. Return on investment is 100%, and you don't even need to but such items on a budget. China is also in the lead for LED cluster bulbs, which give even better energy efficiency and full-spectrum light.
Other good candidates for leapfrogging:
subway with high-speed buses on dedicated lanes for commuting
internal combustion engines with "hypercars"
solar aquatics for sewage treatment...
Unlike the Maglev, these technologies save capital that is scarce in growing economies, and have multiple positive side-effects. Much as my geeky side would like to one day replace planes and very noisy TGVs with levitation trains, prices are still prohibitive.
The last thing I want to see is an Islamic country with a large fundamentalist population picking up expertise in missle technology.
I might as well kiss my karma goodbye too...
First off, your president, with help of our prime minister in Canada is throwing dirt on the coffin for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, arguably a cornerstone of arms control. You might think that at the end of the day only violence works, but in the meantime diplomacy is certainly a lot cheaper.
Secondly, if I were an enemy of the US, I sure as hell would not be attacking you guys with missiles. I'd use something like planes, and go hide somewhere. Or maybe a dirty bomb with all the "depleted" uranium your generals forgot to secure in Iraq, or any of the radio-active materials littering the ex-USSR. Heck, if I wanted to piss off Saudis at the same time, a couple people in a dinghy could probably cut off one of the main ports- say goodbye to Saudi oil, hello oil shock.
You guys have a fair bit to worry about, but you're worrying about the things that are least likely to happen. And as someone who lives downwind from some of your major centers, I would really like it if you started worrying about real threats:)
A friend of mine has suggested I look into the work of Dr.Michael Persinger at Laurentian University, and Todd Murphy.
Some of the machines Murphy sells (cheap, he's obviously not trying to become a millionaire off this stuff) might be useful in home treatments, especially if you can get a neuropsychologist to help you determine a protocol.
(with standard disclaimers: IANAD, neuro-scientist/psychologist. Nor am I associated with Laurentian University, Persinger or Murphy)
Very smart. A lot of people that run torrents might be convinced to slow it down / shut it off during peak hours. If the ISP was smart about it, they could offer higher u/l and d/l speeds during off-peak too, creating a win-win.
Well, it tells you it will use Jet Fuel A, which is conveniently available at your nearby airport. While it does not give any indication as to fuel efficiency, we can be sure that it is abysmal.
I don't want to believe people would use such a wasteful mode of transport, but then again people commute every day in SUVs.
The only hope I can see is if using such a vehicle got associated in the public imagination with SDS - Small D**k Syndrome.
Anyone that knows anything about the solar system knows the Moon has been given a bad rap, being a rather tempering influence on Mars and Venus, which have historically been at odds.
What's worse, if the president is ignorant about this, or if his advisors do not advise him properly, the disequilibrium may allow Saturn to put its plans in motion against Mercury!
As above, so below: an ignorant leader, listening to martial influence will always lead to ruin.
In Canada, there is something called "Circles of Support and Accountability" (COSA).
I have a few friends that have worked with this project, and basically a sex offender is with someone from the community pretty much 24/7; they are also re-integrated (job, volunteer activity), so they are less likely to re-offend.
This is a restorative rather than retributive approach, and it works a lot better.
Keeping dangerous offenders who refuse to go through therapy in prison, usefully re-integrating ex-offenders in the community with appropriate support: that is a solution that works, doesn't cost a lot, avoids lynch mobs and privacy issues.
PS: As for those who ask why sex offenders should be treated differently than murderers, it's really simple: murderers are the least likely to re-offend.
[Hey, if you're the author, why are you posting as an anonymous coward?]
I dislike the World Bank for good reasons, and am highly suspicious of anyone having worked for them trying to argue for how markets can work better. (I know, they are getting better of late)
1- I understood what the Moral Hazard meant. In this case, the music industry is shirking its responsibility as scout, but also in artist development and distribution. It's not all about scouting, and downloading files is not being a talent scout.
2- Reimbursing people is not the same thing as making songs free. And free works for marketing, so we should keep free in marketing models
3- Sometimes an efficient market IS a monopoly. That's why we pay less for energy in Canada than you do in the US where there is competition;)
And no, I do not want a market where I get to pay as much for music as I value it. In fact, I couldn't pay for some of it (and some of the composers are long dead, too). Call me a deviant pinko, but I want a market where I pay artists while they mature and grow; I also want to be able to afford a ticket to see some of the more popular artists. I'm only interested in free markets if they're good for people... with art, so far the track record is dismal- the art is bad, and most artists and consumers get shafted.
4- You make a good point about DRM.
4.1- I don't see where I suggested MBA types are beancounters; if I did I apologize to beancounters;)
The weird thing in all this is while I disagree with almost all of your points, we probably have similar goals and conclusions (and some values, judging from your DRM comment). What bothers me is the technocratic way of looking at the problem detached from more practical, grassroots solutions. If you think entirely new business models are the only thing that will work, you could have said so in plain language.
With lower production costs and more money for artists having to come from performances, I think the time is ripe for regional labels. And the surest way for labels to get people to buy songs/albums online and get people to performances is still to give away songs- and that easily takes care of the moral hazard risk without having to introduce a complicated new scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not blaming: it's normal that small print runs cost a lot... I don't have a problem with that. I also think it is a good idea to keep a relationship with a printer that produces good quality work.
The previous poster said that $3-4 would cover all the costs including printing, and that's manifestly false if the printing alone costs that much.
Try again. I've seen printing costs be as much as CAD$4.5 per book- the smaller the print run, the more expensive it is. And no, that does not include labor costs, which on runs of about 2,000 for some Canadian small runs- well, it's a different situation than a big 1st year American textbook.
:)
Look, I thought I was clear: you ARE being gouged. By resellers and big publishers. Know your enemy, and know that your whining about wanting $20 textbooks make you sound like a goof. You'll never get anything changed that way.
Few professors adopt a text the first year, and by year 5 it starts dropping off rather dramatically. You wouldn't want to print 10 years worth of textbooks at once, as it costs more to have it in a warehouse than order a reprint. Plus, if you don't put out a new edition, professors often buy another one- it's to profs we push the books, and their behaviour makes it expensive to "push some books on a class".
I assure you that if publishers could cut the price of salespeople, they only would be too glad to do so.
As for the cost of foreign books... a lot of them are cheaper because they are co-published, and a lot of those (say) Indian books are edited in North America and sold at cut-rate to publishing houses there because that is what the market will bear. With a few rare exceptions, cheap foreign books are poorly printed, and importantly for university social science markets- not relevant to the national context. Canadian professors want Canadian examples, Americans want to study American rather than British examples. But generally we don't offshore for many of the same reasons we don't want to offshore strategic IT work- the cost savings simply do not justify the risk. And when we do have one nice big print run to lower prices, shipping the damned things takes a pretty hefty hunk of change.
If you don't believe me, read up on the industry, or go ask a publisher (especially a small one). What I say might start to sound less ridiculous.
I worked 2 years in publishing and sales representation to the academic market.
:) Seriously, be polite but firm, and be prepared to reiterate- some have been so high up in their ivory towers that oxygen is sometimes rare. The publishers can put out a new edition every 3-4 years only with the complicity of the professor.
*Advice on bringing down the prices of books appear below the rant*
[rant]
So there's a few things I'd like to set straight, especially for the whiny bunch (you can't bring prices down if you don't know who's responsible):
-trade stores buy books at 60% of the cover price
-university bookstores buy at 80% of the cover (a 25% markup)
-print runs on all but the most popular books (think 1st year intro) are ridiculously small
-professors are lucky if they make 10% of the cover price. Even if that amounts to $5,000, a tenured professor would expect to make more money than that for a few hundred hours of work. (It's not the money: it's publish or perish).
So, the university bookstore is obviously not making massive amounts of money, nor is the author(s). So, the publisher makes a killing, right? Well, sometimes. The guys cranking out a new edition of that $120 first year text every 4 years is making entirely too much money, as are those that bundle materials or otherwise force you to buy a new copy.
Smaller publishers that can't get professors to publish that big first year textbook with them generally aren't doing so well. Publishing any book cost several thousand dollars. Printing is not the biggest expense, and goes down fast as print run size increases (per unit, obviously). Editing and layout eats up most of the budget, then you have to add sales and distribution.
Yeah, there's a few people that think we could let professors write things on a wiki, and not bother with editing. Sometimes, you're right: there are some professors that can actually write. Let me be blunt: we reject 90%+ of manuscripts, and the other half can be unreadable without major editorial adjustments. Editors have to be highly educated, and it is not uncommon for them to be PhDs- and that doesn't come cheap.
An index also cost money and you can't just use a software package to tell you what words are on what page, as that's pretty useless.
Having spent a good part of my time in the sales side of things... do you realize how many books we have to outright GIVE to professors so they will consider the book for their class? They're only a few dollars a pop to print, but having to meet professors, find out what they are teaching the following year, mail them books once printed... all that costs a lot of money. In upper-level classes with small enrollments, you can be giving out 2% of the books, and some free copies for TAs (up to 1 per 25 students).
And don't get me going on the price of an ad in an academic journal, or sending sales reps to their conventions.
Moral of the story: it cost an awful lot of money to put out a book. There are profiteers - the first year textbook sellers that put out a new edition every 3-4 years, and the folks that would give you $4 for that $120 book.
This is not the music industry. Publishers -especially the smaller ones- are nerds that want to put out good books.
[/rant]
To get back to the prices though... as I said, there are profiteers: resellers and big publishers.
The resellers ought to be put out of business. Use eBay, whatever it takes, but don't sell them books.
There is another player in this market that has enormous power to set things straight, but is often overlooked: the professor.
If your professor wrote one of those fat 1st year texts which comes bundled- lobby them. Tell them you find such practices appalling, and that you would much rather spend money on beer.
If your professor asks you to buy those expensive books, ask them to complain to the publishing house. A couple professors that tell the sales reps they won't use the text again unle
Neat. I did a quick search on Overture's Term suggestion tool:
63138 rockefeller center
869 center rockafeller
310 center rockafella
128 center rockafellar
56 center rockefella
I suppose you could find more...
If you think that is hyperbole, then you should spare us the non-sequitur. Monbiot's pronouncements on Bin Laden had nothing to do with the article posted; the only logical inference I could make was you thought this man should not be taken seriously because he had some views that were not acceptable on another topic.
Otherwise, what relevance would that quote have? If not thought crimes, what non-hyperbolic expression would you use?
Perhaps you also do not realize how often some of us on the "margins" (of US/Canadian discourse) get attacked for pointing out some of the basic facts- such as the number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarfing the 911 victim count. We have been labelled, and continue to be labelled as heretics.
Less than a week after 9/11, it was unclear whether or not Bin Laden had ordered the deed.
I'm all for figuring out whodunnit before going after them, or god forbid, bombing countries. Since we killed more people than were killed on 911, and *we still haven't killed Bin Laden*, it seems to me a bit of contrarian thinking is exactly what we need.
Such thinkers as Monbiot consistently make accurate predictions based on thorough research. To dismiss them for thought crimes is fool-hardy.
That is not at all surprising, given their history. They have done PR for some of the most abject dictators in the world, worked for tobacco companies, etc...
They are professional liers, having helped spin Enron, Iraq, and many, many more.
The fact they helped defeat outsourcing while making extensive use of it themselves barely registers on the radar of hypocrisy.
Therefore one way we could remain competitive is to make it cheaper to have a good quality of life here.
[rant]
Instead of polluted, gridlocked, sprawling cities, we could build high-density neighbourhoods where everything is just a 5-10 minute walk away, and transit to other parts of town is convenient and fast.
Yep, remove a car and that's $5-7k/year, make rent affordable and there's $1-4k more. Less health care costs due to pollution and taxes due to sprawl cost (sewerage, roads) $1-2k/year. Free education (like France, Germany, etc...), and you get rid of those #%^&@ student loans with pretty minimal impact to the government (increased taxes more than make up for it).
But of course, politicians would rather go after immigrants that have historically driven innovation by restricting visas and pretend they never supported free-trade. Oh, well, here's to another round of dumb, boring, unimaginative ideological battles.
[/rant]
Everyone I know that is doing service is doing extremely well.
Some of the things you could do for individuals or small businesses:
-setting up internet connection
-install a router so that people can share an internet connection
-setting up that printer on the network so everyone can use it
-install and update anti-virus software
-install and teach people how to use OSS such as OpenOffice, Firebird and Thunderbird. Heck, you might sometimes get away with installing Linux/KDE.
Use affiliate programs or resell web-hosting, computers and computer parts, as well as various software. Clients love to have one trusted person that can advise them on all their IT needs.
And if after your first on-site visit you set up the computer so that you can securely login to make more changes, I'll even recommend my parents hire you. Geeks that don't want to do tech support for their families will probably be the first ones to refer customers.
The company "hopes to have a prototype ready for use within a few years". Vaporware?
Also, are there real cost advantages to use that over, say, little rovers with metal detectors? What percentage of the cost of clearing landmines is spent on detection?
And, as many people have mentionned already, there are a few places with desert conditions where this approach won't be useful.
While this is nice technology (and they at least took care to make the plants infertile, which is great), I don't know if it will have any practical applications. In the meantime, I suggest either badgering your gummint to fund clean up efforts and/or donating to NGOs that are de-mining.
For some background, you might enjoy the RMI's Battling Fuel Waste in the Military
Interesting highlights:
Hopefully this article is a sign that the RMI's work is finally paying off, and we might see some of that technology percolate down to we unwashed masses. And maybe, just maybe, there will be less structural incentive to go to war next time.
Actually, volume is not the only thing that counts- with a smaller motor, we can devote more space to a fuel tank.
:)
We also squeeze more actual energy out of a fuel-cell than we can out of an ICE. What is it, 38% that is lost in heat exhaust, 6% in motor friction? IIRC, some fuel cells are around 80% efficiency- that is 80% of the stored energy in hydrogen is converted to usable electricity.
What's more, lighter motors mean less total energy is required to move the whole thing.
Aah, efficient war-making. According to critics, if we had put in place higher efficiency guidelines, we wouldn't be there in the first place. Oh, the irony!
This is a subsidy to high-tech, military technology. Even though it's really neat to send people to the moon, talk about mining it for energy is just PR. When the US military policy wonks announce they want "full-spectrum dominance", we should doubt whatever humanitarian rationalizations they come up with afterwards.
If we wanted to subsidize civilian-oriented tech that is equally as cool, but would have a positive effect on climate and also reduce reliance on Gulf imports, here's some things we could do:
It just takes a bit more imagination, but if people will do the math, they'll see it's often an order of magnitude cheaper to choose efficiency than shooting for the moon.
I don't know about ICEs, but it's not a misconception when talking about TGVs- I have travelled on them, been on the platform when they whizzed by, and was in France when people living besides tracks started protesting.
:)
The ICE sounds really cool though
Many people here seem to think that the Maglev could be one of those technologies, where China leapfrogs TGV/ICE trains. While it's cheaper in the long-term, in other cases of leap-frogging the capital outlay has often been lower for more advanced solutions. Installing the infrastructure for a cell-phone network, for example, is 10 times cheaper than putting in old-fashioned land-lines.
In some cases, the capital outlay is a bit higher, but the pay-back period is very short.
Compact fluorescent light-bulbs are more expensive than regular ones, but if you have it on 4 hours a day you will save more in energy cost than the cost of the light-bulb. Return on investment is 100%, and you don't even need to but such items on a budget. China is also in the lead for LED cluster bulbs, which give even better energy efficiency and full-spectrum light.
Other good candidates for leapfrogging:
Unlike the Maglev, these technologies save capital that is scarce in growing economies, and have multiple positive side-effects. Much as my geeky side would like to one day replace planes and very noisy TGVs with levitation trains, prices are still prohibitive.
I might as well kiss my karma goodbye too...
First off, your president, with help of our prime minister in Canada is throwing dirt on the coffin for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, arguably a cornerstone of arms control. You might think that at the end of the day only violence works, but in the meantime diplomacy is certainly a lot cheaper.
Secondly, if I were an enemy of the US, I sure as hell would not be attacking you guys with missiles. I'd use something like planes, and go hide somewhere. Or maybe a dirty bomb with all the "depleted" uranium your generals forgot to secure in Iraq, or any of the radio-active materials littering the ex-USSR. Heck, if I wanted to piss off Saudis at the same time, a couple people in a dinghy could probably cut off one of the main ports- say goodbye to Saudi oil, hello oil shock.
You guys have a fair bit to worry about, but you're worrying about the things that are least likely to happen. And as someone who lives downwind from some of your major centers, I would really like it if you started worrying about real threats :)
A friend of mine has suggested I look into the work of Dr.Michael Persinger at Laurentian University, and Todd Murphy. Some of the machines Murphy sells (cheap, he's obviously not trying to become a millionaire off this stuff) might be useful in home treatments, especially if you can get a neuropsychologist to help you determine a protocol. (with standard disclaimers: IANAD, neuro-scientist/psychologist. Nor am I associated with Laurentian University, Persinger or Murphy)
Very smart. A lot of people that run torrents might be convinced to slow it down / shut it off during peak hours. If the ISP was smart about it, they could offer higher u/l and d/l speeds during off-peak too, creating a win-win.
ok, I know many people here would like to lynch these spammers. But 20 years in jail?
I think most murderers and rapists get less time than that. Aren't we getting a little carried away here?
... or get respect from management.
/.'ed already.
Sure, you say you can build one of those servers for our enterprise for $300 less. That's great, Bob!
And when you factor in the 10 hours it took you to order all the parts, troubleshoot everything, make sure there were no hardware incompatibilities...
multiply that number of hours by your fully loaded salary costs (i.e., double your salary to see what you really cost your business per hour).
What? Buying it ready made is cheaper? Gosh, I'm so surprised!!
And no, I couldn't RTFA, it was
50 mpg? Most certainly not when flying!!
And 50 mpg can easily be beat with hybrid or hydrogen cars. One concept car does at least 80 mpg.
Well, it tells you it will use Jet Fuel A, which is conveniently available at your nearby airport. While it does not give any indication as to fuel efficiency, we can be sure that it is abysmal.
I don't want to believe people would use such a wasteful mode of transport, but then again people commute every day in SUVs.
The only hope I can see is if using such a vehicle got associated in the public imagination with SDS - Small D**k Syndrome.
Anyone that knows anything about the solar system knows the Moon has been given a bad rap, being a rather tempering influence on Mars and Venus, which have historically been at odds.
What's worse, if the president is ignorant about this, or if his advisors do not advise him properly, the disequilibrium may allow Saturn to put its plans in motion against Mercury!
As above, so below: an ignorant leader, listening to martial influence will always lead to ruin.
</Nostradamus channelling>
In Canada, there is something called "Circles of Support and Accountability" (COSA) .
I have a few friends that have worked with this project, and basically a sex offender is with someone from the community pretty much 24/7; they are also re-integrated (job, volunteer activity), so they are less likely to re-offend.
This is a restorative rather than retributive approach, and it works a lot better.
Keeping dangerous offenders who refuse to go through therapy in prison, usefully re-integrating ex-offenders in the community with appropriate support: that is a solution that works, doesn't cost a lot, avoids lynch mobs and privacy issues.
PS: As for those who ask why sex offenders should be treated differently than murderers, it's really simple: murderers are the least likely to re-offend.
[Hey, if you're the author, why are you posting as an anonymous coward?]
;)
;)
I dislike the World Bank for good reasons, and am highly suspicious of anyone having worked for them trying to argue for how markets can work better. (I know, they are getting better of late)
1- I understood what the Moral Hazard meant. In this case, the music industry is shirking its responsibility as scout, but also in artist development and distribution. It's not all about scouting, and downloading files is not being a talent scout.
2- Reimbursing people is not the same thing as making songs free. And free works for marketing, so we should keep free in marketing models
3- Sometimes an efficient market IS a monopoly. That's why we pay less for energy in Canada than you do in the US where there is competition
And no, I do not want a market where I get to pay as much for music as I value it. In fact, I couldn't pay for some of it (and some of the composers are long dead, too). Call me a deviant pinko, but I want a market where I pay artists while they mature and grow; I also want to be able to afford a ticket to see some of the more popular artists. I'm only interested in free markets if they're good for people... with art, so far the track record is dismal- the art is bad, and most artists and consumers get shafted.
4- You make a good point about DRM.
4.1- I don't see where I suggested MBA types are beancounters; if I did I apologize to beancounters
The weird thing in all this is while I disagree with almost all of your points, we probably have similar goals and conclusions (and some values, judging from your DRM comment). What bothers me is the technocratic way of looking at the problem detached from more practical, grassroots solutions. If you think entirely new business models are the only thing that will work, you could have said so in plain language.
With lower production costs and more money for artists having to come from performances, I think the time is ripe for regional labels. And the surest way for labels to get people to buy songs/albums online and get people to performances is still to give away songs- and that easily takes care of the moral hazard risk without having to introduce a complicated new scheme.