Any carve-up of markets into regions smacks of cartel building.
You charge different prices in different regions because you want to hit a different "sweet spot" when it comes to price/volume of the product in order to generate the most profit.
The only way you can do this is if you have control of the markets, and no competing products can come around to disturb that fact. You achive this by having dominating distribution and marketing, or through signing any one up who could create good content (movies in this case).
This means an imperfect market, where the "normal" laws of competition, supply and demand etcetera aren't working the way they should.
It's not necessarily a question of whether it's illegal or not (after all that depends on the legislation) or "immoral" or not, the outcome is worse movies at higher prices.
I sent an HTML file containing bookmarks inline from Netscape to my Hotmail account, in order to transfer the file to a course I'm holding.
Lo and behold when the file arrives inlined with all URLs prepended with a logging facility, so
... and this is a page full of bookmarks. So all course particiants must go through Microsoft so that they know how often my participants click on links MS has absolutely nothing to do with...
There is a reason for icons to be about an inch, and no bigger. There is an area on the retina called fovea, which is the area where we can see in any detail. At an arm's length distance, this covers a circle of roughly one inch in diameter.
If you make icons any bigger, the user must move his eyes to take in the whole image. Hence, a big icon slows down work and fun.
A lot of design issues are moot, but for some there is objective knowledge to draw from.
I also want 40 million dollars. So my question is: What is the strategy to get someone to pay 40 million dollars for an idea? I suppose in this case there is more to it than walking up to the TV network, present the idea (with some drawing on a whiteboard), and then say "Now will you give 40 million?"
Does any one know what else is needed?
Street cred? ("I'm a top producer and you know it")
Negotiation with other networks? ("Yeah, this is just an idea, but your lawyers can protect it if you sign a deal with me")
Secured exclusive rights needed on the way? ("The Russians will only talk to me, you see")
Please let me know and I'll be at it first thing in the morning!
/jeorgen
Distributed initiative taking
on
Online Voting?
·
· Score: 1
...is what we really want, I believe.
In a previous posting someone pointed out that one may not want to vote for any of the candidates or alternatives. In many countries, including the US, I would believe, there is a huge barrier of entry, which means that we are not getting the best people to the best places, or the best initiatives to choose between.
It is right there on-line activity can make a change. Just look at slashdot, where it is infinitely easier to speak out than by asking a newspaper if you could please write their political column next Thursday.
Hopefully, more software will emerge that will enhance the selection process of good candidates and good policy by using e.g. moderation, voting, "packing" (people self-organising stepwise behind a candidate or text, just came up with the term, pick another one if it sounds fuzzy:-).
/jeorgen
Is a few artists better than all the rest... or?
on
Napster Ruling Stayed
·
· Score: 2
We now see a battle between old mass media paradigm and new networked, "mesh" paradigm.
The way the music industry looks today seems to me is that it is very industrialised, i.e. a few standardized products are manufactured in positively huge numbers. Once a product (i.e. a song, album) has reached some critical mass, it becomes very profitable to put in huge marketing resources to make it a mega hit. It grows like a tree that shades and quenches the brush and undergrowth. We will buy not because it is fantastic but because it is reasonably good and they're shoving it down our throats.
This effect makes for a very Big Brotherish attitude from the RIAA companies, who play this game. They are shaped by the old mass media technology.
But what will come instead? Will people stop buying new music and be content with what is already there? This is after all how we do when we eat. You don't see people queueing for the next new, hot dish. I think that people do not listen to new music necessarily because it is better than the old, but because it provides for a feeling of communication (communication originally means too make something to have in common, as in "communicable diseases"). We listen to new music because we know others do. To the same music, at the same time. We are with the times, or want to be at least.
If people stop buying new music it could be because it has been turned into a commodity, like food.
On the other hand, the new paradigm could lead to a music industry where more music is reasonably big at the same time. And it wouldn't be an industry anymore, since an industry is targeted towards mass production. In the new paradigm it would instead be a... thingy?
I agree completely. Hypercard was great! I wrote a hypertext authoring system called "Telling Tools" on top of it back in 1991. It could save hypertext structures in RTF format that you then could e-mail to friends (that's a bit lame compared to http, though). It wasn't hard to do these things in Hypercard.
Now there is Metacard (http://www.metacard.com), which is a capable clone that runs on Un*x, Windows and Mac, and is free to download for evaluation.
I've used it in numerous User Interface courses as an example of a prototyping environment for UI design and functionality.
Nobody ever failed to learn how to use it within two hours, not even designers who've never programmed. Which makes it similar in accessibility to FirstClass, which also has Mac roots.
What if cars where made out of standard components as are PCs?
At least there could be well-defined connectors and space constraints. You could get a new (evironmentally friendly) engine and just slide it in your old car. Other parts could also be standardized. If the radiator was standard you could exchange it for the ozone-eating grille that Volvo developed (ozone at the ground level is a Really Bad Thing for many people).
Maybe cars are too advanced (read organic, tightly coupled) so that modularity would hurt performance, though, e.g. safety
An open-source car spec could be designed on-line.
Free speech is still a pipe dream (Score:2) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22, @08:43 EST (#19)
The ideal of free speech, as desirable as it may seem to all of us, is in the real world nothing more than a pipe dream which those in power want to convince us we have. True free speech has never existed, and will probably never exist under the current socioeconomic models of today, in which aggressive competition is the force that shapes our society and the lives we lead in it.
The capitalist system which dominates the world is based upon older social systems such as feudalism
I wouldn't classify the above quoted post as "insightful" (as some moderator has), rather it is yet a reurgitation of socialism, a system that has clearly and utterly failed. Instead of helping to create a better liberal society with true freedom of speech and protection for individuals from aggressive groups (such as big corporations) we're fed the same old story about how the society that has freedoms for individuals is a "hierarchical" and "feudal" society.
Capitalism, or rather free economy, is based on individuals having the right to own things, and to buy, sell and barter these things in any way they see fit. Any system without free economy is a system where people are not free.
The struggle to gain status and power within the system is an aggressive and competitive one - there is less room at the top than there are people trying to rise there
This is true in a socialist, communist or feudal society, which are all societies where the few make up the rules to control the many. In a free economy there is plenty of room at the top, becuse nobody looses from you getting there. It just gets a bigger economy. A free economy is not a zero sum game.
Their positions of power are based on an intricate web of money, power, reputation and connections
Make that "Their positions of power are based on an intricate web that is out of their control ".
And by making our societies more liberal, with a legal system that protects the freedom of the individual. We kan make it even more dynamic, prosperous and out of control!!
In other words, until we 'observe' it, it's a
wave, and can split and interfere with itself. When we quantize it and observe it, we collapse the wave function, and get a particle.
I wonder, if you have two people watching the experiment, let's say person A and B, if person A observes the photon, could it be that person B would still experience an interference pattern?
If person A does not tell person B him about the state?
By far the best book on perl I've found is "Perl 5 Complete" (E Peschko, M DeWolfe) ISBN 0-07-913698-2. It manages in its 1062 pages to cover pretty much everything (complex variables, object-oriented programming, PerlTk GUI, regexps, CGI, debuggers and all the basics). It is doing this with schematics to show what's going on and it is also a good perl reference. It is probably not for the casual perl beginner, because it is dense. If you're an ambitious beginner it will probably work though. Another good bok is "Perl 5 How-To" (Asbury et al ISBN 1-57169-118-9), a good cookbook style of a book. Some O'Reilly books: "Programming perl" is OK, "Learning perl" I usually find do not have the answers I need, and "CGI programming on the world wide web" (a bit old now) is in my opinion not very good./Jorgen
Slashdot Mirror
You charge different prices in different regions because you want to hit a different "sweet spot" when it comes to price/volume of the product in order to generate the most profit.
The only way you can do this is if you have control of the markets, and no competing products can come around to disturb that fact. You achive this by having dominating distribution and marketing, or through signing any one up who could create good content (movies in this case).
This means an imperfect market, where the "normal" laws of competition, supply and demand etcetera aren't working the way they should.
It's not necessarily a question of whether it's illegal or not (after all that depends on the legislation) or "immoral" or not, the outcome is worse movies at higher prices.
http://www.foo.bar
becomes:
http://64.4.14.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=f74 234214fea43q52453245613&lat=9700 81359&hm ___action=http://www.foo.bar
At an arm's length distance, this covers a circle of roughly one inch in diameter.
If you make icons any bigger, the user must move his eyes to take in the whole image. Hence, a big icon slows down work and fun.
A lot of design issues are moot, but for some there is objective knowledge to draw from.
Does any one know what else is needed?
Street cred?
("I'm a top producer and you know it")
Negotiation with other networks?
("Yeah, this is just an idea, but your lawyers can protect it if you sign a deal with me")
Secured exclusive rights needed on the way?
("The Russians will only talk to me, you see")
Please let me know and I'll be at it first thing in the morning!
In a previous posting someone pointed out that one may not want to vote for any of the candidates or alternatives. In many countries, including the US, I would believe, there is a huge barrier of entry, which means that we are not getting the best people to the best places, or the best initiatives to choose between.
It is right there on-line activity can make a change. Just look at slashdot, where it is infinitely easier to speak out than by asking a newspaper if you could please write their political column next Thursday.
Hopefully, more software will emerge that will enhance the selection process of good candidates and good policy by using e.g. moderation, voting, "packing" (people self-organising stepwise behind a candidate or text, just came up with the term, pick another one if it sounds fuzzy:-).
The way the music industry looks today seems to me is that it is very industrialised, i.e. a few standardized products are manufactured in positively huge numbers. Once a product (i.e. a song, album) has reached some critical mass, it becomes very profitable to put in huge marketing resources to make it a mega hit. It grows like a tree that shades and quenches the brush and undergrowth. We will buy not because it is fantastic but because it is reasonably good and they're shoving it down our throats.
This effect makes for a very Big Brotherish attitude from the RIAA companies, who play this game. They are shaped by the old mass media technology.
But what will come instead? Will people stop buying new music and be content with what is already there? This is after all how we do when we eat. You don't see people queueing for the next new, hot dish. I think that people do not listen to new music necessarily because it is better than the old, but because it provides for a feeling of communication (communication originally means too make something to have in common, as in "communicable diseases"). We listen to new music because we know others do. To the same music, at the same time. We are with the times, or want to be at least.
If people stop buying new music it could be because it has been turned into a commodity, like food.
On the other hand, the new paradigm could lead to a music industry where more music is reasonably big at the same time. And it wouldn't be an industry anymore, since an industry is targeted towards mass production. In the new paradigm it would instead be a ... thingy?
Now there is Metacard (http://www.metacard.com), which is a capable clone that runs on Un*x, Windows and Mac, and is free to download for evaluation.
I've used it in numerous User Interface courses as an example of a prototyping environment for UI design and functionality.
Nobody ever failed to learn how to use it within two hours, not even designers who've never programmed. Which makes it similar in accessibility to FirstClass, which also has Mac roots.
At least there could be well-defined connectors and space constraints. You could get a new (evironmentally friendly) engine and just slide it in your old car. Other parts could also be standardized. If the radiator was standard you could exchange it for the ozone-eating grille that Volvo developed (ozone at the ground level is a Really Bad Thing for many people).
Maybe cars are too advanced (read organic, tightly coupled) so that modularity would hurt performance, though, e.g. safety
An open-source car spec could be designed on-line.
I wouldn't classify the above quoted post as "insightful" (as some moderator has), rather it is yet a reurgitation of socialism, a system that has clearly and utterly failed. Instead of helping to create a better liberal society with true freedom of speech and protection for individuals from aggressive groups (such as big corporations) we're fed the same old story about how the society that has freedoms for individuals is a "hierarchical" and "feudal" society.
Capitalism, or rather free economy, is based on individuals having the right to own things, and to buy, sell and barter these things in any way they see fit. Any system without free economy is a system where people are not free.
This is true in a socialist, communist or feudal society, which are all societies where the few make up the rules to control the many. In a free economy there is plenty of room at the top, becuse nobody looses from you getting there. It just gets a bigger economy. A free economy is not a zero sum game.Make that "Their positions of power are based on an intricate web that is out of their control ".
And by making our societies more liberal, with a legal system that protects the freedom of the individual. We kan make it even more dynamic, prosperous and out of control!!
I wonder, if you have two people watching the experiment, let's say person A and B, if person A observes the photon, could it be that person B would still experience an interference pattern?
If person A does not tell person B him about the state?
By far the best book on perl I've found is "Perl 5 Complete" (E Peschko, M DeWolfe) ISBN 0-07-913698-2. It manages in its 1062 pages to cover pretty much everything (complex variables, object-oriented programming, PerlTk GUI, regexps, CGI, debuggers and all the basics). It is doing this with schematics to show what's going on and it is also a good perl reference. It is probably not for the casual perl beginner, because it is dense. If you're an ambitious beginner it will probably work though. Another good bok is "Perl 5 How-To" (Asbury et al ISBN 1-57169-118-9), a good cookbook style of a book. Some O'Reilly books: "Programming perl" is OK, "Learning perl" I usually find do not have the answers I need, and "CGI programming on the world wide web" (a bit old now) is in my opinion not very good. /Jorgen