Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!



Real-World Outcomes Predicted Using Social Media

Ironica Re:So, let me get this straight... (93 comments)

So let me get this straight. A research institution came to the conclusion that popular things tended to earn a lot of money, while unpopular things tended to tank?

No... a research institution found a way to quickly quantify popularity without expensive market research and focus groups. *That* is the innovation here.

more than 4 years ago

Bizarre Droid Auto-Focus Bug Revealed

Ironica Re:Kudos to Google for being so open about the bug (275 comments)

It is gratifying for Google to be so open about the fact that it is a bug, the details of the bug, and a promise to fix it. Most consumer electronics companies are much more cagey about this sort of thing. I suspect Google will win some important trust because they are treating their customers like adults.

I realize the post was made by a Google engineer, but, wouldn't a bug in "the camera driver's autofocus routine" be on Motorola's end, not Google's? I'm sure they were working together on it, but aren't drivers usually written by the hardware vendor?

more than 4 years ago

Former Microsoft CTO Builds Kitchen Laboratory

Ironica Re:What the world vegan cheese. (127 comments)

Daiya is fairly good, as is Follow Your Heart. But it is very difficult to replicate the stretchiness that casein imparts to cheese with other proteins.

I don't even want a cheese that's vegan, necessarily... I have no ethical problems with animal products*. I just want a cheese sub that doesn't contain any trace of dairy, soy, canola, eggs, or for that matter, gluten or corn.

* I have ethical problems with the way most food animals are raised, and do my best to choose meat that's been pastured and grass- (or otherwise naturally-) fed, because it's better for my family as well as more humane towards the animals.

more than 4 years ago

Toyota Experimenting With Joystick Control For Cars

Ironica Re:Power Steering failure? (609 comments)

What happens when there's a power steering failure? I know it's not a common problem, but it is a problem which randomly comes up.

And it's a problem that may be more likely for Toyota, since they seem to have floor mats that like to smash their cars into other cars.

I, for one, will run screaming if one of these ever makes it onto the street.

more than 4 years ago

CT Scan "Reset Error" Gives 206 Patients Radiation Overdose

Ironica Re:It's About Automation (383 comments)

Woops, silly me, repeating what I learned in upper-division Transportation Engineering lecture from professors with decades of experience in the field of road design. Guess I should have checked Wikipedia first, because it never lies!

Got a cite for your critique?

It's true that the majority of people who die in alcohol-related crashes have a BAC of .08 or higher (67% according to this site). However, lower down, we see that 37% of single-car crashes involve a BAC of .08 or higher, which is higher than the 22% average rate. Since my point was about the comparative risks to the drunk driver and the sober driver in an accident, single-car crashes are irrelevant. That takes out 67% of the drunk driving crashes overall, and similarly lowers the fatality numbers considerably.

more than 4 years ago

CT Scan "Reset Error" Gives 206 Patients Radiation Overdose

Ironica Re:It's About Automation (383 comments)

...But in that particular accident, the drunk is less likely to suffer severe or fatal injuries. The relaxant effect of alcohol makes their body more resilient to sudden shocks. Also, they're usually having a head-on collision, while they may be striking the other vehicle from the side; as head-on collisions are by far the most common, most of a car's safety features are geared toward mitigating them.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:Go Paperless! (557 comments)

And just *how* do you suggest getting on a plane, getting into a movie, or shipping a box "paperless"?

These are all applications where you can (or even must) print out something to take with you or attach to an item and receive a service, where in the "old days" you used to have to go somewhere to pick up a specialty-printed item.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:No printer? (557 comments)

I've been without a reliable printer for a few months, and it's HARD. Why? Because it's 2009, man, and there's a LOT of stuff available online now... like boarding passes, movie tickets, postage stamps, RMAs... that you can PRINT OUT and slap on a package or hand to the attendant at the door. In fact, sometimes, that's the only way to do something, like with shipping my broken Kindle back to Amazon.

Until we have ubiquitous e-ink paper, we're still going to have to print a lot of stuff out to make it available for uses that don't have a computer terminal.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:HP (557 comments)

Ditto, ditto, ditto... but the reliability with CUPS (under Ubuntu Happy Heron) has been only so-so. At this point, it generally won't print at all, and then every so often, a complete power cycle (which is accomplished through unplugging it or courtesy of a power company blip) will spark a few dozen sheets of unicode hearts or half a page of something I tried to print a month ago.

I keep planning to move it across the room and try to hook it up to the Win2k box, to find out if it's a Linux compatibility issue or the printer is just dying, but that requires a lot of shifting around I haven't had a chance to do yet.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:That's easy (557 comments)

HP Laserjet 4 and a box of crayons.

WTF? Who uses crayons anymore when you can go down to Costco and get a set of 100 high-quality colored pencils for what the box of 64 Crayolas (with the built-in sharpener) used to cost? They're FAR more durable, give better image quality, and offer a much larger gamut. I've never seen a toddler eat a colored pencil, either.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:Do you really need color? (557 comments)

the fact is you can run a few hundred digital prints from Wal Mart for what a single color Inkjet cartridge costs. The quality is better, the fade resistance is better, and most people don't get a few hundred prints from a cartridge. And, assuming you're going there anyway and you have a typical cheap inkjet, it's easier to send them to the photodepartment via their web site and pick them up when you go shopping than to print them at home.

Costco too, for those who refuse to shop at the Evil Emporium.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:No. (557 comments)

No it does not. It translates: "Find one with FREE cartridges."

TANSTAAFL. If you take home cartridges purchased by the company that pays your paycheck, those losses will impact their ability to pay you and the other folks who do stuff like what you do... increasing your workload per dollar.

more than 4 years ago

Choosing a Personal Printer For the Long Haul

Ironica Re:I see your problem (557 comments)

Schedule 2 drugs can't be faxed, e-prescribed or phoned in. They have to hand-written (or computer printed), hand-signed and delivered by mail or by hand. The information that goes with prescriptions has to be printed and given to the patient.

There is no systems in place to change this.

Actually, there is a project in progress right now to test out a token authentication system for e-prescribing of Schedule 2 drugs. A health center in... I think... Massachusetts? is working with the DEA on it. They've developed the system and are currently using it on a trial basis. The project is funded by AHRQ, and there was a presentation of the work-in-progress during an AHRQ-sponsored Webex on e-prescribing and medication management on August 27th. If you can find a recording of it, you might find it fascinating.

more than 4 years ago

Cyber Gangs Raise Profile of Commerical Online Bank Security

Ironica Re:I like Bank of America's approach (140 comments)

ATMs have been in place since when? The 70s? But ATMs only give you money. They don't let you pay anything.

You are misinformed. US ATMs accept cash and check deposits, allow transfers between accounts, and sell stamps. Some may even let you pay bills or order cashier's checks.

If you just require banks to come up with tighter security, what will happen? People will see that they have to jump through even more hoops when doing online banking and they will ask why, which the banks will gladly blame on the new directive (whether it's from the EU or the US government...), and shift the blame of the hassle on government and the "nanny state" that tries to patronize us and protect us from reality and yaddayadda. Nobody will explain that these "hardships" are there to protect your money from being stolen.

Which is still a better outcome than that they DON'T tighten security so that they don't have to do any of that pesky explaining.

The market *won't* motivate banks to do it on their own, not for a very, very long time... because people don't actually understand the risks, so they don't see a value in protecting themselves against them. It's that tricky "perfect information" component of Adam Smith's triad.

more than 4 years ago

The Top-Spammed States In the US

Ironica Re:World smallest fiddle... (97 comments)

And you, sir, have trouble with multiple nested negatives. He's NOT going to NOT move somewhere because they have a lot of spam... take out both negatives, he's perfectly fine living somewhere with a lot of spam. UNLESS (another negative) you are talking about the food variety... implying that he *would* avoid living somewhere that had an overrepresentation of food Spam (R). Such as Hawaii.

more than 4 years ago

Cyber Gangs Raise Profile of Commerical Online Bank Security

Ironica Re:survival of the fittest (140 comments)

The bank is presumably liable for all unauthorized transactions, but can escape liability if they prove the consumer was negligent. And having an insecure machine should be considered negligente.


The bank should be able to escape liability if they prove that the damage was CAUSED BY customer's negligence. Otherwise, they might have let an employee capture all your "secure" information and sell it to the Russians, but they're not liable because it turns out you didn't download the latest WinXP patch.

Just as with a car accident, there has to be an investigation into who actually caused the problem. It's reasonable to share the blame, but I think in a case where reasonable actions on the part of the bank would have prevented the problem completely, it's also reasonable for them to be responsible. They're the professional service here. They *do* have a greater burden than their customers.

more than 4 years ago

Cyber Gangs Raise Profile of Commerical Online Bank Security

Ironica Re:And how can you evaluate a bank's security? (140 comments)

You're not able to audit online banking code. True. But are you dumb, deaf and blind? Do you think people will remain silent when their bank refuses to cover their loss? Don't you think some media outlet would greedily gobble up the story?

Show me the bank that's been demonstrated secure by a LACK of media coverage of their failures... and I'll show you a bank that's either (a) too small to do much of anything or (b) really, really good at shutting up media.

Inductive reasoning proves nothing. Just because there's no coverage of Bank A having customers' accounts get wiped out doesn't mean that it hasn't happened and won't happen. It just means you're now subject to the media's whim as far as information goes, rather than just the bank's. And since the media doesn't have any special rights WRT getting info from the banks about their practices, you're really not a whole lot better off at all... since all you're going to see is whatever sells ad spots. (Oh, Bank A wants a 30-second spot every half hour? All we have to do is drop that story... right. I'll get right on it.)

more than 4 years ago

Cyber Gangs Raise Profile of Commerical Online Bank Security

Ironica Re:No thanks, nanny bank (140 comments)

Great--now I've got to do paper banking, and get charged *extra* for the paper statements. Worse, if I take the money out of the account--just to move it to another company or invest it myself (because I now officially hate them)--I'm going to get nailed with a capital gains tax that will hit me like two years of rent. Taxes are the IRS' way of locking you into a bank for life.

Talk to the bank you want to move it to about a Rollover account. You don't have to pay taxes if you roll it over properly.

more than 4 years ago

Cyber Gangs Raise Profile of Commerical Online Bank Security

Ironica Re:No thanks, nanny bank (140 comments)

The problem is that you want the bank to secure what they cannot secure: Your PC.

I do not know of a single case of bank fraud where the fraud has been in any way connected to a security breach on the bank's side, and due to my work I know of a fair lot of fraud cases. Invariably the problem was on the customer's side.

Those types of breaches aren't limited to the world of online banking, though. Someone can walk up to me with a gun while I'm at the ATM and demand I take out ALL my money and hand it over. Someone could kidnap my child outside the bank during business hours and hold him hostage until I went in and emptied my account and handed it over.

But... the banks *have* implemented security measures to make these types of "attacks" more difficult. ATMs cap the amount you can withdraw during a single transaction, and also during the entire day across multiple transactions. They have security cameras installed to make catching and prosecuting offenders easier. They have silent alarms at the teller, which they can set off if they think something's iffy about a transaction. Accounts with multiple account holders may require multiple signatures for certain transactions.

They can't secure my body or my family, but they *do* do what they can to secure the transactions I make via their branch or resources. Why should I expect different from online banking?

more than 4 years ago

Cyber Gangs Raise Profile of Commerical Online Bank Security

Ironica Re:I like Bank of America's approach (140 comments)

Since I worked for banks with exactly this problem, I can reassure you that even if they aren't responsible for the losses, they have a very keen interest in making the whole deal secure: Cost.

You have NO idea how much money banks save by shifting the work of transfers to you, their customer. Banks shut down a lot of branches and laid off a lot of people because they don't need so many brick and mortar outlets and tellers anymore.

And this is primarily due to online banking, rather than ATMs?

Now imagine people lost faith in the security of online banking, to the point where they consider it untrustworthy enough to demand their human monkeys again to do their work.

And the banks say "Sure thing! That'll be just $5 per transaction!"

Furthermore, banks could not even easily return to brick and mortar transactions if everybody suddenly stopped using online banking, some banks are by now very dependent on online banking, to the point where they would quickly lose customers simply because there are no local branches anymore.

As others have pointed out, they'd *also* lose customers if they actually made online banking secure.

Think about it: first, they have to make things less convenient, because frankly, convenience and security are inversely proportional. That will lose them customers right off the bat.

But as several posters have pointed out, that's not enough... because people don't know how to keep themselves secure. So for a bank to actually make their customers' transactions as secure as feasible and reasonable, they would have to require everyone to pass a test or take a class before signing up for online banking. How many banks would permanently lose a lot of business if they cut off online access to their customers until they'd been certified to use online banking?

For exactly the reasons you stated, it's unlikely that banks will make online banking reasonably secure unless regulators step in. (And this is why we can't have nice things in a free market.)

more than 4 years ago


Ironica hasn't submitted any stories.



On government regulation and lobbying

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 5 years ago

I posted this here: and decided I liked it so much, I wanted to save it, and point to it every time someone starts saying that we shouldn't have regulation of blah blah blah.


In a TRULY free market, the government wouldn't have power to establish currency, protect ownership, extend licensure... all sorts of things that the economy depends on.

The "hypothetical free market" requires perfect information, perfect competition, and perfect mobility. As none of these are feasible to attain, government regulation is required to simulate them or compensate for their lack. For example, legal definitions of what "organic" produce is, and establishment of certifying bodies (which are private enterprises, but have some sort of charter or something from the government that establishes their certification as adequate for usage of the term "organic") help compensate for the lack of perfect information about farming practices. Without them, someone could say "Yeah, my produce is organic!" after spraying it with tons of pesticides, and you wouldn't really have any way of verifying that unless you traveled out to their farm yourself and watched them for a while... or brought your own lab kit to the market.

So, markets that work on the scale we expect them to will always require SOME amount of regulation, and insofar as there is such regulation, there will be disagreements about how that regulation should be put in place. Some methods would favor the producer or the consumer. Hence, there's a business interest in attempting to shape the regulatory process.

I'm all for making lobbying illegal... but that, some say, is over-regulating the market.


Ways to identify aliens attempting to infiltrate Earth

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 5 years ago

1) They have perfectly ordinary and reasonable first names, but last names that appear to be semi-random assemblages of letters in a vaguely pronounceable order. (These are probably approximate transliterations of their true alien names.)

2) Dislike for pizza and ice cream, but strange affection for haggis.

3) Internet presence appears to date back to 1997, but hits only reference memes from 2005 or later.

When I find out more, I'll let you know.


Putting one's money where their OS is.

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 8 years ago

Recently, as I was rebuilding my computer after some sort of horrific malfunction, I found myself looking for Windows XP cracks. Our Windows 2000 burned CD doesn't work properly, and I didn't want to burn an authentication tick on my laptop WinXP disc. So I searched, and came up with nothing particularly useful. I ended up installing an Ubuntu bundle, and so far so good. Good thing we quit playing WoW again.

But as I browsed, I came across a message board discussing how to crack XP, with several people posting "Gah thieves! Just buy it already!" I found myself wanting to post back (though I refrained, having insufficient desire to create a new account on a random message board and bump a thread that's been dead for months). I wanted to say, "You know, I don't want to crack XP because I'm cheap. I want to crack it because I'm BOYCOTTING MICROSOFT."

So then I was thinking, how could I prove it? I mean, I'm morally opposed to giving MS any money, but how does one tell that this is truly my motivation, and not simply an excuse to make me feel better about "stealing" software? And then I hit upon the solution: donate the cover price of the pirated software to an Open Source project of my choice!

So, when I get PowerPoint back up and running somewhere, I'll find out how much it's "supposed" to cost, and donate that money to... something. Mozilla, probably, or Ubuntu (it's very shiny!). And I encourage all 1.5 of the people who read this to do the same, for any pirated MS software they are running.


My .sig, since folks keep asking...

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 10 years ago

Just curious: do you have a citation for that quote?

Yep... Joel Stein in the April 18, 2003 issue of Entertainment Weekly.

The full quote is:

"I found the most convincing part to be the working stiffs," said Valenti of the PSA, "the guys who have a modest home and kids who go to public schools. They make $75,000 to $100,000 a year. That's not much to live on. I don't have to tell you that," he said, vastly overestimating the U.S. poverty level and what I get paid for this column.

Funny part is, when they started actually showing the PSAs before movies, apparently they dropped the ones starring Ben Affleck, and only went with the "working stiffs."


The problem with how we teach people technology

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 10 years ago

When you learned to drive a car, you probably knew a little about it. There's an engine, it burns gas, that causes the wheels to go around. The gas pedal must have something to do with that burn rate. The brake makes the wheels stop.

Now, imagine that we all treated that "under the hood" as a black box, and that typical people commonly confused the engine with the carburetor. Some cars would even come with holographic stickers closing the hood shut, so you couldn't open it without voiding the warranty. When someone teaches you to drive a car, they say:

"Turn that key. Now, press in this button and move this lever until it clicks four times. Turn the wheel about 60 degrees, and slowly press on the right pedal. Turn the wheel back 60 degrees, but slowly... SLOWLY! See, you almost ran into that car! Now give it a little more gas... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to fall into jargon. Press harder on that right pedal. Use the big one on the left when we get to that white line on the pavement up there."

This is how people are taught to use computers. Click this, press that, drag here, type there. Meanwhile, when the computer tells them it's running out of memory, they start deleting stuff from their hard drive to free up space, because they don't know the difference between RAM and the C: drive.

If we (meaning, those of us who know this stuff) all took a different tack, instead of teaching people procedurally how to get through a particular function or application, we might have a much easier time educating folks about not running trojans. But as long as we (again, speaking to the community that has the knowledge) keep acting like people can't and shouldn't be taught this stuff in the way that we learn EVERYTHING ELSE, we'll keep having this problem.


Another new non-profit OS support idea

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 10 years ago

So I came up with an idea to fiscalize the dispersed demand for open source alternatives to proprietary software packages. (That's economist-speak for a way for folks to put their money where their mouth is.)

The idea is this: create a bounty program for particular projects. The best way would be to tack this onto an existing, respected OS organization, such as OSDN, but could be a free-standing non-profit entity. People would be able to:

- Create a bounty for production of a particular OS project
- Contribute to bounty funds for existing projects
- Place specific restrictions on their bounty contribution (i.e. must support a particular platform, needs to be distributed under a particular license, etc.)
- Suggest and vote on criteria for evaluating applications submitted for bounty consideration
- Review and vote on whether a particular package meets criteria and will be awarded the bounty

Funds would be collected from contributors at the time they decide to contribute. Lower bounds on contributions would be set by transaction costs; upper bounds don't seem necessary. Funds would be collected into a semi-liquid investment account (like a money market account) so that the money would accrue interest while the bounty is out. Costs to run the program would be collected from interest earnings on accounts, and the remainder of interest would be proportionally divided among the various projects.

Built from the ground up to be a flexible, communal framework, it would be possible to have fairly complicated reward schema. For example, if a particular submission met many of the criteria but not all (for example, had a great engine and lots of good features, but a lousy UI) the contributors to the bounty could elect to award a percentage to the project, and reserve the remainder for necessary improvements.

Since contributors have already put their money in the pot, there's less incentive to "hold back" awards if a good project comes along. If contributors merely pledge, but don't actually cough up the money until they've got the project in hand, they can say "Well, nah, this doesn't really qualify" and keep their money, while using the product.

Contributors and submitters could be any entity, including individuals, groups of people, academic institutions, or private companies.

So far I'm not seeing a drawback to this solution. People who want to see an OS port of a particular application could put up however much it's worth to them, and the projects that have the greatest demand and value to the community would get the most attention. OS developers would receive some financial reward for contributing their time and code. Small developers might decide to release a product as OS just because of the publicity they'd get from garnering the bounty, especially if they're trying to compete directly with an established proprietary product.


The problem with health insurance

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 10 years ago

Not that this has anything to do with technology, but whatever.

So the health insurance thing has been nagging me a bit lately, as I walk 1.5 miles to connect from the Santa Monica bus to the LA Department of Transportation DASH service, which are both unaffected by the transit strike, and also as I pay 20% more for the same products at Gelson's that I would normally buy from Von's. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that people get good health care? Why is the cost of health insurance skyrocketing? What can be done to stabilize the situation?

Well, it's obvious that health care is in several ways a market failure. It's an industry with a very distorted demand curve, because the demand for health, for *life*, is extremely inelastic. People will pay what it costs, to the extent that they have the money. This means that the price at which total revenue starts to decrease due to drop in demand is much higher than for other types of goods.

Further distorting the demand curve is the disconnect between prices and consumers created by the insurance industry. I was on a particular medication for a year and a half before I learned that the $10 I paid every other month for my bottle was less than 1/50th of the cost to my provider. I found this out entirely by accident; one day, a computer glitch left me without coverage, and I happened to go refill my perscription that day. When I got to the counter and they said "That'll be $558" I nearly had a heart attack.

If I had had to pay for that medication out of pocket, would I still have gone on it? It's hard to say. At the time I started on it, I probably could have afforded it, if I lived in a cheaper apartment and cut other expenses. Would I have stayed on it as long? I don't know. But what is certain is that the price never entered into my decision as a consumer, because I didn't have to pay for it.

So as we gain new technologies that allow us to live longer, healthier lives, and to survive or completely avoid an increasing array of diseases (my kids will be vaccinated against chicken pox... seems like they're missing out on a rite of passage), the insurance system leaves those who are covered feeling entitled to the best medical care money can buy... so long as it's not *their* money. So why is this?

We come to our second big problem... the value of life. Though civil courts every day put dollar figures on the lives of children and parents and community leaders and gang members, we all admit that life, generally speaking, is priceless. When I insure a house, two things go into calculating the premium: risk, and value. A $1 million house in the same environment as a $500k house will have a higher premium, because it will cost more to replace. A $500k house in a wildfire zone will cost more to insure than the same house in a boring urban area.

But when it comes to insuring our health, only risk can be taken into account, because there is no replacement for health. If we could value lives in the same manner as other goods, we might take into account the number of years the person can normally expect to live, the amount of education and natural talent they have, the number of people who depend on them, and so on. This would mean that my mother, a retired 60-year-old breast-cancer survivor and former smoker (38 years), with only one 29-year-old daughter, is less "valuable" than myself, a relatively healthy youngish person who will, if all goes well, have a master's degree and a heck of a career in transportation planning, along with a very young child in the next year or so. Yet it costs *more* to insure people who, in the most callous sense, are "less valuable," because the very things that make one valuable lower their risk of disease.

There is no simple resolution to the issue, as far as I can tell. We will not suddenly start "valuing" people's lives differently, nor will individuals stop demanding the best health care available at a price they can afford. But we can recognize that health care *is* a market failure, and regulate prices in new ways. Perscription drugs are a good place to start. It's true that it costs a great deal of money to develop these drugs, and there is a certain amount of risk involved. But how much of the resulting price does it take to repay that investment, with appropriate interest? Drug companies should be accountable for their pricing. Part of the FDA screening process should include an accounting of what the company's costs to develop the drug were, and a pricing system based on expected demand, production costs, initial investment, and appropriate profit should be devised. Sure, they should make money, even good money. But there should be a limit to how much they can make. The market won't limit it naturally, so this limit has to be imposed.

This model could potentially be extended to doctor's fees, lab tests, and many other areas, but in all cases would require careful analysis to ensure that the prices still yield quality coverage with low potential for fraud.

It's not enough to say that people should have access to good health care. Something has to be done to actually ensure that access. While 60,000 low-income children are wait-listed for health insurance in Florida, 700 retired MTA mechanics hold the entire transit system hostage with a strike that doesn't affect them, so that they can retain their practically free health coverage. The cheapest and potentially most rewarding people to keep healthy are left by the wayside over those who are the most expensive and offer the lowest return on investment. It's clear that something has failed, and we need to fix this soon.


A new business model

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 11 years ago

An idea popped into my head today, and I wanted to put it down somewhere before it got too heavy and fell out. It comes out of thinking, "What would it take to get someone to develop an OS version of GIS (Geographical Information Systems)?" Some may know, and others may not, that there's pretty much one company who makes GIS software (ESRI). It's hideously expensive, and not that great either. And while version 3.x is available for a variety of platforms (including Unix), the newest line, 8.x, is only available for Windows-NT based systems. (Apparently Microsoft threatened to create a competing product [which is MS-speak for steal their code] if they didn't introduce that limitation.)

So here's my thought: start up a non-profit company that is geared towards creating applications for government agencies (which tend to have the most specialized needs) and other large companies. The process goes like this:

  • Agency or company comes to non-profit OS software developer with specs for a program they need. It may be an existing program that they want ported to an Open Source model, or something entirely new.
  • NPOSSD bids the job based on how much it will cost to build it (remember, no profit margin).
  • Here's the fun part: now the two companies, in drawing up the contract, establish a licensing fee that seems reasonable. Subsequent people who want a license to the same software will pay this fee.
  • The entity that originally funded the project will get 90% of any collected licensing fees as a dividend, until their entire cost is repaid (accounting for present value and market interest rates). The remaining 10% will go into unfunded R&D work at the NPOSSD.
  • In the event that multiple entities want to split the costs of production, the dividend will be similarly split in proportion to what each paid.

It's crazy, but it just might work. Certainly it would be something of a safety net for governments that want to adopt a preferential policy towards Open Source. It's basically a high-risk low-yield investment, since there's no guarantee you'll get any of it back... but you might get it all back with interest. Now to write up a proposal, I guess ;-)


My favorite /. quote of the hour...

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 11 years ago

"The U.S. has an *enormous* installed base of poorly-designed neighborhoods."

    -- CidHighwind


Geeks need to get out of the IT industry...

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 11 years ago

...and into all the other industries. It's time to stop the segregation of technology as a separate department. As high-tech solutions become more and more essential to everyday business, there is a greater need for tech-savvy people in "ordinary" jobs.

I was thinking about this as I was chatting with my supervisor at LACMTA (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) today. I was relating to him the difficulties I had in completing a task because of outdated software and inadequate hardware. The Catch-22 is, if you don't have the people who know how to use the stuff, there's no point in buying advanced hardware or software... and if you don't have the advanced hardware or software, what's the point in hiring people to use it?

Now I'm an intern there, and I know how to use the stuff because in a former life I ran a Computer Services department or four at Kinko's. But in spite of the dot-com bust and the general job market issues, tech professionals don't seem to be flocking to more mundane office jobs.

Well, it's time they did. Next time you're laid off, just think... "What do I really want to do?" Then do it. Maybe, like me, you'll need to get another degree first or something (seems Transportation Planning isn't something people usually learn on the job), but it will be worth it... for you, and for your world. Yeah, the one you live in, that one. (No, not the one inside the little box. The one that delivers pizza when you can't tear yourself away from the box.)


The Nature of Magic

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 11 years ago

It occurs to me that magic, by definition, doesn't exist. The definitions presented by the dictionary are distinctly unsatisfying; most refer to the occult or supernatural. But when it comes down to it, something is "magic" if it simply cannot be.

All kinds of things (for example, predicting the future, influencing the weather, or instantaneously appearing and disappearing) are dubbed magic. We name a thing magic if we cannot tell how it could possibly happen. Either we know it to be impossible on the face of it (levitation, invisibility, etc.) or we know that it can be done, but not without certain prerequisites that aren't currently present (moving from one location to another without travelling the space in between, for example).

It has been argued that we need magic. I won't disagree; one of my favorite quotes is "Logic gives man what he needs; magic gives him what he wants" (Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction). But in terms of what stock we put in it, it's important to recognize just what we categorize as magic. It seems that, for all practical purposes, magic is the same as imagination. It just now occurred to me that they even seem to share a common root... I'll have to crack open the OED on that one sometime. We do, I think, need the ability to conceive of and comprehend the impossible; otherwise, new things never become possible. But knowing the difference between imagining a way to cure cancer with crystals and actually believing that you can do it, right now, can be a life and death matter.

There is still a lot in this world we don't understand. Most of it has to do with how we work; we're still quite foggy on just what makes us self-aware, intelligent, or even alive. We can say "this is alive" and "this is not alive," but we don't know how to go from one to the other (without using a currently living organism to process the non-living matter, anyway). But calling such a thing "magic" can be misleading. It implies, to many people, that it not only isn't possible for us to do now, but that it never can be understood; that its very nature is supernatural, which of course is a paradox.

Ok, done babbling, back to calculating mortgage payments for my math homework that was due last week... and I'll be dreaming of some magical way to have all my homework done while I read /.


Open Source and the Market Economy

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 11 years ago So my journal entry yesterday made me think a bit about Open Source and the market economy. I read an article linked from /. that referred to OS as "intellectual community property," which sounds suspiciously like public goods. Hm, could they be on to something?

People have often argued that OS is the "solution" to the rather broken application of copyright to software. A common response to this is that "Open Source is not commercially viable." It's hard to argue with that. But, on the other hand, it's not entirely relevant.

In the US, we're used to thinking of everything from the market economy standpoint. We bought into Adam Smith's efficient allocation of resources (without noting the caveats about perfect information or perfect mobility... oops). So we have trouble conceiving of any other system of distribution.

In yesterday's journal entry, I mentioned the free rider problem. In a market-regulated economy, free riders bring the whole system down, because people see that someone's getting something for nothing, and they stop paying also. In the end, you have a suboptimal solution for everyone, even if every individual is acting in their own best interests (the prisoner's dilemma). That's the justification for government intervention in market failures.

Open Source is another kind of response to a market failure. It has the assumption of free riders. This is something that boggles the American mind. Instead of making something good because you can sell it, people make something good so that they have something good, and then let other people use it. This can indirectly increase their wealth; they may get a great job offer based on their OS work, for example. But since they don't immediately, directly see financial benefit from their work, there's an assumption that they won't do as good a job as they might if they were being paid for it.

The corollary to this assumption is that open source cannot produce as good a product as proprietary software. People say this, and ignore the fact that it doesn't appear to be true. With no large-scale marketing, no bundle licensing agreements, and no evil empire, Linux has a 26% market share in corporate back-office servers. It's not just the price, either; sysadmins are switching to Linux because of the stability, the ease of administration, and the security over Windows-based solutions.

Generally speaking, the OS model seems to produce a product that is superior in mechanism, but inferior in interface. The superior part isn't hard to figure; people are making this stuff because they want to use it, so they're motivated to make it work well. Add to that the concept of peer review -- your code is out there for all to see, so you want to make it look good. Did your mother ever say "Wear clean underwear in case you get in an accident?" Sort of the same thing, but less foreboding.

The interface is where OS falls behind, so far. Again, looking at how it's made makes this obvious: people who are good with software are making it to be used by people who are good with software. There's not much point to spending the effort to make it appeal to the lowest common denominator... not when you could spend that time and effort making it run .01% faster. ;-) Of course, the attempt to make it commercially viable by selling packaging and support is changing this, slowly. In time, the gap will probably close to a point that there's no real difference between using Linux and using a proprietary desktop or server operating system.

So, basically, they're right: open source can't work in a free market economy. It works outside of it. It's making a new economy, one that's desperately needed. /me cheers.


Digital Information as a Public Good

Ironica Ironica writes  |  more than 11 years ago First off, let me explain that I'm a first year MA student in Urban Planning at UCLA. That puts this in context a little bit.

So this morning I was sitting in Introduction to History and Theories of Planning, and the topic of public goods came up. It's a frequent cause of discussion in planning circles. The definition of a public good that they've pounded into our heads has two parts:

  1. It is impossible or unfeasible to control access to the good.
  2. It is not consumed by use; it can be used by an unlimited number of people without being used up.

Economists sometimes describe public goods as an example of a market failure. Since it is not possible to consume or to control access to a public good, the market cannot regulate it through supply, demand, and pricing. People are liable to underreport their desire for the good, in order to avoid paying their fair share (the free rider problem) or it may be that no individual values the good enough to pay for it to be set up, though it may be beneficial to everyone (such as a symphony orchestra). In some cases, no individual *can* buy/create/establish a particular public good; imagine if United had to build their own airport in every city they wanted to fly to, or that you and your neighbors had to get together and lay a new sewer pipe.

Planners and other social science types often argue that market failures are areas where government can and should step in and regulate the situation, even in a free market economy. Through taxes and other assessments, governments can evenly distribute the financial burden of providing public goods, so as to ensure they are available to all that want or need them.

So it suddenly struck me that, according to the definition I provided above, digital information is a public good. Since the quality doesn't degrade as you create new copies, and the cost of copying is practically nil, it is not consumed by use. It is currently impossible to really prevent information from being shared, as well. Access can be controlled only through relatively extreme measures; for example, the military has installations that literally have no connection to the outside world via anything but the front door, so information can only be hand-carried out. Palladium is an enormous effort being put forth to control access to information, and there's no sure bet that it will actually work. It may simply make information harder for people to use legitimately to the same degree that it prevents illegitimate use.

So, what? Well, then, I would argue that government needs to take an active role in provisioning the public good of digital information. Exactly what form this role should take is a little more difficult; I just had this thought today, give me time. ;-) But certainly this would be a new role for organizations such as the National Endowment for the Arts, or a justification for regulating some software companies like public utilities. In any event, going on pretending that we can control access to digital information isn't going to solve anything. We need to think of it in a new way.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>