Le 2011/10/06 08:48, Paul Fuller a écrit :
> On 6/10/2011 9:12 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Didn't this start with something about how much it costs to run
>>> Facebook? No doubt it is a lot of money. However the incremental cost of
>>> providing Facebook to any one user is immeasurably small. You could even
>>> say that denying Facebook to any one person would cost more than
>>> allowing it.
>>>
>>> GPS is a similar example with the critical difference that I don't see
>>> how a user is being sold.
>>
>> The difference is, the US military *needs* GPS to exist, and they're the
>> ones paying for it. Once it exists, it costs no extra money to let you
>> and me use it, so why bother trying to charge for it?
>>
>
> The genesis of GPS is a fascinating study in technology, bureaucracy and
> the military. Read "The Strategy of Technology" (1970), Stefan T.
> Possony, Jerry E Pournelle and Col. Francis X Kane. It is available
> online at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html.
> Particularly "An Illustrative Case History: GPS NAVSTAR: The Revolution
> 25 Years in the Making" at the end of Chapter 2.
>
> Col. Kane headed up the study and then the programme that developed GPS.
>
> The study identified that such a system would be technologically
> possible and would have many benefits to various military operations -
> something like 30,000 distinct uses were considered. One problem was
> that for just about every possible use somebody would say "Well sure but
> we can get by the way we are" / "We have a cheaper alternative" / "It
> won't be ready because the (Vietnam) war will be over in 6 months" etc.
> Others actively opposed the scheme because it would replace the system
> that they were running or proposing.
>
> US Congress approved funding on the basis that it would cost less than
> the programmes it replaced (it didn't) and that the non-Defence users
> would pay (they don't).
>
> Looking back it seems like a no-brainer decision to put up GPS but that
> isn't how such things come about.
>
> I strongly doubt that the non-military usage of the system came at no
> cost either originally or since. Suppose for example that the US
> military no longer required GPS. The body that oversees the programme is
> mandated to provide civilian use positioning signals.
>
> Do you think the system would be shutdown and the satellites de-orbited?
> Do you think there would be any way to start charging for all of the
> continuing users?
>
>> Nobody *needs* Facebook to exist, and nobody *pays* for it to exist.
>> [Some people pay to put adverts on it, but they don't actually care
>> about FB itself. They just want lots of people to see ads.] Every single
>> extra person who accesses FB increases the costs for the operators
>> (unlike GPS). So yes, you're being sold.
>>
>
> By the same logic, advertising funded television stations, radio
> stations, newspapers, sporting events, billboards and more don't *need*
> to exist. They are just vehicles to carry advertising to consumers. The
> actual content is secondary. I don't see much difference between those
> and Facebook. Sure some people actually enjoy the content and even
> *want* it but for anybody else you just see them as irrelevant and
> wonder why somebody would pay to produce them. Unless you see that they
> are just money making vehicles.
>

In Montréal, we have 4 free weekly cultural journals available. 2 in 
french and 2 in english.
Many peoples get them UNIQUELY for the adds they contain! They then also 
read some of the articles, some times.
Want to know when and where this or that event is taking place? They are 
the best place to look for.
If you wait for the mainstream medias to inform you about many events, 
you'll only get report about how great the event WAS, maybe 2 days to 2 
weeks AFTER the end of the event...

Post a reply to this message