On 06/10/2011 06:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:12:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> The difference is, the US military *needs* GPS to exist
>
> Well, no, military forces (including in the US) existed well before the
> advent of GPS technology.

And military forces existed before the invention of projectile weapons. 
I don't think you can successfully argue that the army don't need guns. ;-)

The point isn't that the USMC wouldn't exist without GPS. It's that GPS 
is valuably enough for them to pay for it, even if it didn't benefit 
anyone else.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:34:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 06/10/2011 06:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:12:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> The difference is, the US military *needs* GPS to exist
>>
>> Well, no, military forces (including in the US) existed well before the
>> advent of GPS technology.
> 
> And military forces existed before the invention of projectile weapons.
> I don't think you can successfully argue that the army don't need guns.
> ;-)

Guns are kinda necessary.  GPS?  Useful, but if they don't have coverage 
for some reason, it's not a deal killer.  After all, having a map also is 
useful, or having local knowledge of the area.

> The point isn't that the USMC wouldn't exist without GPS. It's that GPS
> is valuably enough for them to pay for it, even if it didn't benefit
> anyone else.

That's not what you said, though, you said it *needs* GPS to exist.  It 
doesn't need it, it's just a very useful tool so they know where they are 
without resorting to other methods.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/10/06 13:27, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:48:02 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> Incidentally, people talk about how FB has all this valuable user data
>>> and how they're using it to do ultra-targeted advertising. ARE YOU
>>> KIDDING ME? Have you *seen* their adverts? What are they aiming with? A
>>> blunderbuss?! Because the targeting is just laughably poor. For
>>> example, constantly spamming me with ads for dating websites, even
>>> after I changed my profile to indicate that I'm no longer single.
>>>
>>> Sometimes, you do something like change your status to mention
>>> Marmite(tm), and an advert for Marmite(tm) appears. Sometimes you say
>>> something like "man, I'm really looking forward to the weekend", and
>>> get an advert for Hellman's mayonnaise. And sometimes, you say
>>> something like "hey Helen, that was some great dancing yesterday" and
>>> get adverts for Black&  Decker power tools. I mean, seriously, WTF?
>>> This is not "targeted advertising", this is "randomly generated spam".
>>
>> I don't consider it spam if the advertiser pays for the ad.
>
> So those "cheap meds" messages don't count as spam?  The seller does pay
> someone to send the message, after all...
>
> If so, that's a very unconventional definition for "Spam" (in the
> Internet sense).
>
> Jim

Ads on a web page are just ads, not spam. The anouncer does pay the host 
site to show them to you.

Ads IN your in-box are spam. The anouncer don't pay, or pays some crooks 
and criminals, to deliver it to you. YOU end up paying to get those ads, 
both in lost time and through your ISP fees.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/6/2011 10:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:16:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>>
>> It wouldn't be hard to charge. Put a license tax on each GPS receiver,
>> like TV in the UK.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me to learn that that was part of the cost of the
> devices already.

I'm sure there are a bunch of patents on receivers. I wouldn't expect any of 
that money goes back to the people orbiting the satellites.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:01:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/6/2011 10:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:16:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't be hard to charge. Put a license tax on each GPS receiver,
>>> like TV in the UK.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me to learn that that was part of the cost of the
>> devices already.
> 
> I'm sure there are a bunch of patents on receivers. I wouldn't expect
> any of that money goes back to the people orbiting the satellites.

Hard to say without looking at the relevant patents. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:59:25 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/10/06 13:27, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:48:02 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>> Incidentally, people talk about how FB has all this valuable user
>>>> data and how they're using it to do ultra-targeted advertising. ARE
>>>> YOU KIDDING ME? Have you *seen* their adverts? What are they aiming
>>>> with? A blunderbuss?! Because the targeting is just laughably poor.
>>>> For example, constantly spamming me with ads for dating websites,
>>>> even after I changed my profile to indicate that I'm no longer
>>>> single.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, you do something like change your status to mention
>>>> Marmite(tm), and an advert for Marmite(tm) appears. Sometimes you say
>>>> something like "man, I'm really looking forward to the weekend", and
>>>> get an advert for Hellman's mayonnaise. And sometimes, you say
>>>> something like "hey Helen, that was some great dancing yesterday" and
>>>> get adverts for Black&  Decker power tools. I mean, seriously, WTF?
>>>> This is not "targeted advertising", this is "randomly generated
>>>> spam".
>>>
>>> I don't consider it spam if the advertiser pays for the ad.
>>
>> So those "cheap meds" messages don't count as spam?  The seller does
>> pay someone to send the message, after all...
>>
>> If so, that's a very unconventional definition for "Spam" (in the
>> Internet sense).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Ads on a web page are just ads, not spam. The anouncer does pay the host
> site to show them to you.

I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about e-mail exclusively.

> Ads IN your in-box are spam. The anouncer don't pay, or pays some crooks
> and criminals, to deliver it to you. YOU end up paying to get those ads,
> both in lost time and through your ISP fees.

So the question really is not whether they pay, but who they pay - if 
they pay a crook/criminal, that doesn't count?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/2011 6:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

True, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/6/2011 10:59, Alain wrote:
> Ads IN your in-box are spam. The anouncer don't pay, or pays some crooks and
> criminals, to deliver it to you.

So the same ad wouldn't be spam if the advertiser paid for the bandwidth to 
deliver it himself?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:09:52 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/10/2011 6:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
> 
> True, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

LOL

Post a reply to this message