#Environmental packaging
92 messages in this thread
[ continuation ]
By my analysis, they're trying to look at all the issues all the time. Of
course, some of them aren't. I've known my share of smart a** young 'uns
with more opinions than experience and quite lengthy hidden agendas. Isn't
that what politics is all about?
I also purchased Notebook this week–and it's a rather *neat* program. I'm
quite happy with the approach BBS has taken to be concise and they did a
good job with their manual. And I *still* think that it's an intelligent,
well-thought through decision of theirs not to waste money and (literally)
garbage on additional packaging. But then again, I tend to buy BBS
products and support their company because I like their software (and the
hardware too, but THAT's a different story…)
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
I'm the ignorant someone who mentioned that landfills and paper
aren't a problem…or at least I presume you think I'm ignorant since your
statement was that, "…someone ignorantly pointed out that paper isn't a
problem in the landfills…"
Sure, something like a National Geographic won't degrade as fast as
newsprint will…but it WILL degrade in a reasonable amount of time.
I call them "so-called" experts because I personally don't believe
they are experts yet others seem to take their word as gospel. Carl Sagan
is a case in point. He does appear to know what he's talking about (as
much as anyone can) relative to his chosen field of astronomy. But he
doesn't seem to know diddley about the atmosphere of Earth. He was one of
the first ones predicting all kinds of dire consequences from (prior to the
fact) from the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields. He used his computer
models, to supposedly prove his point.
Quite obviously…his models were way off. And if you can't build
models… then don't call yourself a model-builder (sic).
There are lots of others like him. Many are experts in certain
fields, quite respected in those fields…but when they venture out of
those fields…they fall flat on their face (in my….and many other's
opinions).
And no…I am not an expert in those fields either…but then I
don't make predictions nor do I claim to speak with authority other than
that of someone who's observed and read about many of the issues.
Why do I bring up extreme examples…because by exagerating (using
extremes) the points of contention can generally be made very clear. I
never suggested you felt that way…only that some people feel that way.
(continued in next reply..)
Don,
I have the same problem with so-called experts. I usually get quite a
laugh out of some of the mail I get from environmental organizations, then
sharpen my electronic pencil to let them know where they are screwed up.
With respect to Carl Sagan, all his predictions were based upon a one
dimensional model of the atmosphere, not the three and four dimensional
models currently being tested. Every time they add another dimension to
the atmospheric model, the so-called 'nuclear winter' temperature drop
decreases by an order of magnitude. The only reason I bring that up at all
is that computer modeling is the field I am currently slated to minor in.
With respect to your vintage 1960's truck, yes, it does sound like
slipshod standards. If such vehicles weren't grandfathered in our
clean-air provisions under SC AQMD (Southern California Air Quality
Managment District) regulations, they would not be allowed to operate down
here. There has been some thought to mandating that all older vehicles be
required to pass the same tests as vehicles after 1978, but it hasn't gone
anywhere, yet. These vehicles make up 10% of all cars in Southern
California, but produce 90% of the smog down here <sigh>.
One company, Arco, has stumbled onto a novel approach with respect to
this issue. They regularly spend $500,000, or so, per year, to buy up old
cars and junk them. The AQMD then allows them to use the amount of
pollutants that the vehicles would have produced as a deduction from the
amount they emitted for the year.
I love it when the market works.
Brian Bartlett
Brian,
A professor here in Denver has come up with a novel approach to
polution testing…he sets up an infrared sensor on a highway ramp (not the
accelleration portion) and can test vehicles as they pass. His studies
showed that 8% of the vehicles produce the polution here in Denver. Take
those 8% off the streets, and there'd be no problem….according to him
that is.
The interesting data that came out of his tests however is that it
is not the older vehicles that represent that 8%. The number of vehicles
that pollute vs those that don't (by year) is pretty much the same for all
model years from 3 years old to 10 years old. Beyond that, yes the
percentage goes up, but mainly because cars that old tend not to be
properly maintained. My old truck (it was a '76 not a 60's model) would
have fallen into the "properly maintained" category.
In other words, if there were a way to force proper maintenance on
vehicles, there'd be no pollution problem. At least according to his data.
The way I maintained that old truck was to change the spark plugs,
distributor cap and rotor every 25K miles. I also rebuilt the carburetor
every 50K miles ( I did all the work myself). I also checked it on an
automotive oscilloscope at every tune up to insure the ignition wiring and
coil were still in good condition and checked the ignition timing. The
wiring, coil and timing were as good the day I sold it as the day I bought
it brand new 16 years earlier.
I regularly changed the oil and oil filter, (every 3 to 5K miles
depending on how I drove it) and used a high quality oil and as a
result…had minimal internal engine wear…thus even after 160,000 miles,
it only burned a quart of oil every 3K miles.
And so…based on my personal experience…I'd have to agree with
that professor's conclusions.
Don
Don,
so would I.
Brian Bartlett
Don,
Being ignorant isn't a personal slam; it merely reflects that a person is
unknowledgable regarding a particular subject matter. ANd i do think
you've opined more than you have been able to back your opinions up with
facts.
You keep using the term "reasonable" in your comments, and i'm not sure
why. In fact, lots of paper products *don't* degrade in a timeframe that
i'd consider reasonable at all. I, for one, would prefer it if you'd
refrain from those type of comments (…implying that since it's
"reasonable" that the actual factual information is irrelevant…) and back
up your assertions with more factual information. Do you know
approximately how long it takes paper like National Geographic to degrade?
If you in fact have no bloody idea, then why don't you just drop it?
I'm not sure why you're entitled to belittle and/or otherwise discredit
those you term "so-called" experts just because you personally don't
believe or subscribe to their statements and/or opinions. All i'm asking
you to do is qualify your comments with a few facts to support your
opinions.
I'm also not particularly interested in continuing this discussion much
more, if only for my suspicion that others online are getting tired of
reading this and i'm not sure just how constructive carrying this on for
much longer would be.
Extreme examples such as those you've used recently *aren't* necessary to
clearly illustrate a point; what they actually do is to make light of and
discredit the other point of view. Maybe you'll want to reconsider just
how helpful they actually are. Many of us here are quite capable of
interpreting and understanding more realistic (and perhaps more fair)
examples!
I'm also of the opinion that since you're a SYSOP that you have some
responsibilities to remain fair in your discussions and to back up your
comments with reasonably factual support. If *I* were a SYSOP, I'd
certainly go to great lengths to comment fairly about things i actually
knew
[ MORE ]
Tim,
in case you hadn't noticed, the particular message section we are
addressing one another in is called "Ramblings." In this section, you can
say any old d*mned thing you want, you just have to accept that someone
might, just might, disagree with what you say.
With respect to whether Don has to be "fair" in his postings here, you
are wide off the mark. Neither the Universe, nor the postings here, have
to be "fair", whether you are a sysop, or not. Don gives up quite a bit of
his valuable time to make this place a comfortable place to get the latest
downloads available to us, and he does this for free. Perhaps, if he were
compensated for his time, I might, just might, understand such an absurd
notion. Furthermore, unless I miss my guess, freedom of speech is still a
respected right in this country, political correctness not with standing,
and don't ask me what I think about that!
Lastly, mister, if case you haven't noticed, when factual information
has been requisite to support a discussion, Don has provided the same, as
in my disscussion with him over smog controls. If you would care to debate
with me over landfill problems and the degradation time of "National
Geographics", I would be glad to oblige. I am more than cognizant of such
statistics <grin>.
Brian Bartlett
MISTER Brian,
Are you always such a jerk?
I actually appreciate a lot all of the time the sysops devote to
maintaining the Amiga (and other) areas here on CIS. And Don in
particular. I just happen to disagree with him on what we were discussing.
Are you inferring that i have no business commenting/disagreeing with him
in this public forum, the one you so "kindly" pointed out to me (and the
rest of the people who may be following this now quite ridiculous thread)
was called "Ramblings" and that you can say "any old d*mned thing you
want?"
There's a vast difference between freedom of speech and public discourse
that recognizes certain basic respects for the different participants. It's
rather interesting to note how much i've been slammed for simply
disagreeing with the "popular statement" that started this whole thing. I'm
just exercising my own freedom of speech to respond, and I've taken great
pains to do it as constructively as possible while recognizing the
integrity of the individual(s) who don't agree with me. I'm not sure that
the reverse would be an accurate reflection of how people responded to me.
And i stand by my assertion that sysops *should* take the time to review
their postings for 1) accuracy when possible and 2) refrain from personal
attacks at most, if not all times < and this is NOT specific to the recent
discussion between Don and myself > "Political correctness" has nothing to
do with this anyway; i don't know why you dragged it into the discussion in
the first place.
Lastly, "MISTER," I don't care to discuss a da*mned thing with you.
Unless you'd care to do it in a constructive fashion. Flaming is *usually*
reserved for a***oles, IMHO.
.. Tim Trompeter…
Interesting. I found Brian's message to you to be well thought out,
politely stated, and, um, "reasonable". I found your reply to him to be
everything you accused his to be.
-sja
Calm Down Tim —
Brian's comments to you were in noway "Flaming" –
There are many of us reading this thread who are not getting involved in
the discussion. But we read with an open mind and consider everybody's
thoughts. Nobody has, of yet, really gotten out of hand. Nobody is calling
you names and you don't need to fly off on a rappage at everybody who
writes to you.
Lighten up a little – will ya.
"Be readin' ya"
(c) Roy Pahnke – 1985 🙂
Mister Timothy P. Trompeter:
No, I am not a jerk or, at least, I hope not. Many of my instructors
have specifically asked for me to sign up for their classes simply because
I do keep abreast of current political debate. If I were a "jerk", I do
not think this would be the case, as I am sure any teacher would agree.
Your reply to Don definitely fell into the categories of (1) "put up or
shut up", and (2) political correctness. I find that latter category more
distressing than the former. You assert that Don is not entitled to an
opinion since he is a sysop. Something is wrong with this picture. The
first category, I do not find distressing at all. As I stated in my
previous reply to you, if you wish to discuss the characteristics of
garbage decay, I would be more than willing. On many parts of this topic,
you are quite correct, although I do disagree on some specifics.
You seem to feel that only members, not sysops, are entitled to have an
opinion, and furthermore, that these opinions must follow your doctrine of
"fairness". I do not buy this logic. It is sad enough that I have to
encounter this logic on campus, let alone here. Don is just as entitled to
his opinions as you, or anyone else, is. I don't necessarily agree with
these opinions, but that is what "Ramblings" is all about. If you can't
take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I have, on occasion, in this
thread, challanged others on a statistical basis.
I _do_ have the background to back up my assertions and if you insist, I
can provide citations. Can you? At least Don is willing to mention his
sources.
Brian Bartlett
[ continuation ]
something about. ANd if I were ignorant about the situation, i'd probably
be one of the first to admit it!
I haven't taken any of this personally; I'm just not about to let you get
away with portraying my position as extreme or unrealistic. That's all.
And now…hopefully…back to other Amiga-related topics! (And did you
notice I finally found the originate button and changed the thread??!)
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
If you want to stop the discussion…fine. But before I back out,
I'd like to say one thing….you haven't stated any facts or stated you
have any special knowledge on this subject either.
Don
Don,
I haven't argued anything other than to state my opinion. You were the one
who glorified your statements with allusions that they represented factual
information and not just your opinion.
You're welcome to say anything you want about me; i've made it clear that
my statements are simply my opinions and nothing more. I'll continue the
discussion as long as you continue to make public statements in this forum
regarding this matter. As far as i'm concerned, some of the facts i've
alluded to speak for themselves. Are you implying that solid waste ISN'T a
current problem today?
As far as "special knowledge" goes, i'm not an "expert" on environmental
issues. I merely try to keep up with issues via the media and occasionally
review more scholarly subject matter. I'm quite cognizant of the
political/hidden agenda crap that seems to filter much of what we read in
the popular press; that's why i often refrain from literal interpretation
of things i read or see on video/TV.
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
You stated that I gave no "facts"…when in fact, the facts speak
for themselves. I gave as an example of "so called experts" Carl Sagan.
His statements and predictions have NOT come true. The burning of the
Kuwaiti oil fields did not send smoke into the stratosphere. It did not
create a nuclear winter or anything even close.
Those are facts.
As to the amount of time it takes to decompose a National
Geographic, no I haven't tested it. But common sense says that since it's
made of paper, and that paper is less permanent than many other
materials…such as metals and most plastics…then at some point in time,
it'll break down. Now if I bury a tree trunk, under most
conditions…it'll decompose also (and if it doesn't, we end up with a
petrified tree at some point in the distant future). But like a tree
trunk, a magazine like the National Geographic will decompose over time.
I said "reasonable time"…to me, that's 100 years or less.
I never said solid waste in a landfill wasn't a problem, I said
that paper in a landfill isn't a problem. That's based on articles I've
read, and upon my own observations. I've been at landfills, I've seen
what's being throw away. I've also seen "reclaimed" landfills.
The types of magazines I read are: Scientific American, Astronomy,
National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, Smithsonian plus some computer type
magazines. It's those magazines where I get my "external" information.
And of course, I read the newspaper also.
I see things that displease me, such as knee-jerk reaction to
non-issues suddenly propelled to "major concerns" because someone,
somewhere makes a statement supposedly based on "scientific fact"…that
later prove to be totally false. In the meantime though…a lot of damage
can be done and/or costs imposed for no good reason at all. Two examples
of this…Cyclamates and Alar. I also see many so called "environmental
issues" fit this mold. That is, of course, my opinion and my opinion is
based on the information available to me at the time.
I do not believe in political correctness…I believe in common
sense.
Don
Don…
just a side note…
It really bothers me that paper products like telephone directories that
have been buried in landfils for forty years are still readable. Things
like paper phone books and encyclopedias are, IMHO, an archaic. They are
outdated the very moment that they are printed and waste tremendous
amounts of natural resources (not to mention that they are expensive to
produce and distribute). Such items would be far more useful if the
information contained in them were stored electronically and a system of
electronic retrieval were available to everyone via cable TV and/or
touchtone telephone.
We make some lousy choices in our society… and sometimes the good
decisions are too long in coming. But then, maybe that's the check's &
balances way of accomplishing change.
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
So Michael,
"… were available to everyone via cable TV and/or touchtone telephone…"
What about the people who do not own TV or have a phone, or use Rotary?
Well I guess its off to the public library for them. Uh-oh, no car, well,
there is the bus. Of course if they can't afford a car, then they probably
can't afford to own a set of encyclopedias, and why should they be given
access to a phone directory in the first place, who they gonna call?
[smile]
Chris
via neither Whap! or Autopilot
Chris,
Rotary phone…no problem…1-411 Information operator.
Don
Chris,
one point you are ignoring here is "Universal Lifeline". This is a
service provided by the phone companies for just a couple of bucks per
month. 😉
Brian Bartlett
Brian,
Universal Lifeline?
What is your point? If this is about people lacking the use of phones,
touchtone and phone book directories for the receiving of futuristic
information disseminatio please understand, my reply leant more toward the
satirical than the serious.
Chris
But Michael,
If you followed Don's logic <and implication> it *doesn't matter* a whit
how many telephone books are in those landfills; they aren't a problem in
the first place, and in the second place they *do* biodegrade in a
"reasonable" time….
I'm not quite sure just how successful the phone company would be putting
that information on electronic media only…I did notice a fair amount of
telephone book recycling going on the last time the phone company issued
new editions around here. Now if only you could get most people to recycle
most of their phone books…
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
I'd sure as heck rather see a bunch of phone books…than a bunch
of tires or CD-ROMS (electronic phone books) in a landfill.
Don
Tim,
and what you are ignoring is federal and state regulations that prevent
the phone companies, as well as Donnely, and others, from recycling their
phone books. With respect to the current regulation structure, the phone
companies have to _pay_ someone to accept the phone books. That seems
pretty ridiculous in my book (pun intended) since the same people that drop
the books off could collect the old books.
We have four different "Yellow Pages" here simply due to the fact it is
not economically feasible to collect them, let alone recycle them. Stick
to the facts.
Brian Bartlett
>> Such items would be far more useful if the information contained in them
were stored electronically and a system of electronic retrieval were
available to everyone via cableTV and/or touchtone telephone.<<
I agree …. but there are too many assumptions to overcome in that
statement.
1. Electronic storage requires an elecronic means of retrieval. This
assumes that EVERYONE would have a computer or related device to accomplish
this retrieval. Polls show that only about 15% of households have computers
(or other similar retrieval systems) in them. And only 3% of public
libraries have similar equipment available to them for such electronic
retrieval. So the first part of your campaign would have to be "a computer
(or similar) in every home!" that in itself is a huge hurdle to get over.
Paperbound encyclopedias still exceed the usefulness of a computer in this
respect because virtually all libraries have a full set of encyclopedias
avaailable, and more than one person can be using a set of encyclopedias at
a time when two or more library patrons want to lookup subject within
different volumes within the set. At this point in time, technology only
lets one operator per computer (unless you're talking about a mini-computer
that is far too expensive for any but the largest of public libraries to
own/use).
2. Allowing EVERYONE access to such information via public utilities is
quickly becoming reality, but has not quite made it there yet. there are
still far too many households that do not have access to cable TV, and
attempting to gather information via telephone with the use of
aforementioned computers (or similar) would be worse than useless. A person
would never be able to get enough information, via telephone, in a timely
manner without the use of some information gathering device such as a
computer.
Fortunately Ma-Bell is addressing that aspect even as we speak. The
(collective) phone companies have received authorization recently to enter
the 'programing distribution' field. If I know Ma-Bell at all, what I
[ MORE ]
Marc,
the figure you quote for the availability of home computers is quite off
the mark. The most recent statistics are in the 40% range, assuming that
video-game and similiar (remember the C-64) machines are counted in the
sample. The only significant sector of Americans lacking such machines is
the poorest 40% of America, and they are engaging in a game of catch-up due
to the advertising that portrays any family without a PC (whatever it is)
as backward. PC's are likely to become the next VCR with respect to
availability and price point, as I'm sure you can see from recent declines
in retail price.
As for the critque with respect to one information consumer per machine,
that is ludicrous, at best. The last time I looked, having multiple phone
lines in any household in this same income range (the lower 40%) is a
dream. I do know that, although we are in the lowest income group, we at
least have "Universal Lifeline" and do not pay much for the service. While
I do have to structure my computer time around incoming and outgoing calls,
how much bother is this, in the age of semi-autonomous machines?
While the library is nice, the computer beats it hands down, especially
for tracking down cross-references, which I have found to be time delaying
due to other users of the reference work.
Just my two cents.
Brian Bartlett
[ continuation ]
expect to see is fiber-optic cable brought into the homes of America, first
a better means of providing telephone communications, but then Ma-Bell will
offer a 'cable box' to allow reception of television signals via the fiber,
followed very soon by 'data' and 'fax' services. All to be delivered over
that one fiber-optic cable that the FCC allowed into the homes of America.
As for wether this is good or bad … only time will tell. It will make
much more 'information' available to the American home …. yet at the same
time it'll give Ma-Bell a strangle hold on the American public (ala 1950 –
remember when it was illegal to install your own phone? and you had to pay
additional charges for EVERY extension phone you had in your home?).
So the bottom line is that your idea of having set of 'electronic refernce
books' available to EVEYONE is a good idea …. the public at large is
equipped to make it reality, and the business sector does not have a viable
vehicle in place to allow this dream to become reality.
So COME BACK DOWN TO REALITY! What can be done NOW? What alternatives do
we have available TODAY? you said yourself that throwing the books in the
dump is bad …. but what else do we have available NOW? Don't give me loud
wailing and gnashing of teeth ….. give me SOLUTIONS that can be
implemented NOW!
Whaping it from Wyoming
Marc Speth
Marc;
Only the shortsighted demand solutions NOW. They want the National Debt
wiped out NOW. They want National Helath Care NOW. They want profits NOW.
Higher wages NOW. Lower taxes NOW. I believe it's called instant
gratification. Seems like as a society we have completely lost sight of
the ability to plan change; to envision the future and then work towards
solutions. So, YOU keep working on NOW. I'll keep working for the future,
ok?
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Michael,
Phone numbers are available via touchtone (or dial for that fact)
telephone. It's called the information operator. Of course, it's no
longer free like the phone books are.
Electronic storage (I presume CD-ROMs) would be no better than the
paper method. Outdatted the day it's published. And I strongly suspect
you'll find those CD-ROMs in landfill's for a whole lot longer than 40
years.
Don
Don:
Everyone seems to be taking what I expressed as 'ideas' as if I were
suggesting that they were 'THE' answer… gee… I wish my wife tok me
that seriously. I was merely pointing out the direction I believe we need
to go as a consuming society.
BTW, there's no need for any outdated CD-ROM's to end up in a landfill…
they make neat coasters, mini-frisbees, earings, and if you string a buch
of 'em together and hang them from a curtain rod, they look just like
prisms when the sun hits 'em! <g>
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Don,
CD-ROMS are plastic coated aluminum — recyclable.
-sja
Steve,
Presuming there's a market for plastic coated aluminium, and that
people recycle them.
Don
I recycle mine all the time — sell the one's I wish I hadn't had purchased
back to the store for $4.00.
Don:
I don't know about anywhere else, but down here in Ft Lauderdale LOTS of
people recycle their CDs, as a matter of fact there are quite a few stores
that do this as their only business, they buy, sell, and trade used CDs. I
would imagine the next logical step for this would be to do the same for
CDROMS and/or CDTV/CD-I titles too.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Yeah, if they quit printing phone books, maybe they could use the savings
for free directory information service!
-Steve
"…maybe they could use the savings for free directory information
service.."
uh uh… phone books are money makers, because of the advertising. Most
'white' pages are paid for by the ad revenues of the 'yellow' pages.
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Well… _Throw out that idea!_
I guess the Yellow pages are nice… all your junk mail in one easy to
toss package. But, they could still eliminate the white pages with my
idea. Yellow page revenue could finance free directory assistance. With
advances in technology, expecially in voice-recognition, an operator won't
be necessary (thereby putting another jobless soul on the street.)
-Steve
Michael,
the fundamental flaw with that line of argument is the price point of a
computer system. Fortunately, I have neither a car, nor a house. Instead,
I pay rent on an apartment. Given these facts, I have enough disposable
income to pay for the services presented here on CompuServe (remember, the
forums, where most of the information is contained, are not free).
Furthermore, even if someone were to avoid buying an encyclopeia, they
would still have to pay the $700, or so, plus monthly fees of $7.95, in
order to access the online version.
Given recent 1991 census data, I do not think you will see a scramble by
the lower 40% of income earners to buy computers. If they do buy one, it
is frequently a Nintendo or Sega system.
What I would suggest is for C=, IBM, or Mac, to present a dirt cheap
telecomm system that the lower half of America could afford. Combined with
CIS's basic rate, this could integrate the lower income segment into the
computer age.
Just my two cents.
Brian Bartlett
Brian…
The 'fundamental flaw' <g> with the reasoning you have suggested is the
premiss that the only way to accomplish electronic information exchange is
via the existing networks, as they are currently setup, and that haradware
to access these is out of the reach of the masses.
a) Interactive cable tv services are already being tested (and have been
on and off for years). 50% + of all US households already are cable
subscribers. (which I believe DEMANDS public/gov't regulation, but that's
another topic <g>)
b) Many local phone companies already offer information services via touch
tone telephone (Ohio Bell does). Consumer information, such as weather,
bus line info, entertainment activities, etc. are already available
c) the cost of purchasing the computer hardware to access existing
networks is no more expensive than purchasing many other home electronics.
A family that can not afford a $3000 set of encyclopedias MAY be able to
afford a $500 computer… you're not limiting access to information by
making it available electronically, quite the opposite, you are making it
much more accessible, and more topical than printed media.
d) Most state colleges and many public library systems (like the Cuyahoga
(Cleveland) County Library) are already networked, and it would not be
difficult to upgrade these types of systems for even better information
retrieval… and then all you would need is a library card.
Maybe the Department Of Education should be running an electronic
information service with local access phone #'s available in every city
with a population over nn# and toll free #'s elshwhere… with phone
comapanies providing the lines at no charge as a public service (ala FCC
licenses). I don't know. These are ideas, and while I'm sure it COULD be
done with our exisiting networks, what I envision is surely a few years
(decades?) away. Please, everyone, consider what I am saying in terms of
the future, don't knock it by viewing it as something I have suggested be
<continued>
Michael,
although I hate to disagree with you, since you do have many valid
points, I must point out a few flaws. Yes, I do assume that the only way
to access the information is via the current network structure. There is a
reason for that. As the phone system is currently structured, there is no
way that a typical user can access the Grolier's American Academic
Encylopedia (or it's equivalent). If you can show me a way that a typical
user can access a similiar academic source simply by using a touch-tone
phone, or remote, I would be glad to receive such information. It would
make both of us rich.
With respect to you cable statistics, while 70%+ of the nation has at
least one television line connnected to a cable transmitter, this does not
allow for two-way information transfer. It will not be possible to have
this level of 'connection' until fiber-optic cables are installed.
Fortunately, the Federal Courts seem to have removed the restrictions from
the 'baby Bells' entering this market. Perhaps, shortly, we will see such
technology at our fingertips.
As for expenses, I am fortunate, I neither have to pay for car
insurance, nor a car payment. As I have pointed out earlier, this makes
for a significant reduction in my monthly expenditures. The Encyclopedia
_is_ available at many school libraries. While it may be out of date,
especially vis-a-vis the CIS, it's there. If we do make the transition to
an information society (and I hoping we do) then we must address the 30% of
homes that have no computers.
You specifically mention that users may access the information systems
through the libraries. In case you hadn't read the papers recently, I
don't think that will be much of an option here. Aside from the fact that
the California Public Libraries have never had such a system, we sure as
heck won't in the future. We plain do not have the money (and I don't
_even_ want to get started on that subject!). A library card would avail
you nothing.
[ MORE ]
Brian:
:"As the phone system is currently structured, there is no way that a
:typical user can access the Grolier's American Academic Encylopedia (or
:it's equivalent)."
Actually, anyone with telephone service CAN access Groleir's… if given
the choice of spending the $$! on a printed set of encyclopedias, or
spending $500 for a computer/modem set-up and $7.95 per month for CIS
basic service, I'd certainley choose the computer. I didn't suggest that
access via touch tone phone was available NOW, I suggested it could or
SHOULD be available. Currently, in Cleveland, FREE OF CHARGE, I can use my
touch-tone telephone to access the following information:
NEWS/FINANCE, WEATHER, LEAGL GUIDE, MUSIC & ENTERTAINMENT, CINEMA GUIDE,
HOROSCOPES, SOAP OPERA GUIDE, SPORTS, COMPUTER GUIDE, QUIZ QUEST, HEALTH,
OUTDOOR RECREATION, ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDE, AUTOMOTIVE CONSUMER GUIDE, AUTO
TIPS, HOME OWNERS'/REAL ESTATE GUIDE, HVAC, THE ARTS, HISTORICAL
SITES/MUSEUMS, THE OUTDOORS, EVENTS, TRANSIT.
Want to check the latest headline news? Dial 216-771-4070, when asked,
touch 6050 on your touch-tone phone. In this system (called TOUCH FOUR)
there are literally hundreds of subjects on which you can retrieve
information. Using it gives you a glimpse of what COULD be done if it were
expanded.
:"…this does not allow for two-way information transfer. It will not be
:possible to have this level of 'connection' until fiber-optic cables are
:installed."
Nonsense. Warner Cable tested CUBE interactive cable systems in Columbus,
Ohio just a few years ago. The system worked over exsisting cable wiring.
Besides, you miss the point… I'm talking about FUTURE systems. If you
really think that the technology won't be able to handle this in the near
future, let me remind you that just a 15 years ago there was no such thing
as a PC or _any_ home computer. Technology _can_ spread to the masses very
quickly. In 1970, just a couple of decades ago, the hand-held calculator
<continued>
was an awesome tool. In 1980, mobile communications were radio based… in
1992, you'd be hard pressed to find a buisness executive without a
cellular phone and access to a PC, or a consumer without access to cable
TV and telephone service.
:"You specifically mention that users may access the information systems
:through the libraries."
I thought that what I implied was that in the future (near future as I see
it), libraries will offer access to online servicces of one type or
another. The University of California Board of Regents has already seen to
it that their library system is interconnected (with online access to the
card catalog and what volumes are 'checked-in/out", not text retrieval).
My local public library is connected via a simialar system. We are not a
static society, and I can guarantee you that these types of systems WILL
be improved upon and expxanded.
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
[ continuation ]
You go on about your dreams with respect to the electronic nets. I have
dreams as well. My personal dream is that all the networks should be
available from any gateway and that it should cost no more that $8 per
month. Combined with the Universal Lifeline, anyone could be tied in for
$10, which, I think, most anyone could afford. Heck, we could even
subsidize many families and it wouldn't cost much. Furthermore, every
child should be issued a computer, much as they are textbooks.
I know that this last item sounds, at best, socialist, at worst,
ridiculous, but ask yourself this question. Do you really want a computer
illerate working in your business? Think really hard.
Brian Bartlett
continuation:
:"You go on about your dreams with respect to the electronic nets."
My 'vision' is much the same as yours… but maybe I see it as actually
begining to take shape. No doubt, in another decade, 'small'
computer/modem systems will be as relatively inexpensive as programmable
calulators are today, and you'll see nearly every household with school
age children using them for everything from parents checking to see what
homework assignments were REALLY given, to kids participating in
interactive homewrok assignments!
Frankly Brian, I don't see where you really disagreed with anything
substanative I've said! <g>
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
implemented via CIS or GENIE or any other system of today. Try to see the
forest for the trees.
.> "What I would suggest is for C=, IBM, or Mac, to present a dirt
cheap
telecomm system that the lower half of America could afford. "<
I don't get it… currently the A500 sells for well under $500, and a
clone for a lot less. A 1200 baud modem is around $25 these days. How
inexpensive should the hardware be? The way I see it, if a household can
afford a color tv, they can afford a computer (and 90% of the households
in the US have _more than one color TV!_). BTW, you seem to be championing
the cause of the 'poor', (a position I am usually in), and yet you seem to
be saying that everyon has a 'right' to a new computer system. Before I
could afford a new car, I always purchased used ones. And before I could
even purchase a used one, I borrowed cars from my parents, relatives and
friends…or I got a ride!
Why does computer equipment, in your mind, fall in to the category of 'God
given Right'?
I believe that the public should equal access to the INFORMATION. I
suggest that such information should be retrievable easily by the vast
majority of people via common electronic means… ie: telephones and cable
systems. That's all I've really said.
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Michael,
there is a total difference between a car and an information system. The
car gets me from place A to place B. The information system gets me from
idea A to idea B. The latter is to the advantage of any business interest,
whereas the former can be met by other means of transportation.
Secondly, we make bones about the fact that our children are far behind
those of other countries. Remember the articles about our children not
knowing where the U. S. is on the earth, let alone the name of our neighbor
to the south, or how about the 46% that place Iraq somewhere in Central
America? This only touches the surface. We spend five times as much as
the British do per child, four times as much as the Japanese, and three
times as much as the Germans, and we end up with ignorant kids. I know, I
was one of them. I didn't learn squat in High School, instead, I had to
learn it on my own, using information systems.
That is why I suggest that the various firms compete to present a dirt
cheap system to the american public. We know that they can do it. We also
know that, given early exposure, most any kid will suck up new knowledge
like a desert sucks up water. It's our technique that is lacking.
BTW, last statistic, only $1 out of every $3 goes into the classroom.
Ever wonder where the rest is spent? If we spent 10 cents of that money on
buying computers for these kids, I think we would have a much better work
force, on the cheap.
<Stepping off of soapbox>
Brian Bartlett
Don,
Well i'm all for common sense as well.
um, i only "stated that you gave no "facts" because you accused me of just
the same thing; what seems to be flying around here <from both of us…>
are OPINIONS and OBSERVATIONS, entities that to my academically trained
mind, at least, are far different things than FACTS. I have no problem
with your opinions, it's just when you try to pass 'em off as facts that i
object. Comments like "any reasonable person would agree with me…" only
make for problems, IMHO
Besides, any reaonable person would agree with ME! <grin…running away…>
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
hmm…you recent posts do not show that. I have been in academia for
the last 20 years, and I have seldom encountered such an attitude. Please
do reconsider you opinions and observations. I know a fact when it stares
me in the face, do you?
And no, I do not agree with you. Please do run away.
Brian Bartlett
Tim,
Humm…seems to me I reported several facts…in particular
relating to Carl Sagan and the Kuwaiti oil fires.
Don
Don,
actually, the figures quoted for the decay of paper products such as a
National Geographic or a Telephone book are between 50 and 250 years,
depending on what source you believe. I have further analyzed the specific
data and determined that sole influencing factor in the decay of paper
products in the water content of the soil. In a desert, it is preserved
for well beyond 250 years. In a moist soil, such as Tennesee, it decays
fairly rapidly.
This should present no suprise to anyone. Papyrus was quite well
preserved in Egyptian tombs, which happened to be in an extremely dry
climate. What _is_ unfortunate, is that my fellow "ecologists" fail to
recognize a fact when it stares them in the face.
Brian Bartlett
Brian,
That sounds quite reasonable. Certainly soil dampness would play a
major part in paper decay..as with most other things also.
Don
Brian… you touched on something and then skipped right over it. Research
shows that when paer is exposed to Sunlight, Water and Air, it will
decompose rather rapidly… the problem is that landfills have only their
surface exposed to the elements… that's is why we can go to most any
dump and dig up and read 40 year old telephone directories.
BTW, anyone seen any information on what happens to the lead and chemicals
that are excreted in to the soil (and hence, in to the water table) from a
landfill?
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Michael,
no, I purposely addressed the issue and tossed it off. Frankly, there
is more than enough territory in this country to create landfills for the
next 5,000 years, and then some. As I stated before, and will again, and
again, and again, there is no problem with respect to garbage in this
country. While a telephone book will last for 40 years, although it is
actually a minimum of 50 years, I still can not see why this is a problem.
It does decay, given time, as does a tree, which, by the way, takes about
the same amount of time. Why is a phone book decaying in that period more
virtuous than a tree taking that long? Stupid question, since to many
ecologists, one is more 'natural' than the other.
As for your other question, yest, I have seen data on what happens to
lead, and other chemicals, in landfills. I have been closely involved with
this question since it has been proposed that a mine here be turned into a
landfill. I have fought tooth and nail to ensure that it be properly lined
so that the aquifer, 300 feet down, not be contaminated with pollutants
from the landfill. Anyone can do the same, all it requires is being vocal
enough to catch attention.
What I have observed over the course of this landfill question is many
people, 'eco-freaks' among them, that want to prevent _any_ landfills,
nuclear waste dumps, etc. ad nauseum, from being installed in their back
yards. Frankly, I've had enough of this.
Provided proper percautions are used, there is no reason to prevent a
garbage dump in your area, beyond aesthetics, and since you, all of you,
generate garbage, no reason at all.
Brian Bartlett
Last time I checked, trees were'nt made with chemicals that are released
in to our ground and water table when they decompose.
I don't recall anyone in this thread objecting to landfills. The deabte
here, in my view, has been over what constitutes waste, and what
responsibility we have, if any, to control our production of waste.
BTW, if land fills aren't a probelm, whiy are so many populous states now
shipping garbage to other areas? And why can't I bag my grass clippings
for removal by trash collection? And why do I have to separate my glass,
plastics and paper trash products?
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Michael,
Landfills themselves aren't a problem (presuming they are properly
run!)…people are the problem. People that run them (only SOME ,not
all!), people that use them and people that lobby and/or legislate their
existance.
Don
Don,
Being ignorant isn't a personal slam; it merely reflects that a person is
unknowledgable regarding a particular subject matter. ANd i do think
you've opined more than you have been able to back your opinions up with
facts.
You keep using the term "reasonable" in your comments, and i'm not sure
why. In fact, lots of paper products *don't* degrade in a timeframe that
i'd consider reasonable at all. I, for one, would prefer it if you'd
refrain from those type of comments (…implying that since it's
"reasonable" that the actual factual information is irrelevant…) and back
up your assertions with more factual information. Do you know
approximately how long it takes paper like National Geographic to degrade?
If you in fact have no bloody idea, then why don't you just drop it?
I'm not sure why you're entitled to belittle and/or otherwise discredit
those you term "so-called" experts just because you personally don't
believe or subscribe to their statements and/or opinions. All i'm asking
you to do is qualify your comments with a few facts to support your
opinions.
I'm also not particularly interested in continuing this discussion much
more, if only for my suspicion that others online are getting tired of
reading this and i'm not sure just how constructive carrying this on for
much longer would be.
Extreme examples such as those you've used recently *aren't* necessary to
clearly illustrate a point; what they actually do is to make light of and
discredit the other point of view. Maybe you'll want to reconsider just
how helpful they actually are. Many of us here are quite capable of
interpreting and understanding more realistic (and perhaps more fair)
examples!
I'm also of the opinion that since you're a SYSOP that you have some
responsibilities to remain fair in your discussions and to back up your
comments with reasonably factual support. If *I* were a SYSOP, I'd
certainly go to great lengths to comment fairly about things i actually
knew
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
something about. ANd if I were ignorant about the situation, i'd probably
be one of the first to admit it!
I haven't taken any of this personally; I'm just not about to let you get
away with portraying my position as extreme or unrealistic. That's all.
And now…hopefully…back to other Amiga-related topics! (And did you
notice I finally found the originate button and changed the thread??!)
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim,
I noticed you found the originate button…but somehow or
other…you posted your message from last night again tonight.
Don
Don,
Sorry 'bout that…i had tried to send a message to Chris Tolmie with some
Postscript formatting in it, and i guess that the lines starting with "/"
screwed things up. AND, since i'm totally ignorant (even after reading the
manual) about how to change pending sends, i guess most of my posts the
other night got sent twice…
All the more reason to get AutoPilot!
.. Tim Trompeter…
(continuation)…
Let me give you an example here in Colorado of unreasonableness
when it comes to the environment. We have a Clean Air program here that
mandates auto emissions inspections. On the surface, that seems like a
good thing.
Major problem though…my 1976 Chevy pickup with 160,000 miles on
it (well… it was mine…I trade it in on a newer vehicle a few months
ago) with absolutely NO polution control on it (From the factory…nothing
was removed) passed the standards for brand new vehicles with flying colors
even!
Why was that a problem? Because my truck passed not because it was
cleaner than new cars…it wasn't, but because the standards are so loose,
that just about anything could pass them. In other words, it was a waste
of time and money testing if you don't put reasonable standards in place to
see if a vehicle is really working as well as can reasonably be expected.
I don't like unreasonable things…so I don't like our inspection
program, does that make me anti-environmental…I don't think so. It makes
me anti-waste. And it makes me angry at the jerks who pushed the law thru
(with the loose standards) by claiming it was good for the environment.
The only thing it was good for was the inspection station's pocket.
So back to the original proposition…packaging of software. I
think it's unreasonable to think you're saving lots of trees (as Ben said
he was doing) and so forth by not including packaging.
Ben's later statement about the real reasons he didn't package his
products was reasonable, I have no argument with that.
I guess my main question is why do people try to mask sound
business reasons as environmental issues….when the environment really has
nothing to do with it at all?
Don
Whoa! Those were _additional_ reasons, not the "real" reasons.
I *do* like to save trees. I also don't buy leather belts and other
accessories because I don't want to contribute to the market for animal
skins. I don't buy fur coats; I even keep my meat consumption down as far
as I can with my health in mind. All this, not because I can't stand the
idea of an animal skin being used, but because the less it happens, the
better I like it. Ditto trees. I like them up, not down; I love steaks and
burgers, and I love wood artifacts such as guitars, books, parqette (sp?)
floors, and so on, but that's no reason to be profligate with the
resources – either of them. I don't like bald mountains and I don't like
killing animals – my response is to recognize the neccesity and modify my
behaivior for the best fit I can.
There are other reasons, but these are both real and valid – they have
real effects on the choices I make.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ben,
I think your logic in re the leather is faulty…after all, the
animal isn't killed for the leather…it's killed for the meat and the
leather is a by-product. So if you want to lessen the killing of
cattle…stop eating it (as you say you've done…limited that is) rather
than stopping wearing it.
However, that's neither here nor there…what you do with your life
is your business…for whatever your reasons are.
Don
No, my logic is ok; leather is _animal skin_ not _cow_ skin. Alligator
skin wallets, snake skin boots, etc. I don't buy leather unless it is a
requirement, and in so doing, I reduce the market for leather by a small
factor. That's important to me. Cowhide is a byproduct, as as I said, I
eat as little as I reasonably can, from my perspective.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ben,
Ok…I was using the common definition of leather…that being cow
(or bull I suppose) skin. If you want to include all animal skins…then
yes, some of them are certainly killed for the skin.
And I agree with your concerns there.
Don
Ben:
I was just wondering if I should take your attempts to reduce the market
for leather products personally or not considering that my business is
making machinery to make leather products? 🙂
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
That's up to you, I guess. I don't take it personally that you do what you
do; probably that should set the tone (none at all).
I do what I encourage other people to do; I vote with my wallet. It's the
only thing that counts in this society, methinks.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Don:
Here in FL they have started to inspect vehicle emissions about 3 or so
years ago. What they did however seems like a fair compromise. They have
set emissions levels differently for different model year cars. I do
believe that at a certain year the requirments are all the same, but for
the earlier ones the requirements are much looser than for a new car. Is
CO doing a similiar thing, or are all of their requirements the same
regardless of year? If that's the case, I'd imagine that they'd have to
have to requirements loose enough for older vehicles to pass.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
No…the requirements vary with the year and type of vehicle. But
still the requirements are so loose…that my old truck with 160,000 miles
on the engine (and body) with NO pollution control devices other than a PCV
valve (the original one at that) can still pass the requirements for a
brand new vehicle.
If I compared it's output to the standard for that truck…then I
could have pumped out something like 20 times the pollution and still
passed. As it was, I could have put out 3 times the pollution and still
passed. The limit for my truck was something like 1400 mg hydrocarbon, for
new cars, it's 220 mg hydrocarbon, by old truck put out 65 at it's last
test.
I never did anything to that truck other what I consider routine
maintenance
Don
Don:
That sounds very similiar to the FL requirements. I have a 1985 Dodge
Diplomat former police car that I had added a 4 barrel carb to, Edelbrok
manifold, and headers to (no catylitic converters tho), and went to get
the car inspected, and the person doing the inspection has this mirror on
a pole thing that they look at the converter with (to check if you have it
or not), and they PASSED me as having a converter. As it was the CO levels
were too high, and I ended up adding converters (one on each side) into
the system to bring down the CO level, but I didn't need to add them
because they weren't there! It's simply amazing how stupid some people can
be.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Don,
One more thing…
I had a similar experience "in-reverse" out here in California when I
moved. My car is quite environmentally-friendly, and passed the emissions
standards with flying colors…hydrocarbon emissions, for example, were not
detectable at all. In general, all of the emissions tested were far
superior to any of those that would be passed by California's "tough"
standards.
Nevertheless, I had to pay a $300 surtax (or whatever it was called)
because the auto wasn't equipped *from the factory* with the California
emissions controls. Of course, it isn't possible to retrofit the vehicle
with the equipment to waive the $300 fee; and just installing it for the
"goodness of the environment" costs about $550-600. I passed on that one!
Make sure to read Ben's comment, and (once again) I'll ask you to re-read
his original statement; He didn't say he was trying to save trees. I
suspect that Ben's not an environmental simpleton at all.
The packaging for Notebook is perfectly adequate.
I don't think your main question is "really why do people try to mask sound
business reasons as environmental issues…." but i'm not sure what your
main question really is anyway. Environmental issues and business decisions
are NOT mutually exclusive. *I* don't know why some people keep insisting
that they are in the first place!
And finally, enough is enough! i'll cease and desist (at least for
now…!)
.. Tim Trompeter…
It is clear to me Tim that you don't sell software for a living. It is
also clear that you are not paying attention to the arguments that I have
made about software packaging.
This is most unfortunate.
-mark=
– whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
Mark,
What is most unfortunate is that you continue to dismiss my disagreements
with you as "not paying attention…" I've read and thought about
everything you've commented on in this thread; i'm just not convinced that
your opinions are the "right" ones. In fact, i disagree with most of them,
and i've stated that already.
And you're right, i *don't* sell software for a living. I *purchase* it
:^) I also think it's rather simplistic to assume that since I don't sell
it for a living that i can't comprehend the issues. (but then again i'm
assuming that you're concluding the latter from the former).
Is it possible for you to avoid these rather obnoxious disclaimers in this
and future discourse? You're most welcome to disagree with me, but the
continuing sarcasm is beginning to give me a headache…
Sincerely,
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim:
Well, I may as well butt in here too (and probably get slammed for it).
I don't recall any sarcasm in Mark's reply to you, only the suggestion
that you may not be aware of how difficult it can be to sell software, and
that the packaging of software can help in that endeavor enormously. At
least that's how I read the message. Tim, I think that everyone who
chooses to participate here is doing so of their own free will, and while
everyone has their own reasons for participating, I seriously doubt that
anyone is participating for the sheer joy of knocking someone else.
Expressing one's opinions, especially when they differ from others
opinions is tricky enough when you are face to face, and it's that much
harder when you are just quickly typing replies like here in the forum.
Please try to give others the benefit of the doubt with regard to their
motives… just because someone disagrees with you, and says so, doesn't
mean that they don't want to hear what you have to say!
If this offends you, then I'm sorry… please just ignore it.
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Michael,
Believe me, if all mark had originally done was to suggest that "i might
not be aware of how difficult it may be to sell software and that the
packaging can help enormously in that effort…", then i'd have no problem
with that at all. It's quite a different thing to reply with sarcasm and
references to "so-called experts" and "whacko environmentalists…" < and i
don't think mark said all of these things…they have however come up in
this discussion. That's been my only beef with this whole thing. I have no
problem if anyone disagrees with me; what i have the problem with is the
sometimes crude and holier-than-thou attitude that some folks shroud their
disagreement with.
No offense taken, really!
.. Tim Trompeter…
Tim…
I'm glad that you took my message as intended. I hope that you will give
others a bit of latitude as well. Judging someone's 'attitiude' from the
words posted here can be a very tricky business!
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
Michael,
I fear my last post (the one I just wrote before I saw yours) was a bit
sarcastic. I wanted him to know the difference. 🙂
-mark=
– whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
Timothy,
Here are two aspirins… no it is not over yet! 😉
It is my belief that this forum "Ramblings" is for discussion. To me that
means an exchange of ideas. It is my hope that I can persuade you to see
things the same way I do, as I am sure you wish to persuade me that your
thoughts are right on this issue. Otherwise what is the point?
In my opinion we are not having a discussion, but rather an ignore and post
session on your part. You have been asked by others to back up your
statements with some facts, and you have not done so. Facts are what are
likely to change my opinion, not repitition of your original thought.
The reasons I disagree with you are:
1 – People do not buy software unless it is shrink-wrapped and
and has decent packaging. My proof? The number of titles that
don't have decent packaging that are still on our shelves, even
when we sell them below cost. Good example:
ProFlight from HiSoft. I will be buried and in my grave before
we finally sell it.
2 – It is not a waste of the environment if people use the materials
and not immediately throw them away. As I said already, you will
not find in any landfill original boxes from Lemmings.
The points I disagree with from your last posting to me:
1 – You may understand the issues in regards to selling software, but
you don't appreciate the opinions of someone who does it for a
living. Isn't it you being simplistic in assuming that people
will buy things based on the dealers word that "the product is
good – ignore the crappy packaging." In the case of Noteook,
our solution is not to order it. We can't afford to have it
sit on our shelves until we can 'educate' someone as to its
value.
2 – Packaging, glitz and word-of-mouth sells software. Nothing
else does.
3 – What disclaimers? I don't disclaim anything I write. Thanks
for asking though.
[ MORE ]
Gee, Mark… <grin>
(1) – People DO buy software under those conditions; Imagemaster is
probably one of the hottest selling packages on the Amiga in the past
year, all of our distributors have said so, in writing, to us. NoteBook is
selling *very* well, in spite of dealers like yourself that don't consider
part of your job is to SELL products, and just want to make your "cut" by
being a warehouse for your customers. NoteBook is perfect, it's that
hidden little gem a dealer can "let his customers in on". It's paid back
it's development costs and is now making considerable $$$, even at it's
low price – which ought to give you an idea how well it's selling. :^)
(2) – my lemmings packaging is long gone. As is the rest of my packaging;
it's useless clutter, I have better things to look at.
(1B) – See (1) :^)
(2B) – Horsepucky. See (1) :^)
(3B) – N/a
I think you're out on a non-supportable limb here. And I think Tim's gonna
have you for lunch… but have fun anyway, that's what we're here for,
among other things.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ben,
I appreciate your humor and believe me when I say I am glad that you are
having success with Notebook. It is a neat product and I purchased it
myself. On the packaging argument, I think your are just being obstinate,
but hey you would be out of character if you were any other way. 🙂
Notebook is far from perfect when you consider things from the dealer
perspective. I might add that I don't appreciate you saying that our
company simply 'warehouses' software, instead of selling it. That is
simply not the case and was uncalled for.
I have stated my case, and have stated it fairly and accurately. Whether
you choose to believe it, and pay attention to the advise I offer is
certainly up to you and your company. I make my living selling Amiga
computers, hardware and software–that makes me more of an expert than you
as to what sells and what doesn't.
The whole reason that I brought this up was not to beat you over the head,
nor to talk about the environment. It was to point out how Notebook is the
slient-wonder in the Amiga community–silent mostly because of its
packaging and lack of advertisement. This does not have to be the case! I
like the program and use the program. I would like to be able to sell it
and make a profit in doing so. I also would like your company to make more
money so that your company might invest more time into the product. I
really need that handwriting interface (grin).
As to the strength of your argument about packaging goes, let me ask you
this: If your argument is so strong and you believe your case is so
bullet-proof why not change the packaging of ImageMaster to the same
'white' no color no information packaging that sells Notebook by the tons?
Why did your company opt to put interesting pictures on the front and make
the package somewhat attractive and informative? Perhaps you need to take
your secret for selling software, the no frills approach, back to Black
Belt and explain it to them. They will probably take time out from
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
counting their coins to listen. 🙂 Get my point yet Ben?
Imagemaster is an excellent product and we sell quite a few of them for
your company (and our benefit). Notebook does not offer enough margin to
make it something that we want to mess with. I don't think you understand
the customer base that owns Amiga computers. They will not on average
touch a package like Notebook unless the dealer does take the time to put
the package in the customers hand, then take them to a machine and
demonstrate it. I don't need to tell you that it running in interlace-only
mode does a lot to turn folks off of the product. So who am I to sell
Notebook too? The A3000 customer, who else?
Perfect? Nice, but far from perfect.
As Tim eating my lunch? Not likely. The premise that packaging software
is wrong and is stupid is not supportable at all except by those who are
not in touch with the reality of life in the 'selling' world.
Let me add one thing Ben. I want you to know that I respect you and your
opinions (no matter how wrong they are (grin)). You speak your mind and
say what you think (just as I do). I like that. I don't take your
comments to me personally and I hope you don't take mine personally. I
appreciate your input here on CompuServe and never want it to go away.
-mark=
– whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
No sweat, we're on the same wavelength.
My point about your having a warehouse attitude was directly brought on by
your statement that you can't stock it because of the packaging, you
didn't have time (or words to that effect) to show it to a customer. In my
opinion, that's one of the primary things a dealer is for. If you don't
have time to do that for me, I'd just buy mail-order: immediately.
As for the supposed lack of margin on NoteBook… hmmm, guess I'm a bit
confused here. NoteBooks retail price, dealer price and distributor price
are set at 60 off, 40 off and 0 off, respectively – same as all our other
software, and probably the same as most other software, period. It's an
easy sell (noting that a deinterlacer is certainly where you want to show
it) all you have to do is bring up the demo note book and flip thru the
pages – I've seen it done several times; it was a kick to watch. I
understand that being a lower priced product, the margins, while the same
in percentages, are less $; but then again, it's not like a big product
where you have hours of features to go through to sell it. I don't think
you've made a convincing argument as to why you don't carry NB at all,
other than base predjudice. :^)
As for why Imagemaster has those nice color pics… that was the first
bound manual we did. Since then, we've dropped the color pics and gone to
an abstract (but attractive, I think) design for many of our other
products as they move into higher quality manuals. Check out a Board
Master if you get a chance; they look great, but no color pics. Same style
packaging as Imagemaster _and_ NoteBook; manual with etc, on chipboard,
shrink-wrapped. Looks greats; wastes no more (material OR space) then
absolutely required, and seems to be no barrier at all to sales in
general, although I'm sure there are holdouts like yourself, or your
dealership (I'm not clear on where the motivation is here, you might clear
that up next pass at this subject).
<continued>
Ben,
Perhaps I did not make myself clear, and that is really possible with this
text only forum. I *will* and *have* shown Notebook to perspective
customers who have picked it up and asked "What is this?". The point was
that I have to put it in most people's hands as they pass it over looking
at the wonderful ASDG packages. (grin)!
I think that I have argued my point to death–as have you. We both agree
(I think) that Notebook could have better packaging. I am not being
obstinate when I say we (and it was a group decision) will not stock
Notebook. The decision was based on how long it stayed on the shelf. We
have a limited amount of money to spread around software, hardware and
computer inventory, that is a fact of life.
Perhaps we should give it a try again–you did add the information sheet on
the back since we had it in last.
-mark=
– whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
I think Tim already ate you for lunch, actually… maybe you're in shock.
:^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Just saw a copy of Notebook sitting on the local dealer's shelf yesterday.
Lo and behold, it was a new copy with the same packaging with a
description on the back. It sits proudly with ImageMaster. As far as I'm
concerned, that's all it needed! 🙂 If I find something useful, it
doesn't matter what type of packaging it comes in. I just wanna know what
it is.
Dan McCoy – via Whap! and saving money doing it too!
Well, good. We've also added easy to use, very comprehensive installation
scripts to everything as well; Imagemaster, Board Master and Notebook
inclusive. It's a lot more fun to work on the product than marketing, I
have to tell you.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
[ continuation ]
You have been asked by me to consider the 'dealers' perspective because my
livelyhood (in the broader sense) depends on good packaging. You have
considered my side and blindly dismissed it.
So as far I am concerned the case is closed. It is clear I am talking to a
wall.
-mark=
(Sorry Andy… I gotta steal it…)
"I disclaim all shapes; all sizes; all colors!"
– whappity whap whap… whap whap!!
Gee, doesn't anyone remember the early software — complete with Xerox'ed
doc packaged in a baggie?
-sja
Steve:
I remember baggie-packaged software! I actually wrote a mail-list manager
for the PET (and later the C64) that was sold by my local dealer in
Cheyenne, WY. The docs were printed on an OLD 30cps daisy wheel printer,
xeroxed, and stuffed in a ZipLoc with the floppy.
Wayne
Wayne
I remember some mainstream (at that time) game publishers selling
nationally with baggie packaging.
Hey, do you remember the name of Wayne Green's software packages for the
PET and other computers? Real no frills stuff….can't remember what it
was called though…
Steve
Steve,
Sure don't — I never had a CBM product until Amiga.
Steve,
I do, but that dates both you and I. <sigh>
Brian Bartlett
And we can recycle that baggie for tomorrow's PB&J sandwich! We can do it
all week until the seam splits!
-Steve