Archives for January 2006
January AFF Radio now online
Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:
- The Moleskine GTD tabs hack
- No choice but to get things done (on retro computing)
- How to subscribe to toilet paper
If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.
Can eBay prices predict Super Bowl winner?
Mpire, a developer of business applications for eBay entrepreneurs, has put together a neat site that totals up the average selling price of Seahawks and Steelers merchandise on eBay over past 30 days. Seattle has been in the lead for over a week now with their average piece of merchandise currently going for $149.26, while the Steelers are at $100.59. I’m not sure how good a predictor this is since there are so many factors that can influence the price of paraphernalia. Obviously the best market predictor is one in which participants can lose their money, and it looks like bookmakers have the Steelers ahead by a little bit, but it’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.Bonus Super Bowl economics: “A Chicago outplacement consultancy says Sunday’s Super Bowl will cost U.S. employers $780 million. … For every 10 minutes the 56.7 million employed Super Bowl fans spend at work chatting about the game or surfing the Internet to compare starting line-ups, it would cost employers $155,925,000. … ‘Employers should also count on losing another $156 million in unproductive wages on the Monday following the game, as workers discuss the game, the commercials and the half-time show. They may even see a surge in unplanned absences that day from employees who may have partied a little too hard on Sunday.’”
Thumbthing
Jobs vs. Gates: Who’s the Star?
Leander Kahney of Wired News writes in his Mac column today that Bill Gates is a saint because he gives away his money to charities while Steve jobs is the devil because he keeps his money and his opinions to himself. Here’s a sampling:It’s Gates who’s making a dent in the universe, and Jobs who’s taking on the role of single-minded capitalist, seemingly oblivious to the broader needs of society.
Gates is giving away his fortune with the same gusto he spent acquiring it, throwing billions of dollars at solving global health problems. He has also spoken out on major policy issues, for example, by opposing proposals to cut back the inheritance tax.
In contrast, Jobs does not appear on any charitable contribution lists of note. And Jobs has said nary a word on behalf of important social issues, reserving his talents of persuasion for selling Apple products. …
On the evidence, [Jobs is] nothing more than a greedy capitalist who’s amassed an obscene fortune. It’s shameful. In almost every way, Gates is much more deserving of Jobs’ rock star exaltation.
I see. It’s shameful to make lots of money, even when it is a representation of the amazing value you’ve created in the world. It’s shameful that Jobs isn’t taking the lead of Barbara Steisand, Harry Belafonte, or any one of the other famous people who deign it necessary to regale us with their (usually ignorant) thoughts on public policy. Jobs just sticks to what he knows, making incredible computers and consumer electronics. For shame!
It’s great Gates wants to share his wealth. It’s his, and I say more power to him. I have a real problem, however, when Gates (supporting the death tax) and Kahney (writing dribble) try to tell other people what to do with their own money. I’m glad Jobs focuses on doing what he does best, I just wish Kahney would do the same and stick to writing about technology.
Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →
Original ‘Survivor’ guilty of tax dodge
From CNN: “Richard Hatch, who won $1 million in the first season of ‘Survivor,’ was found guilty Wednesday of failing to pay taxes on his winnings. Hatch was handcuffed and taken into custody after U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres said he was a potential flight risk. … Hatch, 44, faces up to 13 years in prison and a fine of $600,000. Sentencing was scheduled for April 28.” I guess lying and cheating don’t work so well off the island. Hat tip to Christine K.The NYT Introduces TimesSelect University
It looks like the New York Times’ experiment with premium content is hitting the wall. The good news is that they’ve cut prices in half–to $24.95 a year–for students and faculty. At that price it actually seems worthwhile to get. I wouldn’t think twice about it if members didn’t see ads.To get the discount, go to nytimes.com/university. How do they know you’re a student or faculty? You have to supply an e-mail address that ends in .edu, which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t weed out alumni e-mail addresses.
Is the U.S. really losing automotive jobs?
From the NYT: “While the Big Three are visibly shrinking, their combined moves do not spell the end of automotive manufacturing in the United States. But the geographic footprint has largely shifted south, where a new auto industry is flourishing. Japanese, German and South Korean companies now employ 60,000 people, or about the same number by which Ford and G.M. have said they will shrink. But foreign makers are creating a younger, cheaper work force, sidestepping Detroit’s unemployed and the higher pay and benefits packages that Detroit workers were getting.” Sounds like a market at work to me.Extend your wireless range to 1 mile
The Unofficial Apple Weblog is reporting on a transceiver addition for your iMac that will extend its wi-fi range to a mile and maintain high speeds. This gives me an idea: there is a Starbucks less than a mile from my place with a T-Mobile hotspot. Unlimited access to T-Mobile hotspots costs $29.99 a month, which is less than I’m paying for cable internet. Additionally, there are hotspots all over the country, so I’d never go without. Doing this probably breaks the service agreement with T-Mobile, but it’s a taste of Wi-Max things to come.The economics of the net neutrality debate
There’s a great conversation going on over at Marginal Revolution about net neutrality. As a card carrying free-marketeer I feel I’m expected to support Verizon, AT&T and the rest when they demand payment for use of their pipes. But I haven’t made up my mind yet. While net neutrality looks like forced access redux, I think it’s actually a much more complicated issue.I am skeptical of regulation or legislation to enforce neutrality; preemptive regulation hardly ever works out they way it is intended. However, as Tyler Cowen points out, tiering the internet would change the nature of online content:
The beauty of the status quo is that web sites compete on the basis of consumer surplus alone. The bandwidth costs end up as a fixed charge on net access as a whole; I suspect this hits many inelastic demanders, a’la the Ramsey rules for optimal taxation. Admittedly it may be a bad deal for the poor who cannot afford to connect, but the overall arrangement enhances the long-run “competition of ideas” feature of the net.
It seems to me that the obvious solution to this problem is to get rid of flat-rate access charges and move to variable prices based on bandwidth usage. Sadly, consumers have historically resisted per-unit access charges, even when they would have come out ahead. They like the idea of not being rushed to disconnect or feeling pressure to monitor and cap their use.
What’s more, bandwidth consumption in itself is not the problem. Bandwidth consumption at peak times, causing congestion, is the real problem. But, as Arnold King points out, the internet is not suited to incorporate congestion-based pricing:
Think of Internet packets as envelopes with very exact formats for the address. The format does not provide for a way to designate the envelope as “high priority.” Even if it did, the cost of reading the “priority bit” on every packet header would almost surely exceed the benefits of congestion pricing.
Even if we did want to go the route of a two-tiered internet anyway, with one tier getting preferred delivery, it’s not clear how we can do this without breaking what makes the net unique. Ed Felten clarifies that “although the two-tier network is sometimes explained as if there were two tiers of network infrastructure, the obvious and efficient implementation in practice would be to have a single fast network, and to impose deliberate delay or bandwidth throttling on non-preferred traffic.”
So, I guess what I’m ultimately arriving at is that while I’m far from sold on net neutrality regulation, I like the neutral nature of the internet. And, given that it would be technically difficult and unpopular with consumers to tier the net, I’d like to think that a free market would preserve neutrality. What we need to ensure is robust competition so that a small number of ISPs can’t push this down consumers throats. Jeff Pulver is right that what Google, Apple, and Yahoo need to do is call the telcos’ bluff and make it clear they’re not going to consider paying the ISPs. What’s are the ISPs going to do? Tell their customers they can no longer access Google or iTunes?
Cross-posted at TLF. You can leave and read comments there. →


