May 30

Robots in War (1)

The idea of using robots in a war type environment has always been there. Atleast it has always been there for those in the “Terminator generation”. However, those in the Starwars generation would have seen C3PO or R2D2 blasting away with lasers. Before that I’m sure there were other examples. So suffice it to say robots in wars is not a new concept. It is however reality. Check out this article for some of the details. It’s a pretty cool read. Some excerpts are below.

This first excerpt covers an actual malfunction of such technology.

A few minutes before nine in the morning, and the young soldiers have no idea of the horror that is about to strike them. They are taking part in a massive military training exercise, involving 5,000 troops, and are about to showcase the latest in robotic weapons technology.

The MK5 anti-aircraft system, with two huge 35mm cannons, is essentially a vast robotic weapon, controlled by a computer.

But while it’s one thing when your laptop freezes up, it’s quite another when it is controlling an auto-loading magazine containing 500 high-explosive rounds.

As the display begins, the South African troops sense quickly that something is terribly wrong. The system appears to jam – but what happens next is truly chilling.

‘There was nowhere to hide,’ one witness stated in a report. ‘The rogue gun began firing wildly, spraying high explosive shells at a rate of 550 a minute, swinging around through 360 degrees like a high-pressure hose.’

One young female officer rushes forward to try to shut down the robotic gun – but it is too late.

‘She couldn’t, because the computer gremlin had taken over,’ the witness later said.

The rounds from the automated gun rip into her and she collapses to the ground. By the time the robot has emptied its magazine, nine soldiers lie dead (including the woman officer).

Another 14 are seriously injured. The report will later blame the bloodbath on a ‘software glitch’.

It sounds like a blood-spattered scene from the new blockbuster Terminator Salvation, in which a military computer takes over the world using an army of robot soldiers.

But this bloodbath actually happened. And concern is mounting that it may happen again and again, as a growing number of military robots flood the battlefield.

And this one talks about the various sizes and potential issues that could happen.

‘Just look at the numbers,’ he says. ‘We went into Iraq in 2003 with zero robots. Now we have 12,000 on the ground. They come in all shapes and sizes, from tiny machines to robots bigger than an 18-wheeler truck.

There are ones that fit on my little finger and ones with the wingspan of a football field.’

The U.S. military is the biggest investor in robot soldiers. Its robot programme, dubbed Future Combat Systems, is budgeted to spend $240 billion over the next 20 years.

But Singer is worried that in the rush to bring out ever more advanced systems, many lethal robots will be rolled out before they are ready.

It is a terrifying prospect. ‘Imagine a laptop armed with an M16 machine-gun,’ one expert said.

According to Noel Sharkey, a professor of robotics and artificial intelligence at Sheffield University, one of the biggest concerns is that this growing army of robots could stray out of communication range.

‘Just imagine a rogue robot roaming off the battlefield and into a nearby village,’ he says. ‘Without experts to shut it down, the results could be catastrophic.’

There are robots that can move through sand and water. There are robots that can hover, Robots that can fly. Humanoid robots. There are robots that can, utilize a machine gun with the accuracy of a sniper shooting an apple from hundreds of meters. These robots can be armed with grenade launchers, machine guns, and rocket launchers. They’re not so smart, but they are good at what they are told to do.

Of course, as with any weapon technology there is fear it could fall into the wrong hands (assuming it started in the right hands to begin with). There is also fear of the robots making mistakes. For example, it might misidentify something as a threat. Can robots be made to understand the rules of engagement? These are questions that have to be dealt with and their consequences understood. But make no mistake, we the world have proceeded down this path. It is happening and hopefully we can keep it under control or atleast stay ahead of the curve.

I will leave you with this final thought from the article.

‘Body bags containing real soldiers coming home affect the government electorally,’ says Sharkey. ‘Once you start using robots, you remove this problem.’

But do we really want going to war to be as easy, and impersonal, as playing a computer game?

May 12

Mark Cuban is a smart guy

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it on this blog before, but anyone interested in business and making money (not in the “fast money” sense, but in the “reaching your target audience” sense) should check out Mark Cuban’s blog.

If you are a basketball fan you know Mark Cuban as the outspoken owner of the Dallas Mavericks. His behavior is sometimes contraversial (or so one is led to believe by the press). He’s a bazillionaire, but really seems like a pretty down to earth guy. I’ve never met him so I suppose I don’t really know the real deal here, but everytime I’ve seen him or read his writing I have come away thinking either “that dude is the best sports franchise owner their is” or “man, this isn’t just some wanna be jock that got lucky and made some money… this guy has some brains.”

Cuban rarely blogs directly about his team. His typical post are more business / economic related and contain great insights about how businesses should go about making money. For example, in one of his recent posts he discusses how newpapers could turn it around via their online portals. The same logic can be applied to other content providers. I know it sounds simple to say “get the customer’s credit card number”, but that really is a great first step. Then it is easier to convince them to spend money on services on a whim or even a subscription basis. Yes, easier than paypal or simply allowing them to reenter the credit card information. Make it easy and let them know often about the extra services you offer.

I only decided to write this post because I am often struck by Cuban’s knowledge about how to make money. I look at it this way… if I have a billiionaire telling me that I don’t make it easy enough for them to spend their money at my establishment (online or brick / morter), but that they can think of ten offerings I could provide (easily) and I could grow my business / customer base in the process you better believe I’m going to listen and I would encourage others to do the same.

Apr 28

Manna – A story of Automated management by computers

A couple of days ago I read a story by Marshall Brain. I think Slashdot referred me to it (the first sign it was probably going to be a quality read) and after the first section I was hooked. It is either seven or eight chapters long and I read them all in one sitting. The story is about some software called “Manna” that was created to help manage employees who did easily micromanaged tasks. The software was deployed in a fastfood resturant with much success. Customers were happy, workers were happy, things were efficient. The rest of the story tells of what happens when manna’s usage is applied to additional domains as its capabilities are enhanced. I will include chapter one below in hopes of getting you hooked as well. Go check out the original source and all the additional chapters if you like it.

Here’s the first part:

Depending on how you want to think about it, it was funny or inevitable or symbolic that the robotic takeover did not start at MIT, NASA, Microsoft or Ford. It started at a Burger-G restaurant in Cary, NC on May 17, 2010. It seemed like such a simple thing at the time, but May 17 marked a pivotal moment in human history.

Burger-G was a fast food chain that had come out of nowhere starting with its first restaurant in 2001. The Burger-G chain had an attitude and a style that said “hip” and “fun” to a wide swath of the American middle class. The chain was able to grow with surprising speed based on its popularity and the public persona of the young founder, Joe Garcia. By 2010 the chain had 1,000 outlets in the U.S. and showed no signs of slowing down. If the trend continued, Burger-G would soon be one of the “Top 5” fast food restaurants in the U.S.

The “robot” installed at this first Burger-G restaurant looked nothing like the robots of popular culture. It was not hominid like C-3PO or futuristic like R2-D2 or industrial like an assembly line robot. Instead it was simply a PC sitting in the back corner of the restaurant running a piece of software. The software was called “Manna”, version 1.0*.

Manna’s job was to manage the store, and it did this in a most interesting way. Think about a normal fast food restaurant circa 2000. There was a group of employees who worked at the store, typically 50 people in a normal restaurant who rotated in and out on a weekly schedule. The people did everything from making the burgers to taking the orders to cleaning the tables and taking out the trash. All of these employees reported to the store manager and a couple of assistant managers. The managers hired the employees, scheduled them and told them what to do each day. This was a completely normal arrangement. In 2000, there were millions of businesses that operated in this way.

Circa 2000, the fast food industry had a problem, and Burger-G was no different. The problem was the quality of the fast food experience. Some restaurants were run perfectly. They had courteous and thoughtful crew members, clean restrooms, great customer service and high accuracy on the orders. Other restaurants were chaotic and uncomfortable to customers. Since one bad experience could turn a customer off to an entire chain of restaurants, these poorly-managed stores were the Achilles heel of any chain.

To solve the problem, Burger-G contracted with a software consultant and commissioned a piece of software. The goal of the software was to replace the managers and tell the employees what to do in a more controllable way. Manna version 1.0 was born.

Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when the trash cans would fill up, the toilets would get dirty and the tables needed wiping down. The software was also attached to the time clock, so it knew who was working in the restaurant. Manna also had “help buttons” throughout the restaurant. Small signs on the buttons told customers to push them if they needed help or saw a problem. There was a button in the restroom that a customer could press if the restroom had a problem. There was a button on each trashcan. There was a button near each cash register, one in the kiddie area and so on. These buttons let customers give Manna a heads up when something went wrong.

At any given moment Manna had a list of things that it needed to do. There were orders coming in from the cash registers, so Manna directed employees to prepare those meals. There were also toilets to be scrubbed on a regular basis, floors to mop, tables to wipe, sidewalks to sweep, buns to defrost, inventory to rotate, windows to wash and so on. Manna kept track of the hundreds of tasks that needed to get done, and assigned each task to an employee one at a time.

Manna told employees what to do simply by talking to them. Employees each put on a headset when they punched in. Manna had a voice synthesizer, and with its synthesized voice Manna told everyone exactly what to do through their headsets. Constantly. Manna micro-managed minimum wage employees to create perfect performance.

The software would speak to the employees individually and tell each one exactly what to do. For example, “Bob, we need to load more patties. Please walk toward the freezer.”

Or, “Jane, when you are through with this customer, please close your register. Then we will clean the women’s restroom.”

And so on. The employees were told exactly what to do, and they did it quite happily. It was a major relief actually, because the software told them precisely what to do step by step.

For example, when Jane entered the restroom, Manna used a simple position tracking system built into her headset to know that she had arrived. Manna then told her the first step.

Manna: “Place the ‘wet floor’ warning cone outside the door please.”

When Jane completed the task, she would speak the word “OK” into her headset and Manna moved to the next step in the restroom cleaning procedure.

Manna: “Please block the door open with the door stop.”

Jane: “OK.”

Manna: “Please retrieve the bucket and mop from the supply closet.”

Jane: “OK.”

And so on.

Once the restroom was clean, Manna would direct Jane to put everything away. Manna would make sure that she carefully washed her hands. Then Manna would immediately start Jane working on a new task. Meanwhile, Manna might send Lisa to the restroom to inspect it and make sure that Jane had done a thorough job. Manna would ask Lisa to check the toilets, the floor, the sink and the mirrors. If Jane missed anything, Lisa would report it.

I grew up in Cary, NC. That was a long time ago, but when I was a kid I lived right in the middle of Cary with my parents. My father was a pilot for a big airline. My mother was a stay-at-home mom and I had a younger sister. We lived in a typical four bedroom suburban home in a nice neighborhood with a swimming pool in the backyard. I was a 15 year-old teenager working at the Burger-G on May 17 when the first Manna system came online.

I can remember putting on the headset for the first time and the computer talking to me and telling me what to do. It was creepy at first, but that feeling really only lasted a day or so. Then you were used to it, and the job really did get easier. Manna never pushed you around, never yelled at you. The girls liked it because Manna didn’t hit on them either. Manna simply asked you to do something, you did it, you said, “OK”, and Manna asked you to do the next step. Each step was easy. You could go through the whole day on autopilot, and Manna made sure that you were constantly doing something. At the end of the shift Manna always said the same thing. “You are done for today. Thank you for your help.” Then you took off your headset and put it back on the rack to recharge. The first few minutes off the headset were always disorienting — there had been this voice in your head telling you exactly what to do in minute detail for six or eight hours. You had to turn your brain back on to get out of the restaurant.

To me, Manna was OK. The job at Burger-G was mindless, and Manna made it easy by telling you exactly what to do. You could even get Manna to play music through your headphones, in the background. Manna had a set of “stations” that you could choose from. That was a bonus. And Manna kept you busy the entire day. Every single minute, you had something that Manna was telling you to do. If you simply turned off your brain and went with the flow of Manna, the day went by very fast.

My father, on the other hand, did not like Manna at all from the very first day he saw me wearing the headset in the restaurant. He and Mom had come in for lunch and to say hi. I knew they were coming, so I had timed my break so I could sit down with them for a few minutes. When I sat down, my father noticed the headset.

“So”, he said, “they have you working the drive-thru I see. Is that a step up or a step down?”

“It’s not the drive-thru,” I replied, “it’s a new system they’ve installed called Manna. It manages the store.”

“How so?”

“It tells me what to do through the headset.”

“Who, the manager?”

“No, it’s a computer.”

He looked at me for a long time, “A computer is telling you what to do on the job? What does the manager do?”

“The computer is the manager. Manna, manager, get it?”

“You mean that a computer is telling you what to do all day?”, he asked.

“Yeah.”

“Like what?”

I gave him an example, “Before you got here, I was taking out the trash. Manna told me how to do it.”

“What did it say?”

“It tells you exactly what to do. Like, It told me to get four new bags from the rack. When I did that it told me to go to trash can #1. Once I got there it told me to open the cabinet and pull out the trash can. Once I did that it told me to check the floor for any debris. Then it told me to tie up the bag and put it to the side, on the left. Then it told me to put a new bag in the can. Then it told me to attach the bag to the rim. Then it told me to put the can back in and close the cabinet. Then it told me to wipe down the cabinet and make sure it’s spotless. Then it told me to push the help button on the can to make sure it is working. Then it told me to move to trash can #2. Like that.”

He looked at me for a long time again before he said, “Good Lord, you are nothing but a piece of a robot. What is it saying to you now?”

“It just told me I have three minutes left on my break. And it told me to smile and say hello to the guests. How’s this? Hi!” And I gave him a big toothy grin.

“Yesterday the people controlled the computers. Now the computers control the people. You are the eyes and hands for this robot. And all so that Joe Garcia can make $20 million per year. Do you know what will happen if this spreads?”

“No, I don’t. And I think Mr. G makes more than $20 million a year. But right now I’ve got two minutes left, and Manna is telling me that I need to move back to station 3 to get ready for the next run. See ya.” I waved at Mom. Dad just stared at me.

The tests in our Burger-G store were surprisingly successful. There were Burger-G corporate guys in the restaurant watching us, fixing bugs in the software, making sure Manna was covering all the bases, and they were pleased. It took about 3 months to work all the kinks out, and as they did the Manna software totally changed the restaurant. Worker performance nearly doubled. So did customer satisfaction. So did the consistency of the customer’s experience. Trash cans never overfilled. Bathrooms were remarkably clean. Employees always washed their hands when they needed to. Food was ready faster. The meals we handed out were nearly 100 percent accurate because Manna made us check to make sure every item in the bag was exactly what the customer ordered. The store never ran out of supplies — there were always plenty of napkins in the dispenser and the ketchup container was always full. There were enough employees in the store for the busy times, because Manna could accurately track trends and staff appropriately.

In addition, Burger-G saved a ton of money. In 2010, Burger-G had just over 1,000 stores in the United States. Manna worked so well that Burger-G deployed it nationwide in 2011. By 2012 Burger-G had cut more than 3,000 of its higher-paid store employees — mostly assistant managers and managers. That one change saved the company nearly $100 million per year, and all that money came straight to the bottom line for the restaurant chain. Shareholders were ecstatic. Mr. G gave himself another big raise to celebrate. In addition, Manna had optimized store staffing and had gotten a significant productivity boost out of the employees in the store. That saved another $150 million. $250 million made a huge difference in the fast food industry.

So, the first real wave of robots did not replace all the factory workers as everyone imagined. The robots replaced middle management and significantly improved the performance of minimum wage employees. All of the fast food chains watched the Burger-G experiment with Manna closely, and by 2012 they started installing Manna systems as well. By 2014 or so, nearly every business in America that had a significant pool of minimum-wage employees was installing Manna software or something similar. They had to do it in order to compete.

In other words, Manna spread through the American corporate landscape like wildfire. And my dad was right. It was when all of these new Manna systems began talking to each other that things started to get uncomfortable.

Next Chapter (at MarshallBrain.com)

Apr 19

2002 Nissan Pathfinder Check Engine Soon – Reset



Recently I had an issue with my 2002 Nissan Pathfinder. A battery that was causing a sluggish start needed to be replaced. I took it to Autozone. They replaced the battery. At that point the pathfinder had NO POWER. I mean NONE. I started poking around with the fuses and found that somehow the “Main Battery” fuse (a behemoth of a fuse in the engine compartment) had blown. I won’t get into the two hours or so it took the autozone guy to replace the fuse. It has two screws holding it in (yeah, the fuse has screws holding it in) and is encased in such a way that you cannot get to them without removing the whole box). Well, maybe you can if you have a special tool… but they didn’t so it took close to two hours.

Anyway, we took out the fuel pump fuse to make room for the screw driver. We got the battery fuse replaced and I hopped in to start the car. It made the worst noise ever. Then i realized we probably hadn’t put the fuelpump fuse back into its place. Sure enough. We put it back in and voila! It started. Now I had a new problem. The check engine light was on. The autozone guy read the code and said it read that the fuel pump signal was low (actually had been low)… obviously… it had no fuse at one point! I asked him to just reset it and he said they were no longer allowed to turn of the light! I would have to figure out how myself or have it done at a dealer / authorized service location.

So i looked around and found the following. It took me 4 or 5 tries. But it worked eventually. You have to get the timing just right or it won’t work so don’t give up too quickly.

  1. Turn key to ‘on’ for 3 seconds (but do not start)
  2. Step on gas five times within 5 seconds (I tried to do exactly once per second).
  3. Wait seven seconds (yes, count them).
  4. Hold gas pedal down for 10 seconds.
  5. At this point the light will start blinking out codes. I let it blink for what appeared to be a full cycle. I saw 10 quick flashes 3 times along with some other stuff between.
  6. Once you know the codes or decide you just don’t care you need to push and hold the gas pedal down for 10 seconds again. At the end of the 10 seconds it will quite blinking codes and just keep blinking 10 blink sets.
  7. Turn off the key. Wait 3 seconds. Start the car. The service engine light should be off. Enjoy.

If you don’t want to trust me on it (I was sceptical) here are some others that reference the solution. In the first link there is a guy who thought he screwed up his car using the method. He was wrong. There was another issue he needed to resolve. In the second link it is simply mentioned that this is the way to do it for an 02 pathfinder.

http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1bom9-2003-pathfinder-rode-service

http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/187086

Like I said, it took me a few tries to get it. I actually tried it a few times, came in side and got mad, did some more research (found the first link), went back out and tried a couple more times and it worked. Just try to get close to the specified times and it will work.

[Update, maybe the picture will help describe things. Looks worth a thousand words to me…]

Goodluck.


Mar 02

Pirate Bay case update and some related legal questions

I have been interested in the Pirate Bay trial that has been going on, but it has now taken on a whole new level of interest to me because they are releasing the actual arguments being utilized on each side. I was reading this article about the trial and read the following which kind of brought some questions to mind:

Roswall dropped several charges on the second day of the trial for the purpose of streamlining the case, Ars was told, which leaves contributory copyright infringement as the main charge. The Pirate Bay might not host content itself, but if its main use is as a middleman that arranges illegal peer-to-peer transfers, Roswall said that the site could be held responsible.

“A person who is holding someone’s coat while they assault someone else is complicit in the crime,” he said, according to Swedish paper The Local.

And Monique Wadsted, the lawyer for the movie industry, told the court that it was a basic point of Swedish law that one can’t just walk around with eyes closed when one knows that crimes are being committed.

Wadsted also claimed that The Pirate Bay was built for piracy, and she noted that site admins do in fact police the site for child pornography, inactive torrents, and misleading descriptions. Given that sort of control over the material, is it credible simply to see The Pirate Bay as a hand-off forum that allows all sorts of user postings for which it cannot be held liable?

The defense is continuing to claim that the European Union e-commerce directive passed in 2000 protects them from liability. The relevant part of the directive is Article 12, the “mere conduit” section, which says that a “service provider” is not liable for the information transmitted by its users.

The rule applies only to “service providers,” raising the question of whether The Pirate Bay qualifies, and it only applies when three conditions are met: the service provider must not 1) initiate the transfer, 2) select the receiver of the transfer, 3) modify the transfer in any way.

So what is it that I find interesting? All of it actually. What If someone wanted to start a service that helped drug dealers (not big pharma… the ones that are currently illegal) hook up with those that wanted to buy drugs. If they simply created a website that facilitated the two hooking up and took NO PROFITS from either party would the website be breaking the law? Would I be breaking the law if I DID get paid by advertisers? What if I took a cut of the transaction itself? The last one I think yes, but I’m not sure… the other two I lean towards “no”, but I’m not sure. IANAL – so what do I know? What if I didn’t know about the drug dealers? What if they were just using it to exchange illegal things and I didn’t know?

In the article the prosecuter claims “if [a website’s] main use is as a middleman that arranges illegal peer-to-peer transfers ” then it can be held liable for damages. I assume this <illegal peer-to-peer transfers> could be substituted to be anything that is <illegal>. Fine, what if it’s intended main use is as a chat room, but it just happens to provide a mechanism for pushers and buyers to find each other?

It seems kind of arbitrary for anyone other than the creator to define somethings “main use”. That’s like saying a car’s “main use” is to run over pedestrians just because it happens sometimes. Even if it happens a lot that is not it’s “main use”. It doesn’t really follow that I, the inventor or provider, can invent or provide a service for one use and that someone else call what I did illegal because the way some portion of society chooses to use it is in some other way than what I intended. My understanding is that is in general EXTREMELY difficult to provide “motive” or “intent”.

Is the service a “mere conduit” as defined? I don’t know. I’ve never used it. I make enough money to buy most of my own crap now, and I rarely listen to new music. I do hate for the Pirate Bay that they apparently did remove some material. At that point they actually might have changed their status from “mere conduit” to “data managers” or something like that.

Even for those not in Sweden this could set some huge precedent. I will have to check the American law for further clarification, but to be on the safe side I would say anyone wanting to create a website that allows people to get what they want (files, information, dates [think “dating”], whatever) should atleast make sure they meet the definition of “service provider”. The three requirements were (as listed in the article) that a service provider must:

  1. NOT initiate the transfer
  2. NOT select the receiver of the transfer
  3. NOT modify the transfer in any way

Does (1) mean you cannot be the sender? Or does (1) mean you cannot send to a receiver that has not solicited it? If it is the former, then it seems that (3) means you cannot delete something posted by another user because the sender just uses your platform. If someone else initiates the transfer (ie. A user) and you delete it that would be viewed as a modification. If that is true then it would be in a providers best interest to ignore any Cease And Desist letters, subpoenas, whatever for fear of violating their status as a provider and thus opening themselves up to even more litigation. This is crazy hard to figure out what to do.

Also, the rules do not say that a provider cannot profit. So going back to my drug dealer example it would seem a “service provider” would be able to profit as long as they didn’t skim any of the “product” or any of the money from the buyer. I am guessing that an additional part of being legally NOT LIABLE as a service provider would require that the item being pushed throught the “conduit” is not illegal. Thus, actually setting up a meeting between a user and a pusher would likely be illegal. (What if the site just said “I can recommend a guy” and let them work it out from there? I don’t know.)

This is why “data law” is so much harder (and more interesting) than other types of legal issues. It’s a relatively young area with a lot of gray area. Add on to that the fact that platforms on which it is practiced is always changing and it makes for some very interesting and provactive conversation opportunities.

Mar 01

Save some money when registering domains

I just registered some new domain names and while I was checking out with godaddy I noticed the coupon code box. I normally just ignore such items and move on because I very rarely have a coupon. Then I remembered that my wife ALWAYS looks for a coupon before buying anything online. I always make fun of her… but these domains were going to be bought by “the business”. For some reason I am much more conservative with the the business’ funds than I am with my own. This is probably because I want the business to be self sustaining or maybe it’s just my baby and I don’t want “it” to make the same mistakes I have made… in any case the business is a penny pincher. So I decided to do a search for some coupons… it turned out to be worth it. My original total for what I was buying (2 .com + 2 .net) was $46 or so. When I got done I had spent about $35.  That’s close to 25% savings. Not a ton, but the savings amounts to another domain I can purchase or any number of other small things that startups can do with $10 whether it be a month of advertising or whatever.

I figured I would pass on the codes I found that were active at the time. Some of them supposedly do not expire.

  1. yhkw105a = 6.99 .com (or other???) renewals/new
  2. cjcdeal749 FOR ($7.49 .NET, .ORG, .BIZ domains, new registrations only)
  3. OYH3 – 2.50 off / $7.45 any .COM (new an renewals)
  4. BTPS7 – 20% any order of $50 or more
  5. OYH1 – 10% off whatever
  6. OYH2 – $5 off a $30 purchase
  7. gdr0244d = 10% .net

I used 1 and 2 to do mine. They are not stackable (or I was not able to stack them) so I ended up having to check out twice – once for the .com and the other for the .net – but it was a lazy morning and it only took about 5 extra minutes. So, if I do the math that comes out to about $120 an hour…

I won’t guarantee these will last forever, but I didn’t see any expirations on them. Hopefully someone else will find them useful.

Feb 22

Give Them what they want; not what they ask for

I was reading this article on slashdot the other day and it occured to me how often I made a particular mistake when I first started programming. I created a perfectly sound little app for someone and then when they complained I modified it to what they asked for. But that is often the wrong reaction. What we should really do is determine what the real problem is and how to address it. Sometimes the user that is complaining has enough power to force you against you will even if you know the “fix” they want is a bad idea, but often we have enough autonomy to be able to come up with a happy medium.

The example from the article was in a game environment. Some users would get stuck. They wanted a way to get a hint so they could move on to the next level. The fear of the game writer was that if he offered a hint the users would “give up” too quickly and just take hint after hint. The users asked for hints, but he thought it was a bad idea. The solution? Limited hints OR hints that take away points from your score OR hints only after a certain amount of time elapses. In any case it was possible to give the user what they wanted without really giving them what they asked for.

Feb 15

PageRank – What it takes to get to the levels you want

It seems to me that everyone out there who intends to monetize their website wants to know how to get their page rank to a certain level. I can tell you now I have no idea what the answer is to these questions. My best advice is to create useful content and market yourself. Hopefully people will find you interesting enough to link to and that will push up your rank.

Now, because I know that even for me that answer is not “good enough” and I still want to know “how many links do I need to be a PR X” I have collected the following posts from other boards on the subject. Each post will be preceded by the board in which it was found.

Source of the following two: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/35069.htm

Hi all,

Regarding the “how many links” questions, I’ve found a page at seogeeks.com with the following claims:

To get the PR you want, you need about 18 links from pages with the same PR, assuming 50 links per page.

So if you want a PR7, you’ll need links from 18 PR7 pages, assuming each of these pages has about 50 outbound links. Alternatively, you could have 3 links from PR8 pages.

Well, that’s just what they say. I don’t know how current that information is. And can’t remember the exact url 🙂

and…

As a rough guide (assumuing there is an exponential factor of 10 between PR levels) you can say that PR levels need a certain amount of PR ‘points’ passed to them from other pages:

PR1 needs 1 ‘points’
PR2 needs 10 ‘points’
PR3 needs 100 ‘points’
PR4 needs 1000 ‘points’
PR5 needs 10000 ‘points’

9The exponential nature of PR explains why getting to PR 9 and 10 is so tricky)

PR ‘points’given out by a page, again this is a simple example, can be roughly calculated by dividing the above values by the number of outbound links.

e.g. a PR3 with 20 links gives 5 ‘points’ to each page, this would move a page with no other inbound links to a PR1

Assuming that the pages that you get links from have an average of 20 links you would need 20,000 links from PR2 sites to get to a PR5. Likewise 2,000 links from PR3 sites would be required.

The good news is that you would only need 2 such links from PR6 sites to make it to PR5.

There are many more factors to consider such as dampening, the actual PR of a page can be PR?.0 to?.99 and make links worth different amounts from what appears to be thesame PR value etc.

I hope that helps

I like both of those answers. And no I didn’t do the math to see if they are in agreement. But at a glance it is easy to see that the higher rank a page is that links to you the more valuable it will be. Mathematically this is not exacly true (or perhaps more precisely it is not ALWAYS true, but it is USUALLY). Try to get links from others with high ranks. Or get gazillions of links from lower ranked sites.

Here’s a final comment from the same site:

Questions about “how many links” are almost impossible to answer because of the way Page Rank calculation works — the math behind is far from linear.

Here’s a thread that took the Page Rank equation apart to a degree – perhaps it will help you understand why there is no easy answer for your question.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/34079.htm

Oh yeah, and supposedly pagerank only updates once a quarter or so. Bah.

Feb 04

Economics of Giving it Away

This article at the WSJ discusses how businesses (specifially tech / internet businesses) can make money when they “give away” so much product for free.

Here’s the parts I am interested in. I encourage anyone to read the entire article at the link above.

Over the past decade, we have built a country-sized economy online where the default price is zero — nothing, nada, zip. Digital goods — from music and video to Wikipedia — can be produced and distributed at virtually no marginal cost, and so, by the laws of economics, price has gone the same way, to $0.00. For the Google Generation, the Internet is the land of the free.

Which is not to say companies can’t make money from nothing. Gratis can be a good business. How? Pretty simple: The minority of customers who pay subsidize the majority who do not. Sometimes that’s two different sets of customers, as in the traditional media model: A few advertisers pay for content so lots of consumers can get it cheap or free. The concept isn’t new, but now that same model is powering everything from photo sharing to online bingo. The last decade has seen the extension of this “two-sided market” model far beyond media, and today it is the revenue engine for all of the biggest Web companies, from Facebook and MySpace to Google itself.

In other cases, the same digital economics have spurred entirely new business models, such as “Freemium,” a free version supported by a paid premium version. This model uses free as a form of marketing to put the product in the hands of the maximum number of people, converting just a small fraction to paying customers. It’s an inversion of the old free sample promotion: Rather than giving away one brownie to sell 99 others, you give away 99 virtual penguins to sell one virtual igloo. (Confused? Ask a child: This is the business model for the phenomenally successful Club Penguin.)

With physical stuff, samples must be doled out sparingly — there are real costs to be paid. With bits, the free versions are too cheap to meter and can be spread far and wide.

What about those companies trying to build a business on the Web? In the old days (that would be until September of last year) the model was pretty simple. 1. Have a great idea. 2. Raise money to bring it to market, ideally free to reach the largest possible market. 3. If it proves popular, raise more money to scale it up. 4. Repeat until you’re bought by a bigger company.

Now steps 2 through 4 are no longer available. So Web startups are having to do the unthinkable: come up with a business model that brings in real money while they’re still young.

This is, of course, nothing new in the world of business. But it is a bit of a shock in the Web world, where “attention” and “reputation” are the currencies most in demand, with the expectation that a sufficient amount of either would turn into money someday, somehow.

The standard business model for Web companies that don’t actually have a business model is advertising. A popular service will have lots of users, and a few ads on the side will pay the bills. Two problems have emerged with that model: the price of online ads and click-through rates. Facebook is an amazingly popular service, but it also an amazingly ineffective advertising platform. Even if you could figure out what the right ad to serve next to a high-school girl’s party pictures might be, she and her friends probably won’t click on it. No wonder Facebook applications get less than $1 per 1,000 views (compared to around $20 on big media Web sites).

What about the oldest trick in the book: actually charging people for your goods and services? This is where the real innovation will flourish in a down economy. It’s now time for entrepreneurs to innovate, not just with new products, but new business models.

Take Tapulous, the creator of Tap Tap Revenge, a popular music game program for the iPhone. As in Guitar Hero or Rock Band, notes stream down the screen and you have to hit them on the beat. Millions of people have tried the free version, and a sizable fraction of them were ready and willing to pay when Tapulous offered paid versions built around specific bands, such as Weezer and Nine Inch Nails, along with add-on songs. (The Wall Street Journal is pursuing a strategy of blending free and paid content on its Web site.)

Meanwhile YouTube is still struggling to match its popularity with revenues and Facebook is selling commodity ads for pennies after its effort to charge for intrusive advertising led to a user backlash. And news-sharing site Digg, for all its millions of users, still doesn’t make a dime. A year ago, that hardly mattered: The business model was “build to a lucrative exit, preferably in cash.” But now the exit doors are closed and cash flow is king.

Does this mean that Free will retreat in a down economy? Probably not. The psychological and economic case for it remains as good as ever — the marginal cost of anything digital falls by 50% every year, making pricing a race to the bottom, and “Free” has as much power over the consumer psyche as ever. But it does mean that Free is not enough. It also has to be matched with Paid. Just as King Gillette’s free razors only made business sense paired with expensive blades, so will today’s Web entrepreneurs have to not just invent products that people love, but also those that they will pay for. Not all of the people or even most of them — free is still great marketing and bits are still too cheap to meter — but enough to pay the bills. Free may be the best price, but it can’t be the only one.

I enjoyed this article very much as someone who gives away a lot and had several arguments with my better half about whether it was okay to give things away. This backs up my position that giving away some things to attract more users maybe some of which will pay for other things is okay.

Feb 04

Virtual Goods

I saw this post about Virtual Goods and the 7 Deadly Sins on the Bizspark website and it got me curious. What kind of virtual goods can be out there for various websites. I have posted most of the article here because I want it quickly accessible to me as I do some strategic planning, but please go check it out at its source for the parts that I did not include here. The original author “Yi-Jian Ngo” and the original document.

Virtual goods represent another avenue for making money with consumer web services. They’re not a new concept – Chinese and Korean websites have been selling them for years. For most Americans though, they comes across as a trite silly – why on earth would anyone pay real money for something intangible?

Perhaps I can sum it up with some of the 7 Deadly Sins:

Pride. I’m fashionable and discerning, and see no reason why my on-screen avatar shouldn’t sport Gucci sunglasses, a Benetton jacket, a Prada handbag, Jimmy Choo shoes, an Akin Konizi haircut…

Gluttony. No, it is not enough that I have the Grand Obsidian Battleaxe of Turin. I too must have the Mystical Plate Armor of Elements, the Orthogonal Bow of Devastation, the Annihilator Amulet of the Convoker, the Bucolic Trousers of Nassau, the Preened Spatula of Valor…

Envy. Why should I settle for a lame screen name like michaeldn08 when all my friends have those cool premium handles like BoneCrusher and SkyWave?

Greed. Come let me show you my rare items collection – you see that complete set of limited edition icons? And those special Christmas angels – I got a different one for each of the last 4 years. And my turquoise crystal plant – you know you can only get that if you have at least 1 million karma points…

Wrath. So you think you’ve won, have you? Well, I’m going to hurl feral abuse at you, vandalize your profile and buy upgrades for my spaceship all the way to Allusion class. You just WATCH OUT… I’m so going to CRUSH YOU…

Sloth. I am way too busy watching television, besides, leveling up my character sounds too much like work. How much did you say a Level 60 Necromancer is again? Oh, and did you know I can issue game play instructions through my mobile phone for a small fee?

 

Whatever the motive, the fact remains that somewhere around $1.5B to $2.1B worth of virtual goods are sold each year. Virtual goods evangelist Susan Wu asserts that 70% of China-based Tencent’s $1B revenue derives from virtual goods. That’s a big pot of gold, which certainly should not be ignored by struggling consumer websites trying to stay afloat on online advertising fumes.