??? 10/24/05 19:07 Read: times |
#102849 - carts and horses Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jacob Boyce said:
This legislation is a perfect example of putting the horse before the cart. I have no doubt the problems will be solved, but does the consumer have to put up with poor quality in the meantime? Look at the issue from the other side. If not for legislators setting a drop-dead date, what incentives do manufacturers have to actually move forward with the conversion? There's a parallel in the conversion to digital TV broadcast, although the rationale in that case is purely economic. By setting a "soft" conversion date, the manufacturers and broadcasters have been able to delay the switchover. If a firmer date had been set (and I believe the new target date is more concrete than the previous one), then manufacturers and standards-bodies have an incentive to get the specs in order and ship the products. HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT: a) Legislators generally have no idea how long it takes to do something, especially something involving innovation and invention of new processes and technologies. Supporting politically-neutral technical organizations such as the IEEE can help make sure that even as legislators demand changes, people who actually understand technology can help inform and perhaps shape the process. (In other words, all lobbying isn't bad.) b) I believe that the elimination of lead from gasoline in the US has greatly contributed to improved air quality and a reduction in respiratory illnesses. This change, as costly as it was to implement, clearly was the right thing to do. However, there's a long way to go -- many less-modern countries still sell leaded gasoline. Oh, yeah, I haven't even mentioned the lobbies that work to prevent the widespread usage of scrubbers on coal-fired energy plants ("it costs too much"). Other examples abound. summary: corporations value profit above all things, including the safety and well-being of workers and people who live near production facilities. (See the article on gold mining in today's New York Times for yet another example of this.) c) I'd be more accepting of digital TV broadcast if all broadcasts were in High Definition, although it's not clear that trash like "The Apprentice" and "Fear Factor" benefits from HD. Besides, the programs the DO benefit from HD -- mostly sports -- are generally not available on broadcast TV. I mean, I when I lived in NJ I couldn't get every Knick game on TV unless I had cable; now that I live in the Sonoran Desert, I can't get the games unless I sign up for the $150 NBA package on digital cable. (And it's not even clear whether or not this package programming is HD.) In this move to digital TV, it's not clear how much programming will be broadcast in HD, and how much the extra bandwidth will be used for more variants on the home shopping channels. Blech, says I. -a |