|
|
May 6, 2012
Last week came the news that Target stores will no longer carry Amazon's Kindle readers. The bold move was basically a retaliatory reaction by Target to what is known as showrooming.
Showrooming is how Amazon encourages its users to visit various physical stores, check out or even try out various merchandize and then go back to Amazon to order them for cheaper prices. In a sense Amazon uses the physical stores as showrooms for free and that creates an unfair advantage in favor of Amazon.
Sure, people can visit Amazon's site too to shop around but a page visit costs Amazon a tiny fraction of a penny while a shopper roaming the isles of a store, and specially inspecting and trying various items could cost the stores multiple dollars.
Target may feel good about removing Kindles from its shelves but that maneuver will be but a blip on Amazon's bottom line. Making the playing field fair will be tall order but for starters Amazon should be required to collect sales taxes on all items sold. If there's heavy resistance, then stores should be exempt from collecting sales taxes as Amazon is.
Paying sales taxes on Amazon purchases will not be popular, but if Amazon is allowed to push physical stores out of business through the unfair loopholes, that will result in a monopoly and there's little doubt that its pricing policy will not favorable by any measure once the competition is wiped out.
April 10, 2012
Who needs spies and detectives when people willingly put all their personal data for the whole world to see? Funny how parts of the world pine for a little relief from the prying eyes of their governments, yet in the US people are addicted to sharing everything with everyone, including the government.
The young can be excused for being too inexperienced to realize the consequences of over-sharing. But then there are simpletons who claim they don't fear sharing because they do nothing wrong. Bet they are the first ones screaming bloody violation of their rights the moment that data is used against them.
Cops can request a copy of your complete Facebook activity - Technolog on msnbc.com.
March 15, 2012
I have been fascinated with the Dharun Ravi bias case since I read about it a few weeks ago on The New Yorker. The fact is that this case hits close to home for many who are or have been to college because no doubt many of us were involved in similar cases or at least been close witnesses and didn't think much of them, let alone being accused criminally.
This is not strictly a gay bias issue. College (in this case, Rutgers) is where young people from varied backgrounds are thrown together and trusted to navigate the social challenges that comes with that environment. College is a sample of what is to come in the real world.
Being a student form Iran arriving in the US a few short years after the hostage crisis, I myself experienced many of these challenges in high school and then college. Young people will be young people. They judge, they ridicule, and they play stupid pranks. At times I was the target and other times I was the instigator but through it all, even when I was raging mad, I found little evidence of bias or malice in myself or others.
I consider myself a social liberal. Gay, straight, white, black, male, female, whatever, makes little difference to me. Of course we all carry some prejudice. Mine is mostly in the area of education. I tend to favor educated people. The point is that I have no respect for bigotry and prejudice but the Ravi-Celemete case doesn't appear to be one, at least going by what I know about the case.
Bad judgment, yes. Distasteful prank, yes. Immature teasing, yes. I see all those in Ravi's actions and in countless other young people around the world. Sorry but I don’t see bullying and bias intimidation and gay-bashing in this case to hang a man's future on. In the end this is a tragedy of a young man taking his own life in a moment of misplaced personal agony or shame. He should have never been ashamed of who he was. I wish he had the strength to stand up for his way of life and to handle the offensive (but not criminal, in my opinion) actions of his roommate in a more direct way.
Update: As we know now, Ravi was convicted of the charges and now he will be facing prison time and possible deportation. I'm sure there will be appeals and I hope he's not deported. Some may feel that the jury was too harsh, but the jury most likely followed the letter of the law and it's the New Jersey law that may be too harsh.
January 16, 2012
Here comes another attack on the free and democratic way of life.
the SOPA/PIPA bill sponsored by congressman Lamar Smith is about to be voted on by the legislators. On the surface, the goal is to protect copyrights and intellectual property rights on the Internet.
In reality this law is created to bring the Internet under complete control and censorship of the US government. In other words any site can be blocked and any site owner or user can be charged for almost any reasons.
Let's face it, the proposed rules are so loose that just about everyone is automatically in violation of the potential law already. Who needs to go to China to enjoy arbitrary criminal charges and censorship, when you can have all that fun right in the USA.
Stop American Censorship
August 5, 2011
I'm not naive to the point of believing that Google is all good and no evil, but in this case I side with Google.
What the big patent trolls like Oracle and Apple and Microsoft are doing by burying Android in lawsuits and threats is stifling innovation and taking away choice from consumers.
I'm all for protecting new ideas, but patents are no longer used in the way they were envisioned. They no longer protect ideas and innovation, but are used as weapons against anyone who can be leeched for money. And the leeches are typically not the original patent holders either, but sleazy patent trolls and patent mills.
Official Google Blog: When patents attack Android
July 24, 2011
This is superb reporting by NPR (link at bottom) on the murky business of software patents and how the real spirit of patent and copyright laws have been subverted by patent mills out to make a quick pile of cash.
These days greedy companies get patent protection for the most ridiculous and obscure algorithms. Most developers behind these patents don't even know what the patents actually cover. The patents are then sold to patent mills, which are front companies with a few lawyers and accountants collecting patents.
The patent trolls then go after anyone they deem to be a good target to extort money from, using frivolous lawsuits. From the thousands of patents in their lists, they can cash out with one or two, and that's what keeps this repugnant but lucrative practice alive.
The fact is that just about any idea anyone can fathom is covered in one way or another under one or more patents, mainly in vague general terms. That is why software is under siege now. Any entrepreneur who would dare conceive and implement a new product with a modicum of success, will inevitably be in the cross-hairs of patent lawyers.
And so we give yet another boost to countries like India and China and extinguish innovation in USA. I'd like to see how far these sleazy patent sharks can get in those countries.
Intellectual Ventures And The War Over Software Patents
July 10, 2011
This article (Jogging to music? Unplug for a safer workout) states the obvious by claiming that runners who listen to music pose a threat to themselves by becoming less aware of road dangers such as traffic or criminals.
There's also an additional claim that iPod runners, being distracted, may miss their body signals to speed up or slow down, thereby missing out on an optimum workout as well as being oblivious to small injuries that may require them to stop.
As a long-time, music-free runner (over 2 decades), I agree with both assessments. Many times on my running routes I come across narrow roads, blind curves, fast cars, sirens, and unfriendly dogs. In many cases I can navigate these challenges easily because I can hear a car noise or some commotion ahead. I can't imagine how I would face all these obstacles with music blaring in my ears.
The article is also correct about the distraction caused by music. I tried running to music a couple of time some years ago. In those cases I felt less in touch with body and the runs were much less enjoyable. Guess I'm the type that likes full sensory involvement in the running activity. I actually run for its pure enjoyment, not for the health benefits, so why drown my mind in music while running?
The part of the article I have a problem with is the governments wanting to force runners to shed their ear buds. This is such a ludicrous violation of personal freedom. I don't run with music but many runners do. Leave us alone. Instead perhaps concentrate on catching speeding cars. I mean where will this lead? Jogging police checking our shoes for correct fit, checking clothing for appropriate layers, or checking our hydration levels?
I can only see the court systems clogged with running felons 
July 7, 2011
 This is old news by now, but fresh on the heels of firing its Connecticut affiliates, Amazon just terminated its California affiliates program in protest over the new state law requiring it to collect sales taxes on purchases.
The law may be fair or unfair, but Amazon could have easily complied, as it does reluctantly for New York. Perhaps Amazon already wanted to get a bunch of affiliates off its books anyways and this provides a good excuse. But the company is just being childish by lashing out in this manner.
At any rate, the business impact of firing the California affiliates is most likely minimal for Amazon, or else it would have hung on to them, as it has been doing with the New York affiliates.
Amazon cuts off California affiliates - San Jose Mercury News.
June 12, 2011
Not to defend big-box stores but this statement from Amazon is an obvious distortion of facts. Amazon is just being whiny because it hates fair competition.
We opposed this new tax law because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It was supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside Connecticut, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors.
So big-box stores compete with Amazon, maybe fiercely, but that's life. And what does Amazon do in return? Like an infant, it throws a temper tantrum and takes it out on its associates.
So magnanimous of Amazon to allow the dumped associates the continued privilege of shopping at Amazon.com
... this development ... will not affect their ability to purchase from http://www.amazon.com.
letter from Amazon.com to Connecticut associates - Courant.com.
June 11, 2011
Amazon has lashed out against my home state of Connecticut, cutting all their affiliates in the state, because Connecticut told Amazon to play fair. While local merchants are required to collect and pay state taxes, Amazon was happily undercutting them online, using its affiliates as mules to deliver some of those sales. The state recently closed that loophole, therefore raising the ire of Amazon who's now promptly firing all of its Connecticut affiliates as a retaliatory reaction. Blame the state all you want, but don't just become tools in the hands of a greedy corporation.
This is not the first state who has been punished by Amazon. This follows a string of affiliates from other states who have been dropped like sacks of manure because that's what Amazon generally thinks of its users and partners. Amazon figures it has milked the affiliates enough already and will continue to do so with all the residual backlinks. Why continue to pay commissions when it can keep the money for itself?
At the same time consider Amazon's hypocrisy of keeping the New York affiliates. New York has the same state tax laws as these other unfortunate states but the New York affiliates haven't been fired. Why? Money, of course. New York is just too lucrative of a market to dump so easily.
I myself was dumped by Amazon over a year ago and wasn't happy about it. So yes, I do have a grudge, but life goes on. I licked my wounds, moved on to Google Adsense and eBay and dumped Amazon in return by vowing to never shop from them again, A promise I have faithfully kept since then.
Of course I am happy to use Amazon's site for comparison shopping and product information, but never to order anything from. eBay or other sites suit me just fine, thank you very much. And when it's time to consider cloud computing services for my company, Amazon will be last in the list to consider, if at all. Why would I jeopardize my job position by going with an arrogant and untrustworthy company?
Don't let being fired from Amazon upset you. Fire them back. Stop buying from Amazon.
Older Posts »
Powered by 
Read Financial Markets |
Home |
Blog |
Web Tools |
News |
Articles |
FAQ |
About |
Contact
© 2001-2012 Robert Hashemian
|
|
Liked this page?
Please consider creating a link to it
from your Web site.
|
|
|
r!ncRbBPwbNwsjS!~~_35.JPG)
NBPv5)ozWrw~~_35.JPG)
