Freesteel Blog » Mud Mining in Large again

Mud Mining in Large again

Friday, January 25th, 2013 at 2:34 pm Written by:

Last Saturday we were mud mining again on Leck Fell, and got a slight draft from the dig above the wall of mud. While we were there the direction of the draft changed. Very mysterious.

Probably going there again this Sunday.

Overdone the programming this week, hacking up a variant of ScraperWiki, but instead it uses CAD libraries instead of scraping libraries. Maybe it’s called ShaperWiki.

Also have been attempting to watch the SolidWorksWorld videos Day 1 and Day 2 all the way through. I was there in San Diego this time last year, at the start of my big adventure and a whole lot of fun. Unfortunately the keynote addresses seemed somewhat pointless from this distance.

Betrand Sicot: That’s a full crowd ere, look atthat. Fantastik. Eu amaz urs. Eu kontinoo to amaz urs. Eu ar outstanding. Eu ar so kreativ that in fact if eu zink about it eu ar shanging ze wurld wilivin. [5:04] In December 2012 wi reeshed too mi-yon uzers in the solidwurks community. Let me give eu sum perspektiv. So if you stack on top of eech ozer too mi-yon DVD pack ejes it wel be sree times ze hiet of ze Mont Edverest.

Now, why would anyone want to do that? The answer is 8848*3/20000000 = 1.3cm per pack-ej. A more interesting figure would be how much does this add up to as raw revenue for SolidWorks, and what percentage of this actually went into software development (ie into the actual product). Where does the money go? Why don’t customers ever get it together enough to demand to be told. We finally started getting to this data with charities, because if people are donating to Computer Lessons for Stray Cats, there is no legitimate reason to hide the fact that 90% of the funds are actually going towards the director-general’s summer house. But customers don’t demand it. “We put 80% of your dollar straight into the development of the product which you are purchasing,” does not appear to be a winning sales pitch. It should be. Maybe it’s too abstract. At least when you are buying pop music you expect the guy doing the singing to get enough money to fund an expensive drug habit. You would be disappointed if they weren’t. The story about the money going to the pop singer is the official justification for the outrageous copyright system we now have. What happens when the pop singer is dead, as many of them are? Then it goes to their children, supposedly. What blind bit of good does that do? They’re not doing anything anyway and probably aren’t even talented. And even that disbursement is a tiny fraction of what you paid because the lion’s share is taken out on the way by administrative costs, like in those sham charities. Your eyes are on the pumpkin seeds while the whole pumpkin is carted away and eaten by someone else. It all goes wrong once you have a disconnect between doing the work, and selling the work. That’s why lawyers have it made — their work is sold one-for-one, on the hour. And then they cunningly ignore this category distinction.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>