...how O'Reilly repeatedly price their conferences out of the range of most of the people that build, or are likely to build, the very software the conferences are about.
These conferences are primarily interesting because of the people that attend them, yet by pricing their conferences like that they are virtually guaranteeing that the only people who turn up are Sun and Microsoft's [insert conference buzzword here] evangelists, and a bunch of journalists.
"...how O'Reilly repeatedly price their conferences out of the range of most of the people that build, or are likely to build, the very software the conferences are about."
Most technical conferences give out lots and lots of free complimentary tickets to their events. That's partly why the remaining tickets get to be so expensive. If you don't receive any free complimentary tickets yourself, then it could possibly mean you're not really part of the social fabric of those communities.
I am not making an assertion, so please don't get upset, I am just making a guess based on my personal experience.
First, let me say that the price that they're charging doesn't seem to be a whole lot more than what you'd pay just to go to a foreign country across the ocean. So it isn't extremely high. You might say that it raises the cost enough to internationalize the process, so that a person is as likely to attend from Argentina or America as from Australia or Germany. But they might have done better, if they wanted it to be available to poorer people everywhere, to start it at the national level in each country, and not have the admission price.
That said, lets not forget that money and power symbolize each other. Now, Microsoft and Sun have power. Gnu does not. What does GNU have? Strength. Strength can resist power, but it doesn't move things.
So you're having a conference on the future of money. The goal here isn't just to predict, it is to predict, and then move people in that direction. That's a function of power. To allow "strength" to be represented would actually stop the whole process.
So for what they want to do, they *definitely* want to price it out of the range of Joe Programmer. This way, they are more likely to succeed at their goals.
That said, yes -- it is priced out of the programmer's range, but Microsoft uses other peoples' code anyhow -- so it shouldn't matter to them.
The problem in this is that if you are building a whole structure while completely ignoring the populace, your structure is going to be unstable [as will be the case with the WTO, too]. A government functions best by legitimately representing on its virtual battlefield all forces that could possibly overthrow the government. If a government fails to represent one of the major forces, or does so too inefficiently, it is likely to sooner or later fall in a characteristic fashion:
(1) Power of the Populace. Represented by: locally elected representatives, with more universal sufferage helping it function better. Characteristic failure: civil unrest, violent revolution without resulting government, anarchy.
(2) Power of Group. Represented by a Senate, chosen by the major politically active groups of people [professional, or ethnic, or other]. Characteristic failure: (1) Babel effect, people developing their own languages (2) balkanization (3) civil war
(3) Power of the Charismatic Leader. Represented by a president or king. Characteristic failure: inability to respond to external threats. Usually the country gets conquered.
(4) Power of the wise leadership: Represented by judges. Characteristic failure: corruption by government leaders.
(5) Power of money: Represented --INEFFICIENTLY-- by lobby groups, but ideally represented by a regularly auctioned house with the power to block new legislation, but not with the power to craft or submit legislation. Characteristic failure: Bribes invading every other part of government, and making them fail.
The fact that they are ignoring the power of the populace seems rather unimportant right now, but if not corrected, it could result later in masse civil unrest. In other words, whoever follows them without getting the approval of their populace is likely to find themselves in a phase similar to Russia after the Bolshevik revolution but before the Communist revolution. Which phase won't necessarily result in Communism, but could as easily result in that as anything else. France had something similar that resulted in an unstable republic, for example. Rome had something similar that resulted in them losing all their slaves, and becoming a city state that was a symbol of power without any real power. Thus, it attracted conquest and reconquest.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Future of Money Summit (Score:5, Funny)
$995 per person before April 15, 2003
$1,195 after April 15, 2003 up to the day of the event.
That's not the future of my money.
It never ceases to amaze me... (Score:4, Insightful)
These conferences are primarily interesting because of the people that attend them, yet by pricing their conferences like that they are virtually guaranteeing that the only people who turn up are Sun and Microsoft's [insert conference buzzword here] evangelists, and a bunch of journalists.
Re:It never ceases to amaze me... (Score:5, Informative)
Most technical conferences give out lots and lots of free complimentary tickets to their events. That's partly why the remaining tickets get to be so expensive. If you don't receive any free complimentary tickets yourself, then it could possibly mean you're not really part of the social fabric of those communities.
I am not making an assertion, so please don't get upset, I am just making a guess based on my personal experience.
True, but it makes sense why (Score:2)
That said, lets not forget that money and power symbolize each other. Now, Microsoft and Sun have power. Gnu does not. What does GNU have? Strength. Strength can resist power, but it doesn't move things.
So you're having a conference on the future of money. The goal here isn't just to predict, it is to predict, and then move people in that direction. That's a function of power. To allow "strength" to be represented would actually stop the whole process.
So for what they want to do, they *definitely* want to price it out of the range of Joe Programmer. This way, they are more likely to succeed at their goals.
That said, yes -- it is priced out of the programmer's range, but Microsoft uses other peoples' code anyhow -- so it shouldn't matter to them.
The problem in this is that if you are building a whole structure while completely ignoring the populace, your structure is going to be unstable [as will be the case with the WTO, too]. A government functions best by legitimately representing on its virtual battlefield all forces that could possibly overthrow the government. If a government fails to represent one of the major forces, or does so too inefficiently, it is likely to sooner or later fall in a characteristic fashion:
(1) Power of the Populace. Represented by: locally elected representatives, with more universal sufferage helping it function better. Characteristic failure: civil unrest, violent revolution without resulting government, anarchy.
(2) Power of Group. Represented by a Senate, chosen by the major politically active groups of people [professional, or ethnic, or other]. Characteristic failure: (1) Babel effect, people developing their own languages (2) balkanization (3) civil war
(3) Power of the Charismatic Leader. Represented by a president or king. Characteristic failure: inability to respond to external threats. Usually the country gets conquered.
(4) Power of the wise leadership: Represented by judges. Characteristic failure: corruption by government leaders.
(5) Power of money: Represented --INEFFICIENTLY-- by lobby groups, but ideally represented by a regularly auctioned house with the power to block new legislation, but not with the power to craft or submit legislation. Characteristic failure: Bribes invading every other part of government, and making them fail.
The fact that they are ignoring the power of the populace seems rather unimportant right now, but if not corrected, it could result later in masse civil unrest. In other words, whoever follows them without getting the approval of their populace is likely to find themselves in a phase similar to Russia after the Bolshevik revolution but before the Communist revolution. Which phase won't necessarily result in Communism, but could as easily result in that as anything else. France had something similar that resulted in an unstable republic, for example. Rome had something similar that resulted in them losing all their slaves, and becoming a city state that was a symbol of power without any real power. Thus, it attracted conquest and reconquest.