Re: Adobe and pdf files
Isnt Microsoft word a product of Microsoft office, which is not in turn free. I know that HTML is a similar language, yet there are a great deal of programs to read and translate this info. It is the competition aspect of HTML (Netscape, Microsoft explorer, etc.) that has bred the further development of the language. I did not know that there were other pdf readers available and I am sure that a great deal of internet users are also unaware of this. What really, really bothers me is the fact that every site that uses pdf files advertises Adobe as the place to go. To me and others, I believe that the competition factor is not apparent in the case of pdf readers and that Adobe has taken over control of the production and sale of pdf writers and readers. I find it very convenient that Adobe created the file format PDF (1993) and have successfully marketed a free aspect of their business in order to capture large gains. Isn't this considered dumping. Is this true, did Adobe create and monopolize to a large extent the market by dumping?
Re: Adobe and pdf files
Alexander Guerrero wrote: > Anyoneo who uses acrobat reader to read PDF documents, in the near future will > enjoy the need to reverse the proces, that is to convert PDF to word and other > way around. On leads to the other and you for Acrobat Destiller y Exchange and > get the reader "free". > Alexander > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I just read the series of correspondence considering the Xerox machine and > > the usage of the term "Xerox" to refer to photocopying. Now the problem I > > have does not have to do with the term but with the use of advertising by > > providing a free product. Adobe acrobat and its free reader for pdf files > > was the first thing that came to mind. Is it really cost effective for Adobe > > to provide a free pdf reader when they could possibly sell it on the open > > market. I know they sell other products related to pdf files, but is the > > advertising of the free reader really encouraging people to take advantage of > > their other products or is it causing people to abuse the reader and its > > benefits. Seon begin:vcard n:Guerrero;Alexander tel;cell:016/6352186 tel;fax:(582)9416092 tel;home:9416092 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:TecnoEconomica adr:;;;Caracas;Miranda;1080;Venezuela version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Presidente fn:Alexander Guerrero end:vcard
Re: Adobe and pdf files
It's not true that you have to buy Adobe Distiller to make .pdf files. There are all kinds of freeware programs (e.g. ps2pdf) available on the web that will turn any post-script file into .pdf format. So for example, you can use any post-script printer driver to print your Word document to a postscript file, and then apply ps2pdf to the postscript file to make the .pdf file. BTW, it's no mystery why people buy Adobe Distiller when this free technology is available--the costs of learning to use the freeware can be substantial. You have to: (1) know about ps2pdf (and similar freeware) and where to download it from (2) know how to install a postscript printer driver (3) know how to get Word (or other programs) to use that printer driver to produce a postscript file (4) know how to use the command line to invoke ps2pdf -- Jay Bhattacharya Associate Economist RAND 1700 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 phone: (310) 393-0411 x6396 fax: (310) 451-7025 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe and pdf files
Anyoneo who uses acrobat reader to read PDF documents, in the near future will enjoy the need to reverse the proces, that is to convert PDF to word and other way around. On leads to the other. Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I just read the series of correspondence considering the Xerox machine and > the usage of the term "Xerox" to refer to photocopying. Now the problem I > have does not have to do with the term but with the use of advertising by > providing a free product. Adobe acrobat and its free reader for pdf files > was the first thing that came to mind. Is it really cost effective for Adobe > to provide a free pdf reader when they could possibly sell it on the open > market. I know they sell other products related to pdf files, but is the > advertising of the free reader really encouraging people to take advantage of > their other products or is it causing people to abuse the reader and its > benefits. Seon begin:vcard n:Guerrero;Alexander tel;cell:016/6352186 tel;fax:(582)9416092 tel;home:9416092 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:TecnoEconomica adr:;;;Caracas;Miranda;1080;Venezuela version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Presidente fn:Alexander Guerrero end:vcard
Re: Economist Olympics?
Sim City would not be a good option -- choosing "no zoning" leads to no city. Building no government fire halls leads to no private fire prevention services. Same for police. Same for recreation (stadiums). Same for transportation (airports, ports, roads, rail). Same for power. Everything has to be done by the public sector and supported by taxes. This game would be quite bad for testing interesting policy options. On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Chris Rasch wrote: > Does anyone know if anyone has held an "economist Olympics?" via one of these > games (e.g. Sim City)? It seems like it might be a fun tool for evaluating > policy proposals. For example, suppose two economists disagreed about the > effects of a given policy proposal. To resolve the issue, they have their > students play a series of simulations (Ultima, Sim City), some of which > implement the proposal in the meta rules of the game, some of which do not. To > give it some teeth (a la Robin Hanson's idea futures proposal), prior to the > games, each economist must bet on their predicted outcome. > > > Can such games model reality well enough to give interesting results? > Would economists agree on the meta-rules enough to agree to participate? > >
Re: Adobe and pdf files
Their other products are worthless if the pdf format is not standard. Who would produce a pdf document if all the users of it had to pay not only the producer, but some thrid party, to view it. There are many free alternatives. The reader has to be free to compete with MS word and html and nsf and a host of other formats. Pat McCann GMU Undergrad On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I just read the series of correspondence considering the Xerox machine and > the usage of the term "Xerox" to refer to photocopying. Now the problem I > have does not have to do with the term but with the use of advertising by > providing a free product. Adobe acrobat and its free reader for pdf files > was the first thing that came to mind. Is it really cost effective for Adobe > to provide a free pdf reader when they could possibly sell it on the open > market. I know they sell other products related to pdf files, but is the > advertising of the free reader really encouraging people to take advantage of > their other products or is it causing people to abuse the reader and its > benefits. Seon >
Re: Economist Olympics?
>Can such games model reality well enough to give interesting results? Interesting to whom? To game players yes. For certain purposes there are useful models that can help people understand how systems operate and predict outcomes. >Would economists agree on the meta-rules enough to agree to participate? Absolutely not. If you can agree on a model you can almost always agree on the policy prescription. Most disagreements between economists are over what the right model is, not what policy should be pursued given the model. -- Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
Re: reading recommendation
>Sure, some important real world applications exist. But why is that >interesting? I would think that the interesting question is: what's the >*expected value* of the loss, averaging over situations of all >importance levels? So would you argue that the interesting question about government policies is whether averaging over all of them net welfare effects are positive? Wouldn't you want to know something about particular policies with an eye towards identifying which ones are better or worse. Even if you thought that on average they were bad you probably couldn't convince most people that they shouldn't be considered on a case by case basis. Similarly, if you can identify even one situation in which judgement can be shown to fail and design an intervention to minimize the cost of that failure isn't that interesting? -- Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
RE: Adobe and pdf files
wait a second: you can only READ .pdf files if someone has MADE them first, and to MAKE them you need to buy the full fledged product. the logic is that by spreading the reader around for free you create demand. else it would be a completely closed circuit. note, Microsoft offers a Word reader for .doc files, and Real.Com offers a viewer for .rm files, all free. i would say that, more than being cost effective, it is absolutely necessary for Adobe to pass on its reader in order to stimulate use of the system. etb > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 4:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Adobe and pdf files > > > I just read the series of correspondence considering the Xerox > machine and > the usage of the term "Xerox" to refer to photocopying. Now the problem I > have does not have to do with the term but with the use of advertising by > providing a free product. Adobe acrobat and its free reader for > pdf files > was the first thing that came to mind. Is it really cost > effective for Adobe > to provide a free pdf reader when they could possibly sell it on the open > market. I know they sell other products related to pdf files, but is the > advertising of the free reader really encouraging people to take > advantage of > their other products or is it causing people to abuse the reader and its > benefits. Seon >
Re: AIDS/POLIO-Not Much Econ
William T. Dickens wrote: > >The article did grant that there > >remains the strange puzzle of the coincidence in timing of the various > >strands of AIDS all being transmitted from primates to humans within a > >close period, which I suppose that Hooper will emphasize when backed > >into a corner. The article suggests theories of population increases > >or the introduction of cheap syringes, both of which might explain why > >infection didn't happen earlier. > >I'm probably way in over my head here, but I thought that there was still >a lot of controversy over exactly when and where AIDS first emerged in the >human population. I seem to remember hearing it claimed that there were >confirmed cases in humans before the polio vaccination campaign. I thought >I've also heard it claimed that the wave of reports around the time of the >vaccine could be explained by a reporting anomaly -- that there was a buzz >in the medical community that caused people to recognize what they were >seeing as a single disease whereas before that time the pattern of >symptoms might not have been seen as a unique disease. -- Bill I'm admittedly in over my head as well, but it seems clear that there are several distinct strands of AIDS, which all seem to have been in humans since near the start of the epidemic. And since it is unlikely that a single primate or human was infected with more than one of these strands, there have to have been multiple transmission events from primates to humans. The issue isn't about reports of when people said they saw the disease, but about what we can now infer about who had what when. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Adobe and pdf files
I just read the series of correspondence considering the Xerox machine and the usage of the term "Xerox" to refer to photocopying. Now the problem I have does not have to do with the term but with the use of advertising by providing a free product. Adobe acrobat and its free reader for pdf files was the first thing that came to mind. Is it really cost effective for Adobe to provide a free pdf reader when they could possibly sell it on the open market. I know they sell other products related to pdf files, but is the advertising of the free reader really encouraging people to take advantage of their other products or is it causing people to abuse the reader and its benefits. Seon
Re: reading recommendation
Regarding the exchange between W. Dickens and B. Caplan over decision heuristics: __ I encourage you to browse, if you haven't, the following: FAMA, EUGENE F., "Market Efficiency, Long-term Returns, and Behavioral Finance," The Journal of Financial Economics, 49 (1998). I keep a copy of the article at home and enjoy revisiting it from time to time . . .just as I enjoy watching a favorite comedy over and over again on television. In this article, which grew out of Fama's Hyde Park on-campus philosophical tussles with Richard Thaler and Company, we reach a very interesting conclusion. In short it goes something like this: [Yes, there are behavioral anomalies within investment markets. In fact, they often appear quite systematic and predictable. Furthermore, they are tenacious little "buggars" (that's my paraphrase). However, they'll cancel each other out in an efficient market.] Yes, that was the final answer after 40+ pages of statistical analysis and careful consideration: They'll cancel each other out. One morning, in the not-too-distant future, the folks in Stockholm will call Eugene in the wee hours to inform him that he'll be splitting a $1 million check with Kenneth French. I will smile over my morning coffee when I hear the news and applaud an incredible body of work and lifetime of academic contribution. They'll do so (in my opinion) in spite of that 1998 article. New York, NY
Re: AIDS/POLIO-Not Much Econ
> The article did grant that there >remains the strange puzzle of the coincidence in timing of the various >strands of AIDS all being transmitted from primates to humans within a >close period, which I suppose that Hooper will emphasize when backed >into a corner. The article suggests theories of population increases >or the introduction of cheap syringes, both of which might explain why >infection didn't happen earlier. I'm probably way in over my head here, but I thought that there was still a lot of controversy over exactly when and where AIDS first emerged in the human population. I seem to remember hearing it claimed that there were confirmed cases in humans before the polio vaccination campaign. I thought I've also heard it claimed that the wave of reports around the time of the vaccine could be explained by a reporting anomaly -- that there was a buzz in the medical community that caused people to recognize what they were seeing as a single disease whereas before that time the pattern of symptoms might not have been seen as a unique disease. -- Bill Dickens William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
Re: reading recommendation
Let me second Bill's point. It's because decision heuristics are usually so useful that we can be lulled into following them when doing so is downright irrational! Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reading recommendation
William Dickens wrote: > Of course! That was the point of the theory all along. It would be useless for >people to develop decision heuristics that weren't useful in most situations. That's a sensible perspective, but I'm not sure that most people working in this area share it. It seems to me that they get pretty defensive when anyone suggests that their findings have limited practical importance. The most extreme example is probably Piatelli-Palmarini's *Inevitable Illusions*, which gets almost hysterical over the deficiencies of the human intellect. But I think you can see the same defensiveness in Nisbett and Ross, Rabin's JEL piece (the conclusion especially), Thaler, and many more. >What I would take exception to is your characterization of the experimental >situations as "unrealistic." "Uncommon" might be a better description. But, no >matter how uncommon the situations might be that doesn't mean that there aren't >important real world situations where decision anomalies bias judgement in ways that >can be anticipated. -- Sure, some important real world applications exist. But why is that interesting? I would think that the interesting question is: what's the *expected value* of the loss, averaging over situations of all importance levels? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan "We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our conduct (mental illness)." --Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
Economist Olympics?
Does anyone know if anyone has held an "economist Olympics?" via one of these games (e.g. Sim City)? It seems like it might be a fun tool for evaluating policy proposals. For example, suppose two economists disagreed about the effects of a given policy proposal. To resolve the issue, they have their students play a series of simulations (Ultima, Sim City), some of which implement the proposal in the meta rules of the game, some of which do not. To give it some teeth (a la Robin Hanson's idea futures proposal), prior to the games, each economist must bet on their predicted outcome. Can such games model reality well enough to give interesting results? Would economists agree on the meta-rules enough to agree to participate?
Re: reading recommendation
>This provides concrete >evidence that the pronounced cognitive biases emphasized in behavioral >economics are to a large extent artifacts of unrealistic experimental >conditions. Hi Bryan, Of course! That was the point of the theory all along. It would be useless for people to develop decision heuristics that weren't useful in most situations. What I would take exception to is your characterization of the experimental situations as "unrealistic." "Uncommon" might be a better description. But, no matter how uncommon the situations might be that doesn't mean that there aren't important real world situations where decision anomalies bias judgement in ways that can be anticipated. -- Bill William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
Re: AIDS/POLIO-Not Much Econ
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: >... Furthermore as Robin pointed out >there was "a claimed strong correlation between where CHAT was given and >the earliest HIV cases. But this correlation is only described via some >maps. This cries out for a more formal statistical analysis..." >According to the Economist (Sept. 16, 2000) a "closer analysis" (don't >know if this is the same as Robin's formal analysis) suggests that the >correlation is spurious. Yes, I saw that and was curious to know whether the analysis critical is any better than Hooper's analysis. The article did grant that there remains the strange puzzle of the coincidence in timing of the various strands of AIDS all being transmitted from primates to humans within a close period, which I suppose that Hooper will emphasize when backed into a corner. The article suggests theories of population increases or the introduction of cheap syringes, both of which might explain why infection didn't happen earlier. But I'm not sure they can explain why we haven't seen more such transmissions since then. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Marx vs. Hayek - let Amazon decide!!
F. Guillermo wrote:
Here some cute numbers
Title Amazon.com sales Rank Approx Price
The Communist Manifesto 3,955 $5
The Road to Serfdom 866$8
Wealth of Nations 1,782 $9
Essential Works of Lenin 40,222 $10
Monetary History of 51,607 $38
the United States
__
I decided to venture over to Amazon.com to feed my addiction to the smell of new
paperbacks and bubblewrap (a rational act in my Stiglerian world) and to review the
cross-selling information accumulated by those nosy Washingtonians at Amazon.com for
each of the acclaimed works mentioned above. I chose to ignore my natural UofC
compulsion to look for a correlation between price and aggregate sales, instead
choosing to focus on that "People who ordered this book also ordered the following
books" section of the website. What I confirmed was that people generally buy Marx,
Smith, and Lenin in tandem . . .lest their bookshelves lean too far to one side or the
other. Hayek readers tend to read other Hayek works and other Austrian School dribble
("dribble" meant in its most endearing form) and I guess the Friedman/Schwartz work is
the paper weight of choice for those of us who as children were indoctrinated by the
Free To Choose video series and simply can't get enough MV=PQ.
I have all these works in my mammoth home library and that library was built in a very
price-insensitive addictive state of mind. I must truly be a sick puppie.
New York, NY
