October 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item What's Fair
The Podcasts are at sqlservercentral.podshow.com
http://media.podshow.com/media/15351/episodes/84803/sqlservercentral-84803-10-25-2007.mov
October 25, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Recently I heard this from the news, a mother stood hours to wait to buy a concert ticket for her daughter, when the booth opened, all tickets were sold in 2 minutes because someone bought large amount of tickets online. Those people were the one trying to sell the ticket for higher price. The mother was angry and many people standing in line for hours. Did those people buy the tickets online and resell them break the law? Even the DA office is looking into it.
Fair - does it even exist ? :exclamation:
Life is not fair.
October 25, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I have to admit that I was mildly surprised when I heard the Rockies were going all-online for the World Series, but it will not be too long in the future when it will be so for most all events. It's easier, faster, cheaper for both teams and fans. It also helps to reduce the brokers hogging tickets, since fans get the same opportunity online, instead of having to get in line behind the dozens of people brokers hire to stand in line for them. And as we get faster and faster cell phone data network speeds, and better browsers to handle complex web sites, you can buy the tickets on your cell phone browser.
Is it better overall? Since its easier, faster, cheaper, less likely to forge, scam, or hoard, it will be hard to say its not better. Will some be left out? Probably, but no matter what, some are left out; handicapped, disabled, or ill people cannot stand in line overnight for tickets either. But those who do not have access to online tickets, probably will not be buying $250/seat tickets for World Series, either.
Mark
October 25, 2007 at 11:21 pm
A show of hands for all those in favor of a tax for the digital "have's" to subsidize access for the digital "have not's". If you raised your hand, you are a socialist. If you didn't raise your hand, you are a capitalist. Vote accordingly.
James Stover, McDBA
October 26, 2007 at 5:41 am
I don't have a solution, but possibly an idea.
I live the first few years of my life in a VERY small town in Southwest Missouri called Sarcoxie. For a while we lived with my grandmother who still had a party line phone and one of those original boxes with the speaker on the front and an ear piece that you picked up & held to your head (no, I'm not 75, but 44). The legislation that mandated phones didn't also mandate a level of technology or service, merely that the service had to be provided. A lot of the companies solved this with the party line concept, basically an open phone line that connects everywhere at once, no other amenities at all. Something along those lines seems possible.
A bigger problem comes along though. Most people who don't have a computer also probably don't have credit cards. So simply connecting them to the digital access points isn't enough.
By the way, I agree that if you want to redistribute income you're a socialist.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
October 26, 2007 at 6:04 am
Can anybody tell me on what exactly are we teamed to discuss the issue. I'm not able to understand of each & everybody's conversation.....
October 26, 2007 at 6:08 am
This is a discussion about the editorial posted today (Friday 10/26) by Steve Jones. Scroll up & follow the link at the top of the comments.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
October 26, 2007 at 6:53 am
Since "fairness" is part of this topic/conversation...
One and perhaps the only fair way to do a ticket sale to a special event is to have a lottery type sale. Other baseball teams have done that. But it takes a bit more effort and it also requires that management cares enough to at least try to be fair.
October 26, 2007 at 7:10 am
> How can we provide fair access to digital goods?
I have a problem with "fair" in most instances because it is usually just a way of whining.
However, in the example of tickets the most "Fair" way would be something like:
1. Have a signup period where everyone who wants tickets signs up for how many they want to buy.
2. After the signup period randomly draw names from the signed up pool until all of the tickets are accounted for.
By not selling the tickets on a "first come/first served" basis you level the playing field for those who can't stand in line, or who can't be sitting at their computers waiting to pounce.
The other benefit in the Colorado Rockies' situation is that the signup could be contingent. They could have started signups a month ago under the caveat of "If the Rockies get to the World Series, how many tickets do you want." This might have mitigated the meltdown caused by everyone jumping on at the same moment.
The "true" failing in the system is that it allows the "broker/scalper" to flourish by not charging the real market rate of the product. This could be solved by charging a higher price or by an auction system for the tickets. This of course wouldn't be "fair" to the people who can't afford the higher price but it would at least ensure that the profit for the event is going to the event organizers/participants instead of to a third party.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that the ticket isn't really a digital good, at least not in the same way that an MP3 is, the good being sold isn't a ticket, it is a seat in a finite sized stadium, or airplane, or whatever.
--
JimFive
October 26, 2007 at 7:10 am
One vote for capitalism.
October 26, 2007 at 7:19 am
There really is no way to be fair. We have too many potential technologies, from standing in lines to PDA's with broadband access. Different people have different levels of access to different technologies, and different time frames in which to interact with those technologies. For instance, the gas station workers had access to phones, but could not stand in line or use the internet. People working in an office have both phones and internet, but no ability to stand in line. Those who work for themselves or have no job (students, etc.) would be able to, potentially, use any of those methods, though some might not be able to afford the tickets.
This makes a lottery seem like a good idea; however, you've now lost fairness to those who have both the ability and desire to stand in line or camp out days prior for the tickets. Shouldn't they get first dibs? Think about airlines. You've got Continental and Southwest. Continental lets you pay for your seat. First to buy the seat, first to pick the best seat. You get to the airport when you have to and no earlier. For Southwest, you pay for a seat, then show up two hours early to get through security and then wait at the front of the line so you can get a good seat. (If you're going from Houston to Dallas, you should drive instead.)
I suppose you could alternate methods so that you average out the "fairness", but then people in one city will still get screwed over unless they are willing to travel. In the end, you really need to pick a method that attracts the people you want and hope the rest of your customer base doesn't boycott you in the future. American capitalism at its finest.
October 26, 2007 at 7:43 am
James Goodwin (10/26/2007)
By not selling the tickets on a "first come/first served" basis you level the playing field for those who can't stand in line, or who can't be sitting at their computers waiting to pounce.
This seems to indicate that you think first come/first serve is not a fair method. I would disagree. This method is very capitalistic, as is the ability for someone to go buy the tickets and resell them at a higher price. (Really, any complaints against such a method indicates a lean towards socialism rather than capitalism, though I don't know that anyone would ever be truly capitalistic.)
October 26, 2007 at 8:22 am
There is another area of fairness under debate.
Have you noticed those little pictures on web sites that require you to type in the letters and numbers in the picture to prove that you are not a robot. Well according to many of those sites my wife and some of here friends are robots. They can't type in those letters and numbers even though they have filled out the rest of the form. Any guesses why this might be?
Her cell phone company kept barraging her with text messages about new services, her bill, thanking her for her payment, on and on? It took us almost two months to get them to stop. It took that long to convince somebody that text services on her phone were a problem an not a solution. Any guesses why that is?
When we remodeled our kitchen (half DIY and half professional services) it took us over four months of searching to find a gas stove/oven that she could actually use. She is an excellent cook, by the way, so it's not here skills that are the problem. Why would modern technology in a kitchen appliance be a barrier and not a help?
It's hard to be inclusive. Living with these issues has made me painfully aware of the need to be accessible to all. That awareness has made me a better process designer. "The software must be adapted to the job and the worker rather than the other way around."
ATBCharles Kincaid
October 26, 2007 at 8:28 am
Back to the question about fair access to the digital marketplace (digital information in general?) -- I was going to suggest that communities could build public kiosks in the town center. In fact, kiosks in front of stadiums and other entertainment arenas could be an excellent way to serve the digitally-oriented customers, and provide relief to the lines for traditional in-person transactions (as we now see in many airports). Of course, another excellent location for public access is libraries, many now have banks of computers for public use -- this could be the focus for expansion in areas that don't currently have access.
Of course, Grant Fritchey makes an excellent point: we tend to forget that there are a lot of people who don't have credit cards!!! An excellent reason to continue to offer in-person transactions. Also, I personally would never put all my eggs in one basket.
I think the lottery would have been a good idea, not only in terms of "fairness to access" but also for "crowd control" when it came time to pay for and pick up those tickets! The minute I heard the Rockies were using only on-line access, I could see the system would get bogged down when everyone tried to get on at the same time! (And when the system was brought to its knees, the in-person box offices would have been down, too.)
October 26, 2007 at 8:34 am
... an interesting debate ... but ... fair schmair ... there is no guarantee ... the only guarantee that folks in the states have is the 'right' to 'the pursuit of happiness' ... now whether or not we achieve it is up to us ...
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply