Some people said it was just a normal teenage phase. But I knew in my heart there was something wrong with Stephen. His work was going downhill: he was turning up late, not concentrating. He just wasn't himself. He was staying in his room constantly, not coming near us, not even saying good morning. He was going out and getting into fights and he's a passive person. He was going missing for days. We didn't know where he was and he'd come home with bruises and he wouldn't remember what had happened.
He was acting quite strangely and saying he had super powers and things like that. He thought I was dead. He thought someone had killed me and chopped my head off. But he'd been drinking a lot and when people drink they act pretty strangely.
We ended up taking him to our GP and Stephen opened up a little bit. The GP said: "Well, why not be admitted to hospital for a while?" I was hoping Stephen would agree but he wouldn't go. He just thought that he was OK, because he was OK maybe 15 per cent of the time, but mostly he wasn't. The doctor put him on antidepressants. But he was just getting worse and worse.
We ended up getting him referred to a psychiatrist. But he didn't get better. I spent a month running around trying to get people to diagnose him. He was screaming and acting irrationally. Then one day we got a phone call. He was in a police station. I told them I thought something was wrong and I wanted him to go to hospital. I couldn't handle him. He would get very, very upset. He was like a toddler having a tantrum. So the police took him to hospital.
A psychiatrist assessed him and said he was depressed. But if the person acts quite normally, they just don't know what's really the problem. By that time, you see, Stephen was very calm. He really was scared of going into hospital. I think he thought "I'm going nuts, they'll lock me away," all those sorts of fears. Also I'm sure he didn't want people to know. That's a very big thing with young men. The stigma
Sunday, 28 December 2008
Friday, 26 December 2008
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 9)
The established interests (software firms and their paid consultants) have been playing this sob story of how open source is putting them out of business and how it's a threat to the economy, insecure, more expensive, etc, etc. They've even been lobbying the government. It's the same old sob story we've heard over and over, and apparently there are plenty of people who will believe it.
I just hope that they're not successful in implementing any kind of artificial protections for themselves through lobbying, and I say this as a proponent of free trade. Protectionist tariffs and subsidies on domestic agriculture, raw materials, and manufactured goods are a constant temptation for a country that encounters competition from outside. Europe and the United States to this day continue to artificially prop-up domestic industry even as their governments preach the benefits of free trade and open markets. Who are the ones that want to open the markets? Ironically, it's sometimes the same folks who would call open source software proponents communists. The outcry over open source's negative effect on the economy is similar to the U.S. steel situation. The U.S. steel industry is having a hard time competing with imports from abroad, so they successfully lobby the government into slapping tariffs on foreign steel. That keeps steel prices artificially high, and subsequently the U.S. automobile and construction industries suffer. A few steel workers keep their jobs, a few auto workers lose theirs. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to know whether it was a net gain or loss for the country's economy, but the point is that you take away from one side, you give to another. That's the way things work.
Here's another example: Wal-mart has been bad news for small businesses all over the USA, and for their owners and employees. It's been bad for the downtown business districts, some of which have been decimated, while others have been merely forced to transform into restaurant and entertainment promenades. But in the larger picture, has it been bad for America? Well, ask the millions of rural Americans who now have access to socks for $2 per dozen and $35 DVD players. They'll say it's not so bad to have some economy of scale leveraging their purchasing power. (Disclaimer: personally, I hate Wal-Mart, and I love vibrant downtown business districts and small, quirky businesses.) But the point is this: just as we might decry the negative impact that foreign trade or big box stores might have one segment of the economy or society, the net result has been that these factors mean that a couple hundred million Americans can now buy a heck of a lot more for their money that they could twenty years ago.
In conclusion, the number of people who will be negatively affected by the availability of high quality, low cost software is relatively small. The software industry may need to transform, and some firms may not survive, but the overall impact on the economy will be positive. Just because the oil companies are enjoying increased profits due to higher gas prices does not mean that high oil prices is good for the economy. Quite the opposite.
We might have heard a similar story a couple hundred years ago, during the industrial revolution: "But millions of people are employed planting and harvesting, and the tractor will put them all out of business! And the cotton gin will put all those people picking the seeds out of cotton plants out of work! And mechanical looms will put all those weavers out of work! Oh the humanity!"
Every time there's a transformation in one segment of the economy, we hear the same outcry. And while it may be downright tragic for the affected parties, the rest of us can't get too caught up in the drama.
History is chock full of well-meaning people succeeding with their plans and inadvertently making life worse for many others. The early Communists thought they were fighting for freedom. Freedom is a good idea, but if you go about promoting it in the wrong way, you can end up making people less free. You may not notice what's happening until it's too late because ideology can blind you. Many people today who are fighting for intellectual property rules because they think it promotes innovation and progress may actually be actually hammering nails into innovation's coffin.
I just hope that they're not successful in implementing any kind of artificial protections for themselves through lobbying, and I say this as a proponent of free trade. Protectionist tariffs and subsidies on domestic agriculture, raw materials, and manufactured goods are a constant temptation for a country that encounters competition from outside. Europe and the United States to this day continue to artificially prop-up domestic industry even as their governments preach the benefits of free trade and open markets. Who are the ones that want to open the markets? Ironically, it's sometimes the same folks who would call open source software proponents communists. The outcry over open source's negative effect on the economy is similar to the U.S. steel situation. The U.S. steel industry is having a hard time competing with imports from abroad, so they successfully lobby the government into slapping tariffs on foreign steel. That keeps steel prices artificially high, and subsequently the U.S. automobile and construction industries suffer. A few steel workers keep their jobs, a few auto workers lose theirs. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to know whether it was a net gain or loss for the country's economy, but the point is that you take away from one side, you give to another. That's the way things work.
Here's another example: Wal-mart has been bad news for small businesses all over the USA, and for their owners and employees. It's been bad for the downtown business districts, some of which have been decimated, while others have been merely forced to transform into restaurant and entertainment promenades. But in the larger picture, has it been bad for America? Well, ask the millions of rural Americans who now have access to socks for $2 per dozen and $35 DVD players. They'll say it's not so bad to have some economy of scale leveraging their purchasing power. (Disclaimer: personally, I hate Wal-Mart, and I love vibrant downtown business districts and small, quirky businesses.) But the point is this: just as we might decry the negative impact that foreign trade or big box stores might have one segment of the economy or society, the net result has been that these factors mean that a couple hundred million Americans can now buy a heck of a lot more for their money that they could twenty years ago.
In conclusion, the number of people who will be negatively affected by the availability of high quality, low cost software is relatively small. The software industry may need to transform, and some firms may not survive, but the overall impact on the economy will be positive. Just because the oil companies are enjoying increased profits due to higher gas prices does not mean that high oil prices is good for the economy. Quite the opposite.
We might have heard a similar story a couple hundred years ago, during the industrial revolution: "But millions of people are employed planting and harvesting, and the tractor will put them all out of business! And the cotton gin will put all those people picking the seeds out of cotton plants out of work! And mechanical looms will put all those weavers out of work! Oh the humanity!"
Every time there's a transformation in one segment of the economy, we hear the same outcry. And while it may be downright tragic for the affected parties, the rest of us can't get too caught up in the drama.
History is chock full of well-meaning people succeeding with their plans and inadvertently making life worse for many others. The early Communists thought they were fighting for freedom. Freedom is a good idea, but if you go about promoting it in the wrong way, you can end up making people less free. You may not notice what's happening until it's too late because ideology can blind you. Many people today who are fighting for intellectual property rules because they think it promotes innovation and progress may actually be actually hammering nails into innovation's coffin.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 8)
I guess free software foundations are going to employ people from now on. Its the same evil mega corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people and make the world economy function. Make them "smaller, weaker, and easier to keep in their place" and raise the unemployment rate to double digits not to mention lowering the standard of living world wide I suggest voting NO for RMS Democracy.
Is it "free software foundations" that pay the paychecks of most of the people developing open source software? No, for the most part it's for-profit enterprises (and some schools) who have a self-interest in producing the software. And who is it who's using all this software? Long-haired hippies running servers for anti-capitalistic websites? Nope, it's everyday IT folks doing everyday work for regular companies.
Open source software has been a tremendous boon for the thousands of small and medium sized businesses that have been mostly shut out of the enterprise software markets, both as producers and consumers. A few small companies like Red Hat and SuSE have been very successful in producing and supporting open source software, and countless small consulting firms have found open source to be a revelation.
Let's have an example: A small consulting firm is hired to solve a problem. The client has a budget of $5000. They could solve that problem in 50 hours by coding it from scratch (earning $100 per hour), or in 20 hours using pre-existing open source software (earning $250/hr). In many cases like this, even if there is commercial software, it would cost more than $5000 just for the license. So this small firm rolls out the open source software, with modifications, makes its $5000, then turns around and sells a similar system to its next client, making another $5000. And the clients get the additional peace of mind knowing that even if this small consulting firm goes away, since their system is built on a known platform, someone else should be able to pick up the pieces. In this case, everybody wins. In fact, the commercial software firm doesn't even lose, because they wouldn't have been interested in this business anyway.
Is it "free software foundations" that pay the paychecks of most of the people developing open source software? No, for the most part it's for-profit enterprises (and some schools) who have a self-interest in producing the software. And who is it who's using all this software? Long-haired hippies running servers for anti-capitalistic websites? Nope, it's everyday IT folks doing everyday work for regular companies.
Open source software has been a tremendous boon for the thousands of small and medium sized businesses that have been mostly shut out of the enterprise software markets, both as producers and consumers. A few small companies like Red Hat and SuSE have been very successful in producing and supporting open source software, and countless small consulting firms have found open source to be a revelation.
Let's have an example: A small consulting firm is hired to solve a problem. The client has a budget of $5000. They could solve that problem in 50 hours by coding it from scratch (earning $100 per hour), or in 20 hours using pre-existing open source software (earning $250/hr). In many cases like this, even if there is commercial software, it would cost more than $5000 just for the license. So this small firm rolls out the open source software, with modifications, makes its $5000, then turns around and sells a similar system to its next client, making another $5000. And the clients get the additional peace of mind knowing that even if this small consulting firm goes away, since their system is built on a known platform, someone else should be able to pick up the pieces. In this case, everybody wins. In fact, the commercial software firm doesn't even lose, because they wouldn't have been interested in this business anyway.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 7)
The side of the story that's ignored is that there are two sides to the software industry: the producers and the consumers. In fact, the number of companies and individuals who use software vastly outnumber those that produce it. And there are two sides to corporate profit: revenues and expenses. The average corporation spends a huge amount of money, a significant percentage of its IT budget, on software licensing.
Take a look at the largest companies in the world. Of them, only Microsoft makes the majority of its money from software licensing. A handful of them, IBM, HP, Siemens, Hitachi, Motorola, Lockheed, Intel, make some of their money from software sales, generally a small part. A few, like Wal-Mart and Best Buy make a small portion of their revenue from retail sales of software. So the vast majority of large global companies consume software rather than produce it. Same goes for small businesses. And let's not forget governments and academic and research institutions, some of the other largest consumers of software. When looked at it from this angle, if the cost of software is driven down by competition from open source, and thus a major cost of doing business is reduced for global industry, will it be a net gain or net loss to the economy?
And the cost savings can come in unexpected places. A large corporation that I know of replaced thousands of Sun/Solaris servers with inexpensive Intel/Linux ones and ended up saving $250,000 per year -- in electricity -- on top of millions of dollars in licensing fees. Where did that money go? Did it disappear into the ether? Well, Sun Microsystems (and the power company) probably thinks it did, but in fact, instead of going to Sun, it went to pay salaries, to fund new projects, and back to the shareholders in dividends and a kick in the stock price due to greater profits. In other words, it went right into the economy. Every dollar not spent on software licenses is spent on something else.
And economics is not a zero-sum game. Money can be spent in ways in which its positive impact on the economy is greater or lesser. If a firm spends $25 million developing a software product that never achieves widespread use and never makes much of an impact (and a huge proportion of commercial software projects fall into this category), the only positive impact on the economy will be the transfer of funds from company coffers to general circulation (and taxes) via the salaries of the employees involved.
On the other hand, if a useful piece of software becomes available at little or no cost to many companies, especially to companies that otherwise would not have been able to afford such software, it can give a major boost to that company's productivity. In that case, even if no money was spent, all those companies increased their efficiency and revenues. Increased productivity and decreased expenses can have a massive effect on a company's bottom line.
Take a look at the largest companies in the world. Of them, only Microsoft makes the majority of its money from software licensing. A handful of them, IBM, HP, Siemens, Hitachi, Motorola, Lockheed, Intel, make some of their money from software sales, generally a small part. A few, like Wal-Mart and Best Buy make a small portion of their revenue from retail sales of software. So the vast majority of large global companies consume software rather than produce it. Same goes for small businesses. And let's not forget governments and academic and research institutions, some of the other largest consumers of software. When looked at it from this angle, if the cost of software is driven down by competition from open source, and thus a major cost of doing business is reduced for global industry, will it be a net gain or net loss to the economy?
And the cost savings can come in unexpected places. A large corporation that I know of replaced thousands of Sun/Solaris servers with inexpensive Intel/Linux ones and ended up saving $250,000 per year -- in electricity -- on top of millions of dollars in licensing fees. Where did that money go? Did it disappear into the ether? Well, Sun Microsystems (and the power company) probably thinks it did, but in fact, instead of going to Sun, it went to pay salaries, to fund new projects, and back to the shareholders in dividends and a kick in the stock price due to greater profits. In other words, it went right into the economy. Every dollar not spent on software licenses is spent on something else.
And economics is not a zero-sum game. Money can be spent in ways in which its positive impact on the economy is greater or lesser. If a firm spends $25 million developing a software product that never achieves widespread use and never makes much of an impact (and a huge proportion of commercial software projects fall into this category), the only positive impact on the economy will be the transfer of funds from company coffers to general circulation (and taxes) via the salaries of the employees involved.
On the other hand, if a useful piece of software becomes available at little or no cost to many companies, especially to companies that otherwise would not have been able to afford such software, it can give a major boost to that company's productivity. In that case, even if no money was spent, all those companies increased their efficiency and revenues. Increased productivity and decreased expenses can have a massive effect on a company's bottom line.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 6)
The software industry is one of the United States' most important industries. According to the BSA, the software industry makes a greater contribution to the US GDP than any other manufacturing industry. (Manufacturing makes up almost 14% of the US GDP, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis). More than 800,000 people are employed by the software industry, and they make an average of $69K per year (BSA). And this is more or less the case with most developed countries. Software makes up an important part of the world economy. How would the widespread adoption of open source software affect this segment of the economy?
It's impossible to speculate with complete accuracy, but I think we could all agree on some basic generalizations:
It would open up the possibility of a shift of dominance away from the United States. Though much open source software originated in the US, there are no artificial controls to prevent people in other countries using and improving upon that software, and in fact obtaining de-facto dominance of any particular niche.
Some companies' product lines are sure to suffer, and under-diversified companies might go out of business altogether. Intel and Linux delivered a 1-2 punch to companies like SGI and Sun; Oracle may face reduced profits in the future as open source databases like Postgres and MySQL attack their low-end market and creep up; Microsoft has already seen Linux and Apache prevent it from easy domination in the low-to-mid-end web server market.
It's possible that we could see a fundamental shift in the software industry away from predominantly earning money from licensing fees into making money from support contracts, automated update and maintenance services, and consulting services. Some major software companies, like IBM, Oracle, and SAP already make a large proportion, if not the majority of their software-related money from services and support contracts, and that has been the case long before open source came on the scene.
If it ever got to the point that software users came to expect that most software would be free of charge, it would become difficult for an individual or small company to make any money by creating and licensing software. This is already shown itself to be true in the Linux subculture. So much of the software for Linux is free that there isn't much of a market in shareware for Linux, as there is for the Windows and Mac platforms. FTP clients, utilities and other small, purpose specific software that would cost $10-20 (shareware) on Windows is generally available free of charge for Linux, and generally included outright on your typical Linux distribution. Individuals or small firms that might have an interest in distributing a shareware app on Linux probably just don't bother.
So it's likely that if open source software became more widespread there would be some negative impact on the economy. Some companies that are currently in business might be forced to change focus, survive with slimmer profit margins, or even go under as a result. Some companies that might have existed otherwise will never come to be at all. And individual countries, like the United States, might see their dominance in the software industry wane as the market is opened up to other, probably poorer, countries, like India and China.
So in the U.S., software company profits are likely to decline, and some jobs will probably be lost. There will be a negative economic effect from open source software.
Plenty of people have made similar claims, with the most vulnerable of the software firms, industry associations, and their paid mouthpieces being the most vocal. And they do have a point. The problem is, as is the case with any fact that's promoted by an aggrieved party, that there's another side to the story that's conveniently ignored.
It's impossible to speculate with complete accuracy, but I think we could all agree on some basic generalizations:
It would open up the possibility of a shift of dominance away from the United States. Though much open source software originated in the US, there are no artificial controls to prevent people in other countries using and improving upon that software, and in fact obtaining de-facto dominance of any particular niche.
Some companies' product lines are sure to suffer, and under-diversified companies might go out of business altogether. Intel and Linux delivered a 1-2 punch to companies like SGI and Sun; Oracle may face reduced profits in the future as open source databases like Postgres and MySQL attack their low-end market and creep up; Microsoft has already seen Linux and Apache prevent it from easy domination in the low-to-mid-end web server market.
It's possible that we could see a fundamental shift in the software industry away from predominantly earning money from licensing fees into making money from support contracts, automated update and maintenance services, and consulting services. Some major software companies, like IBM, Oracle, and SAP already make a large proportion, if not the majority of their software-related money from services and support contracts, and that has been the case long before open source came on the scene.
If it ever got to the point that software users came to expect that most software would be free of charge, it would become difficult for an individual or small company to make any money by creating and licensing software. This is already shown itself to be true in the Linux subculture. So much of the software for Linux is free that there isn't much of a market in shareware for Linux, as there is for the Windows and Mac platforms. FTP clients, utilities and other small, purpose specific software that would cost $10-20 (shareware) on Windows is generally available free of charge for Linux, and generally included outright on your typical Linux distribution. Individuals or small firms that might have an interest in distributing a shareware app on Linux probably just don't bother.
So it's likely that if open source software became more widespread there would be some negative impact on the economy. Some companies that are currently in business might be forced to change focus, survive with slimmer profit margins, or even go under as a result. Some companies that might have existed otherwise will never come to be at all. And individual countries, like the United States, might see their dominance in the software industry wane as the market is opened up to other, probably poorer, countries, like India and China.
So in the U.S., software company profits are likely to decline, and some jobs will probably be lost. There will be a negative economic effect from open source software.
Plenty of people have made similar claims, with the most vulnerable of the software firms, industry associations, and their paid mouthpieces being the most vocal. And they do have a point. The problem is, as is the case with any fact that's promoted by an aggrieved party, that there's another side to the story that's conveniently ignored.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 5)
But we're getting ahead of ourselves. At this point in our history of open source, it's just making its transition from an intellectual exercise among a relatively tight group of academics, hobbyists, and corporate researchers into a growing phenomenon that's being installed in corporations under the radar. It's still small potatoes. No threat to the established commercial software companies. It's the mid nineties.
Then the internet came onto the scene. Like the music industry, the software industry had been as much about promotion and distribution as production, if not moreso. Suddenly, software could be promoted and distributed at almost no cost, and the carefully-built system of salesmen, distributors, Value Added Resellers, and the like had been bypassed almost overnight. Luckily for them, the software industry had experienced quite a bit of consolidation and vendor lock-in by then, so the average business and home user was somewhat tied into the old system of Windows/Mac PCs running packaged software sold through old-style sales networks and retail stores. But even in the early days of the internet, cracks were already starting to show.
The problem was, the bread and butter of the software industry, medium-to-large businesses, had been increasingly resentful of being the targets of the software industry's relentless profit maximization. Businesses are in the business of making money. And they make money by keeping revenues high and expenses low. By the 1990s, businesses were spending a staggeringly large amount of money on software, and due in large part to the managerial class' emphasis of "features that sell" over "software that works well," a large part of that investment was being wasted in ambitious software projects that ultimately failed. They were getting locked-in to vendors' platforms and run on a costly forced upgrade cycle. Why did they do it? Because the alternative was writing and maintaining their own software in-house. Now, many, many firms did just that. But it was a headache and a risk. A Fortune 500 company can not take the risk that its lead programmer gets hit by a bus and nobody left alive understands how to keep its accounting system running. So many firms were locked into commercial software that they were not happy with.
So by the mid 90s, the fruits of this largely academic collaboration were starting to leak out over the internet: xBSD, Apache, Linux, Sendmail, BIND, Perl, MySQL, and many others. And it wasn't just other academics and software hackers who were picking them up. It was corporations, large and small. The bedrock customers of the software industry. Was it idealism that brought open source software in? Partially, perhaps. Most open source software initially entered these firms under the radar: a Linux/Samba file server here, a FreeBSD/Apache web server there, built on old PCs from the junk room, usually. But when managers found out they'd been happily using free software for months, and in doing so had saved thousands of dollars, it got their attention. The IT managers and engineers at these firms liked that they didn't have to go hat in had begging for funds to buy new software, and sometimes it saved them a lot of time that they would have spent reinventing the wheel. Sometimes, open source software made them look like heroes. Middle managers liked that they could roll out new software-heavy projects without having to beg the CFO for money. It made them look like heroes too. Upper management liked that they now had the leverage they needed to turn the screws on the software vendors who had been screwing them for so long.
Now a lot of this was bad news for the software industry. Any business that wakes up to find a strong new competitor in its market is unhappy. The owner of a main street five and dime who drives by a vacant lot outside of town and sees a "Coming soon: Wal-Mart" sign is a heck of a lot more threatened than Microsoft or Oracle is by Linux or MySQL. But there are some companies that have already been mortally wounded or even killed off by the availability of open source software in their niche, and others that are facing decreased prospects. If open source software continues in its ascent, the software industry will undoubtedly be transformed, and we might see a big drop in the kinds of profits that software companies have enjoyed over the past few decades.
Then the internet came onto the scene. Like the music industry, the software industry had been as much about promotion and distribution as production, if not moreso. Suddenly, software could be promoted and distributed at almost no cost, and the carefully-built system of salesmen, distributors, Value Added Resellers, and the like had been bypassed almost overnight. Luckily for them, the software industry had experienced quite a bit of consolidation and vendor lock-in by then, so the average business and home user was somewhat tied into the old system of Windows/Mac PCs running packaged software sold through old-style sales networks and retail stores. But even in the early days of the internet, cracks were already starting to show.
The problem was, the bread and butter of the software industry, medium-to-large businesses, had been increasingly resentful of being the targets of the software industry's relentless profit maximization. Businesses are in the business of making money. And they make money by keeping revenues high and expenses low. By the 1990s, businesses were spending a staggeringly large amount of money on software, and due in large part to the managerial class' emphasis of "features that sell" over "software that works well," a large part of that investment was being wasted in ambitious software projects that ultimately failed. They were getting locked-in to vendors' platforms and run on a costly forced upgrade cycle. Why did they do it? Because the alternative was writing and maintaining their own software in-house. Now, many, many firms did just that. But it was a headache and a risk. A Fortune 500 company can not take the risk that its lead programmer gets hit by a bus and nobody left alive understands how to keep its accounting system running. So many firms were locked into commercial software that they were not happy with.
So by the mid 90s, the fruits of this largely academic collaboration were starting to leak out over the internet: xBSD, Apache, Linux, Sendmail, BIND, Perl, MySQL, and many others. And it wasn't just other academics and software hackers who were picking them up. It was corporations, large and small. The bedrock customers of the software industry. Was it idealism that brought open source software in? Partially, perhaps. Most open source software initially entered these firms under the radar: a Linux/Samba file server here, a FreeBSD/Apache web server there, built on old PCs from the junk room, usually. But when managers found out they'd been happily using free software for months, and in doing so had saved thousands of dollars, it got their attention. The IT managers and engineers at these firms liked that they didn't have to go hat in had begging for funds to buy new software, and sometimes it saved them a lot of time that they would have spent reinventing the wheel. Sometimes, open source software made them look like heroes. Middle managers liked that they could roll out new software-heavy projects without having to beg the CFO for money. It made them look like heroes too. Upper management liked that they now had the leverage they needed to turn the screws on the software vendors who had been screwing them for so long.
Now a lot of this was bad news for the software industry. Any business that wakes up to find a strong new competitor in its market is unhappy. The owner of a main street five and dime who drives by a vacant lot outside of town and sees a "Coming soon: Wal-Mart" sign is a heck of a lot more threatened than Microsoft or Oracle is by Linux or MySQL. But there are some companies that have already been mortally wounded or even killed off by the availability of open source software in their niche, and others that are facing decreased prospects. If open source software continues in its ascent, the software industry will undoubtedly be transformed, and we might see a big drop in the kinds of profits that software companies have enjoyed over the past few decades.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 4)
Now for the academics and intellectuals involved, all of this effort was a slam dunk. They got access to more and better software than ever before. If they needed a system to do something special, they need not necessarily reinvent the wheel. There may be some software available that gets them 75% there, and they must only make the necessary improvements, saving time and precious resources.
And this is the way it stayed for a while. It was mostly academics enjoying the fruits of their collaborative labors. Industry wasn't too worried. They had mostly provided software to these folks for free or for heavy discounts anyway, and there were plenty of good ideas and useful little tidbits of software coming out of this movement.
So there was a certain amount of idealism involved, though it was a sort of scientific idealism and an aversion to the kind of wasted parallel effort that the competitive commercial process naturally engenders. But it was far from being anti-capitalistic. In fact, it allowed ideas to compete in an open marketplace, not just in the enclosed sandboxes of corporate-sponsored R&D facilities.
But let's not denigrate the sandboxes. The ideas that had been coming out of places like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC were pretty amazing. In fact, if the open source movement has taught us one thing, it's that there's really no substitute for the kind of sponsorship of R&D that's done by corporations, academic institutions, and governments. What we learned, though, was that a lot of the dynamism that was coming out of these fertile nesting grounds was never making it into profitable commercial products, and ended up lying idle. That's generally a source of great frustration for the software producing class. In fact, even most software that ends up working great and being useful never ends up being a profitable product, because most software is actually not written to be sold but is for internal use in a particular company or institution.
This is the hidden bonanza that really made the open source movement take off like it did. As it worked out, not that much software ended up in the open source ecosystem because some well meaning programmer decided that the world needed a better widget. Most of the software that ended up being open source was the result of work that was done to achieve a particular self-interested purpose, and would either "go to waste" if it weren't shared, or the author preferred to share the burden of maintaining and advancing the software with others. Why share it? Because it's less work that way!
It turned out that there were some very real financial incentives for individuals and organizations to participate in software sharing. That's why they did it. It wasn't because they hated Capitalism. It was because of Capitalism. They could save money on the front side by using free software instead of licensing commercial software, then when they had to do a little tweaking, or even had to write applications to run on top of the free software they'd used, it was to their benefit to share that code with other people in the community, because by collaborating on software they all needed instead of each person re-inventing the wheel in isolation, they could all save time and effort. Now, this is the standard open source sales pitch, and to be perfectly honest, I'm sure there are many examples of companies that have gone down this route with the intention of saving money that could actually have spent less money licensing off-the-shelf software instead, when all is said and done. Some of these firms may even have been influenced by engineers who were more enthusiastic about using the open source software because of some ideological ulterior motive or even a simple hatred of Microsoft (or Oracle, or whoever). Open source is no panacea, but it's not snake oil either. For the vast majority of open source software users, it's all about money. And most of the largest implementations were only made after the green eyeshade folks gave it an enthusiastic thumbs up.
And this is the way it stayed for a while. It was mostly academics enjoying the fruits of their collaborative labors. Industry wasn't too worried. They had mostly provided software to these folks for free or for heavy discounts anyway, and there were plenty of good ideas and useful little tidbits of software coming out of this movement.
So there was a certain amount of idealism involved, though it was a sort of scientific idealism and an aversion to the kind of wasted parallel effort that the competitive commercial process naturally engenders. But it was far from being anti-capitalistic. In fact, it allowed ideas to compete in an open marketplace, not just in the enclosed sandboxes of corporate-sponsored R&D facilities.
But let's not denigrate the sandboxes. The ideas that had been coming out of places like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC were pretty amazing. In fact, if the open source movement has taught us one thing, it's that there's really no substitute for the kind of sponsorship of R&D that's done by corporations, academic institutions, and governments. What we learned, though, was that a lot of the dynamism that was coming out of these fertile nesting grounds was never making it into profitable commercial products, and ended up lying idle. That's generally a source of great frustration for the software producing class. In fact, even most software that ends up working great and being useful never ends up being a profitable product, because most software is actually not written to be sold but is for internal use in a particular company or institution.
This is the hidden bonanza that really made the open source movement take off like it did. As it worked out, not that much software ended up in the open source ecosystem because some well meaning programmer decided that the world needed a better widget. Most of the software that ended up being open source was the result of work that was done to achieve a particular self-interested purpose, and would either "go to waste" if it weren't shared, or the author preferred to share the burden of maintaining and advancing the software with others. Why share it? Because it's less work that way!
It turned out that there were some very real financial incentives for individuals and organizations to participate in software sharing. That's why they did it. It wasn't because they hated Capitalism. It was because of Capitalism. They could save money on the front side by using free software instead of licensing commercial software, then when they had to do a little tweaking, or even had to write applications to run on top of the free software they'd used, it was to their benefit to share that code with other people in the community, because by collaborating on software they all needed instead of each person re-inventing the wheel in isolation, they could all save time and effort. Now, this is the standard open source sales pitch, and to be perfectly honest, I'm sure there are many examples of companies that have gone down this route with the intention of saving money that could actually have spent less money licensing off-the-shelf software instead, when all is said and done. Some of these firms may even have been influenced by engineers who were more enthusiastic about using the open source software because of some ideological ulterior motive or even a simple hatred of Microsoft (or Oracle, or whoever). Open source is no panacea, but it's not snake oil either. For the vast majority of open source software users, it's all about money. And most of the largest implementations were only made after the green eyeshade folks gave it an enthusiastic thumbs up.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 3)
The software industry actually has experienced unending class struggle just as world politics has. it's a struggle between the scientific/intellectual class that produces most of the world's software and the financial/managerial class that runs most of the companies that fund, market, and sell much of the world's software.
Software producers generally believe in an academic-inspired ideal that ideas are best cultivated in an open environment with peer-review and researchers "standing on the shoulders of giants" by learning about and improving upon others' ideas. More knowledge and better technology are the goal, and this goal is achieved by advancing the state of the art. They have their own strict protections of intellectual property, mostly involving a policy of never taking credit for work that isn't yours by meticulously attributing all of your sources.
The financial/managerial class has its own value system, based mostly on the necessity to monetize the company's assets. Firms have a responsibility to maximize the return on their investors' money, so every company asset must be leveraged to its utmost. This means that if you have developed a program that can be sold for $1,000,000 to four people in the world or $100 to three million people, it is your solemn duty to keep the price at $1,000,000, even if that means that 2,999,996 people who need that software will have to go without. And at that price, you must keep your company knowledge absolutely secret, advancing the state of the art be damned.
Often these conflicts do not bump up against each other too much. The software producers need an environment in which they can create software (they need to be paid, be provided with desks, computers, etc) and the managers need the producers to have a product to sell. It's a symbiotic relationship. But engineers often bristle at management's lack of interest in funding inventive new research and instead packing useless bells and whistles into the existing products because sales and marketing think it will help make more money. And managers often decry programmers' love of technology for technology's sake and seeming lack of interest in the financial well-being of the firm.
Members of the scientific/intellectual class looking in from the outside have historically been disappointed that so much of the fruits of the labors of the engineers working within industry have been locked away from them. Either they can't even afford to use the software because its licencing fees are so high, or if they can use it, they can only participate as an outsider because the intellectual property is guarded so carefully. If you've got some great ideas on how to make Microsoft Word better, you don't have much recourse other than penning a letter to the product manager at Microsoft.
Unless, of course, you'd like to take a crack at writing your own word processor. And that is exactly what many of those disenfranchised members of the scientific/intellectual class did.
As an example, AT&T, due in part to its status as a regulated monopoly, was quite generous in letting people use Unix, and it inspired a lot of smart people to advance the state of the art. But the Unix OS and the proprietary utilities it needed to be useful were owned by corporations, and while it's one thing to let academics use it, it would have been reckless to let them make new, commercially viable versions, especially if those versions were clearly better than the original. Shut down on that front, some intrepid programmers decided to re-write these utilities, and eventually the whole OS, from scratch. There were even competing versions of the re-writes, and camps formed around which was better. Over the years, others improved upon those re-writes, sometimes forking off into new projects. So in a way, the principles of the free market were applied to the production of a single piece of software, not just to sales and distribution of similar products.
How was it possible for these programmers to build upon each other's work, to fork off competing versions, and pursue diverging philosophies of development? It was done using a tool that had been invented by the financial/managerial class: intellectual property licensing. But the licenses that these people used were different. Their aim wasn't to monetize the software, but to strike a balance between enforcing the original author's rights while encouraging an academic, collaborative sharing of knowledge. That original author might want only to be recognized for his or her work, or might want to require that derivative works must also be released under an equally open license.
Software producers generally believe in an academic-inspired ideal that ideas are best cultivated in an open environment with peer-review and researchers "standing on the shoulders of giants" by learning about and improving upon others' ideas. More knowledge and better technology are the goal, and this goal is achieved by advancing the state of the art. They have their own strict protections of intellectual property, mostly involving a policy of never taking credit for work that isn't yours by meticulously attributing all of your sources.
The financial/managerial class has its own value system, based mostly on the necessity to monetize the company's assets. Firms have a responsibility to maximize the return on their investors' money, so every company asset must be leveraged to its utmost. This means that if you have developed a program that can be sold for $1,000,000 to four people in the world or $100 to three million people, it is your solemn duty to keep the price at $1,000,000, even if that means that 2,999,996 people who need that software will have to go without. And at that price, you must keep your company knowledge absolutely secret, advancing the state of the art be damned.
Often these conflicts do not bump up against each other too much. The software producers need an environment in which they can create software (they need to be paid, be provided with desks, computers, etc) and the managers need the producers to have a product to sell. It's a symbiotic relationship. But engineers often bristle at management's lack of interest in funding inventive new research and instead packing useless bells and whistles into the existing products because sales and marketing think it will help make more money. And managers often decry programmers' love of technology for technology's sake and seeming lack of interest in the financial well-being of the firm.
Members of the scientific/intellectual class looking in from the outside have historically been disappointed that so much of the fruits of the labors of the engineers working within industry have been locked away from them. Either they can't even afford to use the software because its licencing fees are so high, or if they can use it, they can only participate as an outsider because the intellectual property is guarded so carefully. If you've got some great ideas on how to make Microsoft Word better, you don't have much recourse other than penning a letter to the product manager at Microsoft.
Unless, of course, you'd like to take a crack at writing your own word processor. And that is exactly what many of those disenfranchised members of the scientific/intellectual class did.
As an example, AT&T, due in part to its status as a regulated monopoly, was quite generous in letting people use Unix, and it inspired a lot of smart people to advance the state of the art. But the Unix OS and the proprietary utilities it needed to be useful were owned by corporations, and while it's one thing to let academics use it, it would have been reckless to let them make new, commercially viable versions, especially if those versions were clearly better than the original. Shut down on that front, some intrepid programmers decided to re-write these utilities, and eventually the whole OS, from scratch. There were even competing versions of the re-writes, and camps formed around which was better. Over the years, others improved upon those re-writes, sometimes forking off into new projects. So in a way, the principles of the free market were applied to the production of a single piece of software, not just to sales and distribution of similar products.
How was it possible for these programmers to build upon each other's work, to fork off competing versions, and pursue diverging philosophies of development? It was done using a tool that had been invented by the financial/managerial class: intellectual property licensing. But the licenses that these people used were different. Their aim wasn't to monetize the software, but to strike a balance between enforcing the original author's rights while encouraging an academic, collaborative sharing of knowledge. That original author might want only to be recognized for his or her work, or might want to require that derivative works must also be released under an equally open license.
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy (section 2)
Open source fanatics are communists. Just as in public discourse, all topics of disagreement seem to eventually degrade into someone calling someone else a Nazi, disparagement of the free software movement seems to be inescapably drawn to a comparison with communism.
The quote I highlighted earlier doesn't explicitly call open source proponents communists, as such statements often do, but it does ascribe a foolish, perhaps inadvertent, anti-capitalist, anti-progress bent to open source philosophy. Now, to be fair, some open source proponents are anti-capitalist. Many are socialists at heart, and some may even be bona-fide communists. But even though extremists on both sides of the issue might stress (for positive or negative purposes) that open source software supports an anti-capitalist agenda, carefully considered evidence just doesn't support the claim, and the non-extremists that make up the majority should reject that characterization vigorously.
Let's dwell for a moment on the "communistic" aspect of the free software ideology. Again, I will not deny that some proponents of free software do, in fact, share some ideological common ground with Communist thinkers. For the sake of clarity, let's leave the failed experiment of Soviet "Communism" out of this for a moment and focus on the theoretical (and apparently impractical) ideas proposed by Marx and other early 20th century philosophers.
So the radical fringe of the free software movement, Richard Stallman being the most prominent, can somewhat fairly be compared with the Communists of the 1930s
According to my understanding, the essence of philosophical Communism is that modern history is defined by lopsided power relationships, with a large poor class oppressed by a rich ruling class, and these groups are in struggle. Communism claims that society is evolving, with some kind of historical inevitability, toward the common person having more freedom and power. In this view, capitalism was an incremental improvement over Feudalism, allowing some of the oppressed to rise up and become oppressors themselves, but it will give way to Socialism and eventually Socialism will give way to Communism in some sort of inevitable progression. Control of the working class by a moneyed elite will be supplanted by a benevolent caretaker state that will enforce equality and grant power and freedom to the common people, and eventually those people will be able to administer to themselves, the state will cease to be necessary, and everyone will receive according to their need. All work will be done for the good of the community through an enlightened volunteer effort. Thus the continual class struggle will end in a kind of worker's utopia. It all sounds pretty unlikely to our modern, jaded sensibilities, but back in the 1930's I guess it sounded like it was worth a shot, since the transition to Capitalism had brought about terrible suffering in much of the world.
What really happened, of course, when this philosophy was put into practice was that the state that was empowered to administer this glorious change found it difficult to enforce these ideals on the common people it was supposed to help. So it established an authoritarian machine to force the ideals on them "for their own good." That machine almost instantaneously became corrupt because of humanity's love of power, and the state that was supposed to wither away only became stronger and more authoritarian until it collapsed under its own weight.
The more radical elements of the open source software "movement" share an important element of this philosophy: utopianism and a belief in people's willingness to volunteer their labors for the common good. And like the early Communists, these people may have initially been driven by a naive view of human nature. The truth is, well-educated software engineers with good earning potential aren't going to dedicate hours upon hours of time for some idealistic pipe-dream. Just as the people in the "worker's paradise" of Communism turned out to not be so interested in "volunteering" their toil in the factories and mines so that a bunch of freeloading intellectuals in the cities can receive food and housing "according to their needs" while they compose sonnets about the valiant struggles of the working class.
If the nascent free software movement had turned out to be all about a utopian vision of sharing and pretty flowers, it would have gone nowhere. Unlike communism, free software was not about a life-controlling government, and Richard Stallman was never appointed dictator, so nobody could ever be forced to take part. Why did people do it, then?
The quote I highlighted earlier doesn't explicitly call open source proponents communists, as such statements often do, but it does ascribe a foolish, perhaps inadvertent, anti-capitalist, anti-progress bent to open source philosophy. Now, to be fair, some open source proponents are anti-capitalist. Many are socialists at heart, and some may even be bona-fide communists. But even though extremists on both sides of the issue might stress (for positive or negative purposes) that open source software supports an anti-capitalist agenda, carefully considered evidence just doesn't support the claim, and the non-extremists that make up the majority should reject that characterization vigorously.
Let's dwell for a moment on the "communistic" aspect of the free software ideology. Again, I will not deny that some proponents of free software do, in fact, share some ideological common ground with Communist thinkers. For the sake of clarity, let's leave the failed experiment of Soviet "Communism" out of this for a moment and focus on the theoretical (and apparently impractical) ideas proposed by Marx and other early 20th century philosophers.
So the radical fringe of the free software movement, Richard Stallman being the most prominent, can somewhat fairly be compared with the Communists of the 1930s
According to my understanding, the essence of philosophical Communism is that modern history is defined by lopsided power relationships, with a large poor class oppressed by a rich ruling class, and these groups are in struggle. Communism claims that society is evolving, with some kind of historical inevitability, toward the common person having more freedom and power. In this view, capitalism was an incremental improvement over Feudalism, allowing some of the oppressed to rise up and become oppressors themselves, but it will give way to Socialism and eventually Socialism will give way to Communism in some sort of inevitable progression. Control of the working class by a moneyed elite will be supplanted by a benevolent caretaker state that will enforce equality and grant power and freedom to the common people, and eventually those people will be able to administer to themselves, the state will cease to be necessary, and everyone will receive according to their need. All work will be done for the good of the community through an enlightened volunteer effort. Thus the continual class struggle will end in a kind of worker's utopia. It all sounds pretty unlikely to our modern, jaded sensibilities, but back in the 1930's I guess it sounded like it was worth a shot, since the transition to Capitalism had brought about terrible suffering in much of the world.
What really happened, of course, when this philosophy was put into practice was that the state that was empowered to administer this glorious change found it difficult to enforce these ideals on the common people it was supposed to help. So it established an authoritarian machine to force the ideals on them "for their own good." That machine almost instantaneously became corrupt because of humanity's love of power, and the state that was supposed to wither away only became stronger and more authoritarian until it collapsed under its own weight.
The more radical elements of the open source software "movement" share an important element of this philosophy: utopianism and a belief in people's willingness to volunteer their labors for the common good. And like the early Communists, these people may have initially been driven by a naive view of human nature. The truth is, well-educated software engineers with good earning potential aren't going to dedicate hours upon hours of time for some idealistic pipe-dream. Just as the people in the "worker's paradise" of Communism turned out to not be so interested in "volunteering" their toil in the factories and mines so that a bunch of freeloading intellectuals in the cities can receive food and housing "according to their needs" while they compose sonnets about the valiant struggles of the working class.
If the nascent free software movement had turned out to be all about a utopian vision of sharing and pretty flowers, it would have gone nowhere. Unlike communism, free software was not about a life-controlling government, and Richard Stallman was never appointed dictator, so nobody could ever be forced to take part. Why did people do it, then?
Free Can Mean Big Money: The Open Source Economy(section 1)
read something in one of the comments for an OSNews posting a couple weeks ago that sent me thinking. It wasn't an original or profound thought. In fact, it's a rather commonly-held opinion that happens to be quite misguided. It's an opinion summed up by the "open source = communist" meme that gets thrown around in thousands of flamewars all over the internet. In this essay, I will explore why this idea is wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.Section 1The following was posted in an OSNews discussion in July 2004: I guess free software foundations are going to employ people from now on. Its the same evil mega corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people and make the world economy function. Make them "smaller, weaker, and easier to keep in their place" and raise the unemployment rate to double digits not to mention lowering the standard of living world wide I suggest voting NO for RMS Democracy. In other words, the money that is made and the jobs that are provided by the licensed software industry are an essential pillar of the economy, and any challenge to the status quo would have catastrophic effects. This misconception is actually rather easy to debunk, but it's related to a more serious notion that merits serious discussion: the idea that replacing the now-dominant intellectual property regime with one that favors, or even enforces, sharing rather than hoarding is a threat to the world's economic well-being. An examination of the facts, put in historical perspective, shows that the engines of global progress have always been fed by the sharing of knowledge. In fact, if knowledge about, say, new agricultural techniques, like irrigation, had been hoarded and protected from competition, it would have set back the rise of civilization by centuries. It was precisely because early pioneers shared their knowledge (willingly or not) that the march of progress led steadily on. This sharing was, in earlier times, unavoidable to some extent. Early innovators would certainly have been eager to maintain profitable monopolies on their ideas if there had been a mechanism to allow it. But the invisible hand of the free market applies a constant, inescapable pressure on idea-hoarding. In fact, the right to compete by producing a similar or identical product to another is one of the cornerstones of capitalism. Copyright and other protections of intellectual property are actually anti-liberty, anti-capitalist notions, though all but the most radical libertarians would recognize that measured protections are essential to promoting economic progress. As in all things, what's good in moderation can be harmful in large doses (or if withheld altogether), and overzealous protection of intellectual property stifles innovation in the long run. In an ironic twist, there is a type of economic system in which an organization is granted a right to be the sole producer of a particular good, protected from competition. That's the "planned economy" model embraced by Soviet Communism.
DEVELOPMENT REPORT - Trickle Up Program Helps the Poorest of the Poor
I'm Gwen Outen with the VOA Special English Development Report. There is an economic theory that says the best way to help those without money is to help those with money. Economic growth would then act like water moving slowly from a higher place to a lower one. It would "trickle down" through society in the form of more jobs, for example, and less need for public aid.
Not everyone believes in trickle down economics. An international organization based in New York calls itself the Trickle Up Program. This group is celebrating twenty-five years of work directly with very poor people to help them set up businesses.
The Trickle Up Program receives money from large companies and agencies that provide aid. Then it gives this money away, usually in two payments of fifty dollars each. This is called "seed capital."
First a family or small group of people has to write a business plan. Trickle Up provides training to help them do this. If the plan is approved, the first payment of fifty dollars is given to start the business. Then, after about three months, if the business is operating, the second payment is made.
Money from the Trickle Up Program does not have to be paid back. This is different from the idea of micro-credit, or very small loans. Trickle Up officials say micro-credit programs often do not reach the poorest of the poor.
The Trickle Up Program says it has helped to build more than one hundred twenty thousand small businesses around the world. It says more than five hundred thousand people have been assisted over the last twenty-five years.
One of the stories told on its Web site is that of Dona Bernarda in a small town in Nicaragua. She is described as a survivor of the severe storm Hurricane Mitch in nineteen ninety-eight. She has had some health training, and provides free medical tests for malaria and dengue fever.
Trickle Up says Dona Bernarda wanted to do more to help her community. So she started a small store. At first she sold only ten food products and simple health supplies.
Then she received money from the program. Now, it says, Dona Bernarda sells thirty-four different products and hopes her store will become a center of the community. You can learn more about the Trickle Up Program at trickleup.org.
Not everyone believes in trickle down economics. An international organization based in New York calls itself the Trickle Up Program. This group is celebrating twenty-five years of work directly with very poor people to help them set up businesses.
The Trickle Up Program receives money from large companies and agencies that provide aid. Then it gives this money away, usually in two payments of fifty dollars each. This is called "seed capital."
First a family or small group of people has to write a business plan. Trickle Up provides training to help them do this. If the plan is approved, the first payment of fifty dollars is given to start the business. Then, after about three months, if the business is operating, the second payment is made.
Money from the Trickle Up Program does not have to be paid back. This is different from the idea of micro-credit, or very small loans. Trickle Up officials say micro-credit programs often do not reach the poorest of the poor.
The Trickle Up Program says it has helped to build more than one hundred twenty thousand small businesses around the world. It says more than five hundred thousand people have been assisted over the last twenty-five years.
One of the stories told on its Web site is that of Dona Bernarda in a small town in Nicaragua. She is described as a survivor of the severe storm Hurricane Mitch in nineteen ninety-eight. She has had some health training, and provides free medical tests for malaria and dengue fever.
Trickle Up says Dona Bernarda wanted to do more to help her community. So she started a small store. At first she sold only ten food products and simple health supplies.
Then she received money from the program. Now, it says, Dona Bernarda sells thirty-four different products and hopes her store will become a center of the community. You can learn more about the Trickle Up Program at trickleup.org.
ECONOMICS REPORT - The Value of Teaching About Money
Personal finance is an increasingly complex world. There are more ways to invest money, more ways to save it -- and more ways to lose it. Yet many people are more strangers to this world than they might like to admit.Starting young to teach financial literacy
In the United States, there are growing calls to do more to help young people learn skills in financial literacy. Some efforts begin in high school. But more and more information is available on the Internet, not only for young people but also for adults. The goal is to teach about budgeting, saving, investing and using money.
The United States Financial Literacy and Education Commission was established in two thousand three. This government group supervises financial education efforts through nineteen federal agencies.
Information on financial literacy and education can be found at its Web site. The address is MyMoney.gov. It includes links to agencies that deal with banking, buying a home, investing and other areas.
The National Council on Economic Education has found that seventeen states now require high school students to take a class in economics. This number has grown from thirteen in nineteen ninety-eight.
As of three years ago, half of all states required students to take a class in personal finance. Yet that number has fallen, from twenty-five to twenty-two.
The National Council on Economic Education sells textbooks for grades four through twelve. It also offers free materials for teachers. The information is available at ncee.net.
Teachers say parents also need to play a larger part in educating their children about money. A recent study found that seventy percent of college students said they received financial advice mainly from their parents.
Investment companies also offer information. Charles Schwab, for example, has a Web site to help parents teach their kids about money and investing. The address is SchwabMoneyWise.com.
One of the first tastes of financial independence that many young people get is through summer jobs. Junior Achievement is an organization that teaches young people about finance and business. It says almost three-fourths of young people questioned said they planned to have a summer job.
And that's the VOA Special English Economics Report, written by Mario Ritter. You can learn more about economics, and download transcripts and audio archives of our reports, at voaspecialenglish.com. I'm Steve Ember.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Google remodels top secret money machine
Nowadays, even Google is questioning Google's rose-colored portrait of its ever-expanding search advertising monopoly.The way senior vp Jonathan Rosenberg tells it, Google will gradually tweak its AdWords ad platform until it displays almost no ads. Ad "coverage" on the world's largest search engine has certainly shrunk over the past several months, and when the subject was mooted during July's quarterly earnings call, Rosenberg attributed this steady shrinkage to Google's "continued focus on quality" advertising. "[Google co-founder] Larry [Page] says we'd be better off showing just one ad [per page] - the perfect ad," Rosenberg cooed, indicating that coverage would shrink even further.
But then, in a rare moment of Google candor, the other co-founder told listening reporters and financial analysts that Rosenberg's "perfect ad" nonsense was indeed nonsense. "There is some evidence that we've been a little bit more aggressive in decreasing coverage than we ought to have been," was the word from Sergey Brin. "We've been reexamining some of that."
His candor was fleeting. But with the company's second quarter profits dipping below Wall Street expectations, it looked an awful lot like Brin and company were on the verge of cranking the dial on their AdWords money machine and cooking up added profits for quarters three and four - and beyond. Remember: More coverage means more clicks, and more clicks means more money.
Well, little more than a month later, Google has announced significant changes to its ad platform. Most notably, the company is killing AdWords' much-discussed "minimum bid," a means of discouraging what Google considers "low quality" ads. The changes have yet to reach the web at large. Google is testing the waters with "a very small segment of advertisers." But search engine marketers - and Wall Street analysts - can't help but wonder if this is Google's play for more coverage. And more revenue.
"No more minimum bids?" says Adam Audette, founder of AudetteMedia, a boutique search marketing shop out of Bend, Oregon. "It certainly looks like they'll have more leeway to make more money."
Meanwhile, as Jonathan "Perfect Ad" Rosenberg himself let slip during that shockingly-newsworthy earnings call, Google continues to expand a coverage-happy AdWords beta known as "Automatic Matching." Believe it or not, Auto Match spends your excess ad budget on keyword searches you aren't actually bidding on, and judging from initial tests, it empties your wallet just as pointlessly as expected.
Sergey Brin
Testing Auto Match with a seasoned Google advertiser, the Dallas, Texas-based search marketing outfit KeyRelevance saw spending increase 600 per cent on a single ad campaign, and most of that extra dough was spent on keyword searches that had little or nothing to do with the advertiser's products.
"Auto Match decided the account needed help spending money," says Jim Gilbert, the KeyRelevance ad guru who ran the tests. "So it started spending money."
Google insists it's only interested in serving up relevant ads, satisfying both advertisers and web surfers. But this commitment to quality goes only so far. Google is also interested in making lots of money, and as the economy continues to soften, it's worth remembering Mountain View has the power to juice profits whenever it likes. With AdWords controlling 70 per cent of the search advertising market, even the slightest turn of the dial can mean millions.
Minimum Bid: RIP
AdWords serves up text ads in response to Google keywords searches. Google bills it as an auction. You bid for a particular keyword or group of keywords - "leather mask," for instance, or "my little pony" - and if you bid high enough, your ad will appear each time someone searches on those terms. The winning bidder gets the top spot on the page, the second place bidder gets the second spot, and so on. And if your ad actually gets a click, you pay Google a fee somewhere south of that bid.
But this isn't an eBay-style bid-off. Before you bid, Google gives you a "quality score," and if your quality score is low, it may restrict your ability to place ads. In some cases, Google prevents you from bidding at all. In others, it saddles you with a high minimum bid. And even if you can afford that minimum, a low quality score may bar you from top ad spots. You see, Google doesn't determine auction results with bids alone. It calculates ad spots by multiplying your bid and your quality score.
At least, that's the way it works now. With an official post to the Official Inside AdWords blog, Google says it will soon revamp the quality score.
First off, AdWords will now calculate this mystery number in real time, as the searcher is searching. According to Google, this will better match ads to particular queries. "AdWords will use the most accurate, specific, and up-to-date performance information when determining whether an ad should be displayed," the blog reads.
"Your ads will be more likely to show when they're relevant and less likely to show when they're not. This means that Google users are apt to see better ads while you, as an advertiser, should receive leads which are more highly qualified."
At the same time, AdWords will no longer bar "low quality" ads from particular keyword auctions, and it will do away with the minimum bid. Instead, it will give you a "first page bid," estimating what it would take to land your ad on the first page of search results.
The way Google tells it, all this will improve its ability to geo-target ads. To wit, your real-time quality score may go up or down depending on where the searcher is searching from. But in dropping the barriers that so often prevented advertisers from even joining an auction, Google may be expanding coverage as well, slipping more ads into its less-coveted ad spots.
AdWords serves up text ads in response to Google keywords searches. Google bills it as an auction. You bid for a particular keyword or group of keywords - "leather mask," for instance, or "my little pony" - and if you bid high enough, your ad will appear each time someone searches on those terms. The winning bidder gets the top spot on the page, the second place bidder gets the second spot, and so on. And if your ad actually gets a click, you pay Google a fee somewhere south of that bid.
But this isn't an eBay-style bid-off. Before you bid, Google gives you a "quality score," and if your quality score is low, it may restrict your ability to place ads. In some cases, Google prevents you from bidding at all. In others, it saddles you with a high minimum bid. And even if you can afford that minimum, a low quality score may bar you from top ad spots. You see, Google doesn't determine auction results with bids alone. It calculates ad spots by multiplying your bid and your quality score.
At least, that's the way it works now. With an official post to the Official Inside AdWords blog, Google says it will soon revamp the quality score.
First off, AdWords will now calculate this mystery number in real time, as the searcher is searching. According to Google, this will better match ads to particular queries. "AdWords will use the most accurate, specific, and up-to-date performance information when determining whether an ad should be displayed," the blog reads.
"Your ads will be more likely to show when they're relevant and less likely to show when they're not. This means that Google users are apt to see better ads while you, as an advertiser, should receive leads which are more highly qualified."
At the same time, AdWords will no longer bar "low quality" ads from particular keyword auctions, and it will do away with the minimum bid. Instead, it will give you a "first page bid," estimating what it would take to land your ad on the first page of search results.
The way Google tells it, all this will improve its ability to geo-target ads. To wit, your real-time quality score may go up or down depending on where the searcher is searching from. But in dropping the barriers that so often prevented advertisers from even joining an auction, Google may be expanding coverage as well, slipping more ads into its less-coveted ad spots.
But who knows? As always, Google keeps the particulars hidden. "We can guess that Google wants to increase its revenues and that's what's going to happen," says Brian Carter, an AdWords consultant with the South Carolina-based search engine marketer Fuel Interactive, "but judging from the information we have, it's really hard to say."
At the very least, the changes will result in more advertisers placing bids. And Google reserves the right to do whatever it likes with those extra bidders. Place them on a page. Or not.
In other words, Google has even greater freedom to turn that dial.
At the very least, the changes will result in more advertisers placing bids. And Google reserves the right to do whatever it likes with those extra bidders. Place them on a page. Or not.
In other words, Google has even greater freedom to turn that dial.
Auto Match Revealed
Automatic Match is a more obvious turn of the dial. This AdWords beta - which debuted n February with a handful of advertisers and has since expanded to who knows how many more - automatically spends budgeted ad dollars you aren't spending on your own.
"Automatic Matching automatically extends your campaign's reach by using surplus budget to serve your ads on relevant search queries that are not already triggered by your keyword lists," reads Google's initial email to beta testers.
That's right, Auto Match automatically spends your unused budget on keyword searches you aren't actually bidding on. According to Google, it only chooses relevant searches. But tests from KeyRelevance tell a different story.
With his seasoned advertiser, Jim Gilbert setup bidding on the keywords "wedding table decorations." And he designated this bid as a "phrase match," meaning he only wanted an ad placed if someone searched on all three of those words, in that order (with or without additional keywords).
But the account wasn't spending its daily budget, and when Auto Match kicked in, it started placing ads against all sorts of other keyword combinations.
Some of these suited his advertiser, including "wedding table decor," "decorations for wedding tables," "wedding cake table decorations," and "wedding table ideas." But many more did not, including "party table numbers," "chocolate wedding favors," "chocolate lollipops," "Hersheys," "wedding flowers," and "wedding gowns."
With Auto Match turned on, spending on this single ad group increased roughly 600 per cent. And in the end, more than 70 per cent of the traffic generated by the ad group was a complete waste. "I'll give it credit for being somewhat accurate," Gilbert says. "But most of the matches were pure trash."
Gilbert can turn Auto Match off. But it's turned on by default. The question is whether Google will keep this default when it rolls things out to the web at large.
Automatic Match is a more obvious turn of the dial. This AdWords beta - which debuted n February with a handful of advertisers and has since expanded to who knows how many more - automatically spends budgeted ad dollars you aren't spending on your own.
"Automatic Matching automatically extends your campaign's reach by using surplus budget to serve your ads on relevant search queries that are not already triggered by your keyword lists," reads Google's initial email to beta testers.
That's right, Auto Match automatically spends your unused budget on keyword searches you aren't actually bidding on. According to Google, it only chooses relevant searches. But tests from KeyRelevance tell a different story.
With his seasoned advertiser, Jim Gilbert setup bidding on the keywords "wedding table decorations." And he designated this bid as a "phrase match," meaning he only wanted an ad placed if someone searched on all three of those words, in that order (with or without additional keywords).
But the account wasn't spending its daily budget, and when Auto Match kicked in, it started placing ads against all sorts of other keyword combinations.
Some of these suited his advertiser, including "wedding table decor," "decorations for wedding tables," "wedding cake table decorations," and "wedding table ideas." But many more did not, including "party table numbers," "chocolate wedding favors," "chocolate lollipops," "Hersheys," "wedding flowers," and "wedding gowns."
With Auto Match turned on, spending on this single ad group increased roughly 600 per cent. And in the end, more than 70 per cent of the traffic generated by the ad group was a complete waste. "I'll give it credit for being somewhat accurate," Gilbert says. "But most of the matches were pure trash."
Gilbert can turn Auto Match off. But it's turned on by default. The question is whether Google will keep this default when it rolls things out to the web at large.
Yes, Auto Match is a beta. And yes, Google may improve its ad matching abilities before the program goes web-wide. But this sort of thing is never an exact science, and there's no denying that Google is attempting to wrest even more control from advertisers - while ensuring additional spending.
When Sergey Brin hinted that Google would soon expand its ad coverage, he didn't say the company wanted more dollars. He said that the company was concerned that web surfers weren't seeing enough ads: "Our ads are an important addition, quality wise, to our pages. They're a very important source of information."
But the truth is a little different. When you type the words "chocolate lollipop," do you want an ad for wedding table decorations?
When Sergey Brin hinted that Google would soon expand its ad coverage, he didn't say the company wanted more dollars. He said that the company was concerned that web surfers weren't seeing enough ads: "Our ads are an important addition, quality wise, to our pages. They're a very important source of information."
But the truth is a little different. When you type the words "chocolate lollipop," do you want an ad for wedding table decorations?
Do You Know Your Money?
How To Detect Counterfeit Money
The public has a role in maintaining the integrity of U.S. currency. You can help guard against the threat from counterfeiters by becoming more familiar with United States currency.
Look at the money you receive. Compare a suspect note with a genuine note of the same denomination and series, paying attention to the quality of printing and paper characteristics. Look for differences, not similarities.
Portrait
The genuine portrait appears lifelike and stands out distinctly from the background. The counterfeit portrait is usually lifeless and flat. Details merge into the background which is often too dark or mottled.
Federal Reserve and Treasury Seals
On a genuine bill, the saw-tooth points of the Federal Reserve and Treasury seals are clear, distinct, and sharp. The counterfeit seals may have uneven, blunt, or broken saw-tooth points.
Border
The fine lines in the border of a genuine bill are clear and unbroken. On the counterfeit, the lines in the outer margin and scrollwork may be blurred and indistinct.
Serial Numbers
Genuine serial numbers have a distinctive style and are evenly spaced. The serial numbers are printed in the same ink color as the Treasury Seal. On a counterfeit, the serial numbers may differ in color or shade of ink from the Treasury seal. The numbers may not be uniformly spaced or aligned.
Paper
Genuine currency paper has tiny red and blue fibers embedded throughout. Often counterfeiters try to simulate these fibers by printing tiny red and blue lines on their paper. Close inspection reveals, however, that on the counterfeit note the lines are printed on the surface, not embedded in the paper. It is illegal to reproduce the distinctive paper used in the manufacturing of United States currency.
The public has a role in maintaining the integrity of U.S. currency. You can help guard against the threat from counterfeiters by becoming more familiar with United States currency.
Look at the money you receive. Compare a suspect note with a genuine note of the same denomination and series, paying attention to the quality of printing and paper characteristics. Look for differences, not similarities.
Portrait
The genuine portrait appears lifelike and stands out distinctly from the background. The counterfeit portrait is usually lifeless and flat. Details merge into the background which is often too dark or mottled.
Federal Reserve and Treasury Seals
On a genuine bill, the saw-tooth points of the Federal Reserve and Treasury seals are clear, distinct, and sharp. The counterfeit seals may have uneven, blunt, or broken saw-tooth points.
Border
The fine lines in the border of a genuine bill are clear and unbroken. On the counterfeit, the lines in the outer margin and scrollwork may be blurred and indistinct.
Serial Numbers
Genuine serial numbers have a distinctive style and are evenly spaced. The serial numbers are printed in the same ink color as the Treasury Seal. On a counterfeit, the serial numbers may differ in color or shade of ink from the Treasury seal. The numbers may not be uniformly spaced or aligned.
Paper
Genuine currency paper has tiny red and blue fibers embedded throughout. Often counterfeiters try to simulate these fibers by printing tiny red and blue lines on their paper. Close inspection reveals, however, that on the counterfeit note the lines are printed on the surface, not embedded in the paper. It is illegal to reproduce the distinctive paper used in the manufacturing of United States currency.
Sunday, 21 December 2008
欧亨利经典短篇小说《菜单上的春天》Springtime A La Carte英汉对照翻译
It was a day in March.Never, never begin a story this way when you write one. No opening could possibly be worse. It is unimaginative, flat, dry and likely to consist of mere wind. But in this instance it is allowable. For the following paragraph, which should have inaugurated the narrative, is too wildly extravagant and preposterous to be flaunted in the face of the reader without preparation.Sarah was crying over her bill of fare.Think of a New York girl shedding tears on the menu card!To account for this you will be allowed to guess that the lobsters were all out, or that she had sworn ice-cream off during Lent, or that she had ordered onions, or that she had just come from a Hackett matinee. And then, all these theories being wrong, you will please let the story proceed.The gentleman who announced that the world was an oyster which he with his sword would open made a larger hit than he deserved. It is not difficult to open an oyster with a sword. But did you ever notice any one try to open the terrestrial bivalve with a typewriter? Like to wait for a dozen raw opened that way?Sarah had managed to pry apart the shells with her unhandy weapon far enough to nibble a wee bit at the cold and clammy world within. She knew no more shorthand than if she had been a graduate in stenography just let slip upon the world by a business college. So, not being able to stenog, she could not enter that bright galaxy of office talent. She was a free-lance typewriter and canvassed for odd jobs of copying.The most brilliant and crowning feat of Sarah's battle with the world was the deal she made with Schulenberg's Home Restaurant. The restaurant was next door to the old red brick in which she ball- roomed. One evening after dining at Schulenberg's 40-cent, five- course ~table d'hote~ (served as fast as you throw the five baseballs at the coloured gentleman's head) Sarah took away with her the bill of fare. It was written in an almost unreadable script neither English nor German, and so arranged that if you were not careful you began with a toothpick and rice pudding and ended with soup and the day of the week.The next day Sarah showed Schulenberg a neat card on which the menu was beautifully typewritten with the viands temptingly marshalled under their right and proper heads from "hors d'oeuvre" to "not responsible for overcoats and umbrellas."Schulenberg became a naturalised citizen on the spot. Before Sarah left him she had him willingly committed to an agreement. She was to furnish typewritten bills of fare for the twenty-one tables in the restaurant--a new bill for each day's dinner, and new ones for breakfast and lunch as often as changes occurred in the food or as neatness required.In return for this Schulenberg was to send three meals per diem to Sarah's hall room by a waiter--an obsequious one if possible--and furnish her each afternoon with a pencil draft of what Fate had in store for Schulenberg's customers on the morrow.Mutual satisfaction resulted from the agreement. Schulenberg's patrons now knew what the food they ate was called even if its nature sometimes puzzled them. And Sarah had food during a cold, dull winter, which was the main thing with her.And then the almanac lied, and said that spring had come. Spring comes when it comes. The frozen snows of January still lay like adamant in the crosstown streets. The hand-organs still played "In the Good Old Summertime," with their December vivacity and expression. Men began to make thirty-day notes to buy Easter dresses. Janitors shut off steam. And when these things happen one may know that the city is still in the clutches of winter.One afternoon Sarah shivered in her elegant hall bedroom; "house heated; scrupulously clean; conveniences; seen to be appreciated." She had no work to do except Schulenberg's menu cards. Sarah sat in her squeaky willow rocker, and looked out the window. The calendar on the wall kept crying to her: "Springtime is here, Sarah-- springtime is here, I tell you. Look at me, Sarah, my figures show it. You've got a neat figure yourself, Sarah--a--nice springtime figure--why do you look out the window so sadly?"Sarah's room was at the back of the house. Looking out the window she could see the windowless rear brick wall of the box factory on the next street. But the wall was clearest crystal; and Sarah was looking down a grassy lane shaded with cherry trees and elms and bordered with raspberry bushes and Cherokee roses.__Spring's real harbingers are too subtle for the eye and ear. Some must have the flowering crocus, the wood-starring dogwood, the voice of bluebird--even so gross a reminder as the farewell handshake of the retiring buckwheat and oyster before they can welcome the Lady in Green to their dull bosoms. But to old earth's choicest kin there come straight, sweet messages from his newest bride, telling them they shall be no stepchildren unless they choose to be.On the previous summer Sarah had gone into the country and loved a farmer.(In writing your story never hark back thus. It is bad art, and cripples interest. Let it march, march.)Sarah stayed two weeks at Sunnybrook Farm. There she learned to love old Farmer Franklin's son Walter. Farmers have been loved and wedded and turned out to grass in less time. But young Walter Franklin was a modern agriculturist. He had a telephone in his cow house, and he could figure up exactly what effect next year's Canada wheat crop would have on potatoes planted in the dark of the moon.It was in this shaded and raspberried lane that Walter had wooed and won her. And together they had sat and woven a crown of dandelions for her hair. He had immoderately praised the effect of the yellow blossoms against her brown tresses; and she had left the chaplet there, and walked back to the house swinging her straw sailor in her hands.They were to marry in the spring--at the very first signs of spring, Walter said. And Sarah came back to the city to pound her typewriter.A knock at the door dispelled Sarah's visions of that happy day. A waiter had brought the rough pencil draft of the Home Restaurant's next day fare in old Schulenberg's angular hand.Sarah sat down to her typewriter and slipped a card between the rollers. She was a nimble worker. Generally in an hour and a half the twenty-one menu cards were written and ready.To-day there were more changes on the bill of fare than usual. The soups were lighter; pork was eliminated from the entrees, figuring only with Russian turnips among the roasts. The gracious spirit of spring pervaded the entire menu. Lamb, that lately capered on the greening hillsides, was becoming exploited with the sauce that commemorated its gambols. The song of the oyster, though not silenced, was ~diminuendo con amore~. The frying-pan seemed to be held, inactive, behind the beneficent bars of the broiler. The pie list swelled; the richer puddings had vanished; the sausage, with his drapery wrapped about him, barely lingered in a pleasant thanatopsis with the buckwheats and the sweet but doomed maple.Sarah's fingers danced like midgets above a summer stream. Down through the courses she worked, giving each item its position according to its length with an accurate eye. Just above the desserts came the list of vegetables. Carrots and peas, asparagus on toast, the perennial tomatoes and corn and succotash, lima beans, cabbage--and then--Sarah was crying over her bill of fare. Tears from the depths of some divine despair rose in her heart and gathered to her eyes. Down went her head on the little typewriter stand; and the keyboard rattled a dry accompaniment to her moist sobs.For she had received no letter from Walter in two weeks, and the next item on the bill of fare was dandelions--dandelions with some kind of egg--but bother the egg!--dandelions, with whose golden blooms Walter had crowned her his queen of love and future bride--dandelions, the harbingers of spring, her sorrow's crown of sorrow--reminder of her happiest days.Madam, I dare you to smile until you suffer this test: Let the Marechal Niel roses that Percy brought you on the night you gave him your heart be served as a salad with French dressing before your eyes at a Schulenberg ~table d'hote~. Had Juliet so seen her love tokens dishonoured the sooner would she have sought the lethean herbs of the good apothecary.But what a witch is Spring! Into the great cold city of stone and iron a message had to be sent. There was none to convey it but the little hardy courier of the fields with his rough green coat and modest air. He is a true soldier of fortune, this ~dent-de-lion~-- this lion's tooth, as the French chefs call him. Flowered, he will assist at love-making, wreathed in my lady's nut-brown hair; young and callow and unblossomed, he goes into the boiling pot and delivers the word of his sovereign mistress.By and by Sarah forced back her tears. The cards must be written. But, still in a faint, golden glow from her dandeleonine dream, she fingered the typewriter keys absently for a little while, with her mind and heart in the meadow lane with her young farmer. But soon she came swiftly back to the rock-bound lanes of Manhattan, and the typewriter began to rattle and jump like a strike-breaker's motor car.At 6 o'clock the waiter brought her dinner and carried away the typewritten bill of fare. When Sarah ate she set aside, with a sigh, the dish of dandelions with its crowning ovarious accompaniment. As this dark mass had been transformed from a bright and love-indorsed flower to be an ignominious vegetable, so had her summer hopes wilted and perished. Love may, as Shakespeare said, feed on itself: but Sarah could not bring herself to eat the dandelions that had graced, as ornaments, the first spiritual banquet of her heart's true affection.At 7:30 the couple in the next room began to quarrel: the man in the room above sought for A on his flute; the gas went a little lower; three coal wagons started to unload--the only sound of which the phonograph is jealous; cats on the back fences slowly retreated toward Mukden. By these signs Sarah knew that it was time for her to read. She got out "The Cloister and the Hearth," the best non- selling book of the month, settled her feet on her trunk, and began to wander with Gerard.The front door bell rang. The landlady answered it. Sarah left Gerard and Denys treed by a bear and listened. Oh, yes; you would, just as she did!And then a strong voice was heard in the hall below, and Sarah jumped for her door, leaving the book on the floor and the first round easily the bear's. You have guessed it. She reached the top of the stairs just as her farmer came up, three at a jump, and reaped and garnered her, with nothing left for the gleaners."Why haven't you written--oh, why?" cried Sarah."New York is a pretty large town," said Walter Franklin. "I came in a week ago to your old address. I found that you went away on a Thursday. That consoled some; it eliminated the possible Friday bad luck. But it didn't prevent my hunting for you with police and otherwise ever since!"I wrote!" said Sarah, vehemently."Never got it!""Then how did you find me?"The young farmer smiled a springtime smile. "I dropped into that Home Restaurant next door this evening," said he. "I don't care who knows it; I like a dish of some kind of greens at this time of the year. I ran my eye down that nice typewritten bill of fare looking for something in that line. When I got below cabbage I turned my chair over and hollered for the proprietor. He told me where you lived.""I remember," sighed Sarah, happily. "That was dandelions below cabbage.""I'd know that cranky capital W 'way above the line that your typewriter makes anywhere in the world," said Franklin."Why, there's no W in dandelions," said Sarah, in surprise.The young man drew the bill of fare from his pocket, and pointed to a line.Sarah recognised the first card she had typewritten that afternoon. There was still the rayed splotch in the upper right-hand corner where a tear had fallen. But over the spot where one should have read the name of the meadow plant, the clinging memory of their golden blossoms had allowed her fingers to strike strange keys.Between the red cabbage and the stuffed green peppers was the item:"DEAREST WALTER, WITH HARD-BOILED EGG."
这是三月里的一天。
如果你要写一个故事，可千万别这么开头。没有比这种开头更糟糕的了。这里面缺乏想象，又平淡乏味。不过用在这里还是可以的。因为下面这一段本来应该用在故事的开头，只是太不着边际，就这样放在没有思想准备的读者面前，有点叫人摸不着头脑。
莎拉对着菜单哭泣。
到底为什么呢？也许你会猜测，菜单上没有牡蛎，也许她答应过，现在不吃冰淇淋了。然而你猜的都不对，还是请让我把故事讲下去吧。 有位先生说，世界是个大牡蛎，他要用刀把它剖开，因此出了名。用刀剖开一个牡蛎并不难，可是你看见过什么人要用打字机打开它吗？
莎拉用打字机把世界打开了一点儿。她的工作就是打字。她打字的速度不很快，所以她不能在一个大办事处里工作，只好一个人干。莎拉同这个世界最成功的一场战斗就是她和舒伦伯格家庭餐馆达成一项协议。她在一幢旧红砖房子的一间屋子里住，这家餐馆就在隔壁，有一天晚上；她在舒伦伯格餐馆吃完饭把菜单带走了。菜单上的字是手写的，既不像英文，也不像德文，简直没法儿辨认，一不小心把菜单看倒了，就会先看见甜食，最后才看见汤，和星期几。
第二天，莎拉给舒伦伯格看一张卡片，上面是用打字机打得整整齐齐的菜单，菜名诱人地排列在恰当的位置上，从第一行直排到“衣帽物件，各自小心”为止。
舒伦伯格大为高兴，莎拉离开以前，他愿意达成一项协议。莎拉为餐馆里的ZI张餐桌打菜单，每天要为晚餐打一份新菜单。如果早餐和午餐换了花样，就打一份新菜单，或者菜单脏了，另打一份干净的菜单。
舒伦伯格每天派人把三顿饭送到莎拉房间作为报酬，每天下午还送去一张用铅笔写好的菜单，这就是命运女神为第二天舒伦伯格家顾客准备好的饭菜。
双方都对协议很满意。那些在舒伦伯格餐馆进餐的顾客现在知道他们吃的菜叫什么名称了，即使这些菜的性质有时候使他们感到困惑。
而莎拉可以在寒冷而沉闷的冬天有饭吃了，对于她来说，这是至关重要的。 尽管春天的月份来到了，那还不是春天。春天总是在该来的时候才来。街上一月份的积雪还冻得硬梆梆的。一些手拿乐器的人在街上演奏《在往昔美好的夏天》这支曲子，他们的动作和表情还像在12月份似的。各家各户的暖气都关了。每逢发生这此情况，人们就会知道，这座城市仍然处于冬天的控制之下。 一天下午，莎拉在她的卧室里冻得直打哆嗦。除了打舒伦伯格的菜单外，她没有事情可做。莎拉坐在摇椅上望着窗子外面，那个月是春天的月份了，它不停地对她呼唤：“春天来了，莎拉，肯定地说，春天来了。你身材匀称、美好，莎拉，你洋溢着青春的气息，你为什么这样伤感地望着窗外呢？” 莎拉的房间在这幢房子的背面，从窗子里望出去可以看到邻街的一家制盒厂的没有窗子的砖墙。但是她却想起了长满青草的牧场、树林、灌木丛和玫瑰花。 去年夏天，莎拉到乡下去，她爱上了一个农民。 （写故事可别这样倒叙，这是一种拙劣的技巧，使人失去兴趣，还是往下写吧。）
莎拉在森尼鲁克农场住了两个星期，在那里她爱上了农民富兰克林的儿子沃尔特。农民们谈恋爱到结婚往往用不了多久。不过年轻的沃尔特是个新型的农艺师。他的牛圈里装着电话，他还能准确地计算出加拿大来年的小麦产量，对他种植的农作物会产生什么影响。
就在这偏僻的地方，沃尔特赢得了她的心。他们坐在一起，用蒲公英编了一个花冠戴在莎拉头上。他赞美蒲公英的黄花配她那棕色头发所产生的效果，于是她就没有把花冠摘下来，手里挥动着草帽回到寓所。 沃尔特说，他们要在来年春天结婚，一开春就结婚。后来莎拉就回到城里来打字。
一阵敲门声把莎拉从回想那一个幸福的日子的梦中惊醒，一个侍者拿来一张用铅笔写的潦草的家庭餐馆第二天的菜单，是老舒伦伯格的难看的笔迹。 莎拉在打字机旁坐下来，把一张卡片卷在滚轴上。她是个灵巧的工作者，通常一个半小时就可以把21张卡片全部打好。
今天菜单上更动的项目比往常要多。各种汤都比较清淡，肉食花样也有所改变，整个菜单充满了春天的气息，油炸食品似乎都不见了。 莎拉的手指在打字机上跳动，就像夏天的小溪上飞舞的小虫。她从上到下仔细地看着，按照各种菜名的长短把它们打在恰当的位置上。刚要打水果名称的当儿，莎拉对着那张菜单哭了起来。泪水从她失望的心灵深处涌上来积聚在她的眼睛里。她的头一直抵在打字机的小桌子上。
她已经两个星期没有收到沃尔特的信了，而菜单的下一个菜名正好是蒲公英和一种什么鸡蛋——别管它是什么鸡蛋！——蒲公英，沃尔特正是用蒲公英的金黄色的花朵做成的花冠，为他爱情的王后和未来的妻于加冕——蒲公英啊，春天的使者，——她那最幸福的日子的纪念品。
然而春天是多么奇妙啊！一定会有信息送到这个用石头和钢铁筑成的寒冷的大城市里来的。除了穿着毛茸茸的绿衣服的田野的信使蒲公英——法国人把它叫作狮子的牙齿——还有谁来传递春天的信息呢！蒲公英开花的时候，它就盘在姑娘的深棕色头发上成全好事；而鲜嫩未开花的时候，它就跑到开水壶里去了。
过了一会儿，莎拉忍住了泪。菜单一定得打出来。她神思恍惚心不在焉地按着打字机的键，而她的思绪、她的心灵已飞往乡村和她的青年农民在一起了。不久她回到曼哈顿的石砌建筑中来，打字机又开始跳动。 6点钟，侍者送晚饭来，把打好的菜单取走。莎拉闷闷地吃了晚饭，到7点半，隔壁房里的两个人吵起架来；在楼上那个房间住的男人好像在弄什么乐器；煤气灯的光稍微暗了一点，有人着手撤煤火；还可以听到后院篱笆那儿猫叫的声音。根据这种迹象，莎拉知道她现在该看书了。她拿出书来，把脚搁在箱子上看起来。
前门的铃响了，房东太太去开门，莎拉放下书来听。噢，是你，要是你，也会跟她一样的。
楼下门厅里传来宏亮的声音，莎拉跳起来去开门，书掉在地板上。你已经猜出来了。她跑到楼梯口时，她的农民正一跨三级地跑上楼来，把她搂在怀里。 “你为什么不写信？哦，为什么？”莎拉大声说。
“纽约可真是个大城市，”沃尔特·富兰克林说，“一星期以前我就照老地址去找你了。
我打听到你星期四离开那里的。从那以后，我通过警察局和别的办法到处找你！”
“我给你写信了呀。”莎拉说。
“从来没收到过！” “那你怎么找到我的呢？” 年轻农民满面春风地一笑。 “今天晚上，我到隔壁的那家家庭餐馆去，”他说，“我不在乎它有没有名气，每年这个时候，我都喜欢吃些蔬菜。我的眼睛在那份用打字机打得漂漂亮亮的菜单上看了一遍，想找一样蔬菜吃，我看着看着，就把椅子弄翻了，把老板喊来。他告诉我你住在哪儿。” “这是怎么回事？” “我知道，你打字机上的大写字母W，不论打在哪里，总是往上一些，不在－条线上。”富兰克林说。年轻人从口袋里拿出一张莱单，指着其中的一行。 她认出这是她那天下午打的第一张卡片，在它的右上角还有一滴眼泪的痕迹。但在本来应该是一种蔬菜名称的位置上，对那金色花朵的回忆使她的手指按在另一些键上。 在两道菜名之间，有这么一行字： 最亲爱的沃尔特和白煮鸡蛋。
这是三月里的一天。
如果你要写一个故事，可千万别这么开头。没有比这种开头更糟糕的了。这里面缺乏想象，又平淡乏味。不过用在这里还是可以的。因为下面这一段本来应该用在故事的开头，只是太不着边际，就这样放在没有思想准备的读者面前，有点叫人摸不着头脑。
莎拉对着菜单哭泣。
到底为什么呢？也许你会猜测，菜单上没有牡蛎，也许她答应过，现在不吃冰淇淋了。然而你猜的都不对，还是请让我把故事讲下去吧。 有位先生说，世界是个大牡蛎，他要用刀把它剖开，因此出了名。用刀剖开一个牡蛎并不难，可是你看见过什么人要用打字机打开它吗？
莎拉用打字机把世界打开了一点儿。她的工作就是打字。她打字的速度不很快，所以她不能在一个大办事处里工作，只好一个人干。莎拉同这个世界最成功的一场战斗就是她和舒伦伯格家庭餐馆达成一项协议。她在一幢旧红砖房子的一间屋子里住，这家餐馆就在隔壁，有一天晚上；她在舒伦伯格餐馆吃完饭把菜单带走了。菜单上的字是手写的，既不像英文，也不像德文，简直没法儿辨认，一不小心把菜单看倒了，就会先看见甜食，最后才看见汤，和星期几。
第二天，莎拉给舒伦伯格看一张卡片，上面是用打字机打得整整齐齐的菜单，菜名诱人地排列在恰当的位置上，从第一行直排到“衣帽物件，各自小心”为止。
舒伦伯格大为高兴，莎拉离开以前，他愿意达成一项协议。莎拉为餐馆里的ZI张餐桌打菜单，每天要为晚餐打一份新菜单。如果早餐和午餐换了花样，就打一份新菜单，或者菜单脏了，另打一份干净的菜单。
舒伦伯格每天派人把三顿饭送到莎拉房间作为报酬，每天下午还送去一张用铅笔写好的菜单，这就是命运女神为第二天舒伦伯格家顾客准备好的饭菜。
双方都对协议很满意。那些在舒伦伯格餐馆进餐的顾客现在知道他们吃的菜叫什么名称了，即使这些菜的性质有时候使他们感到困惑。
而莎拉可以在寒冷而沉闷的冬天有饭吃了，对于她来说，这是至关重要的。 尽管春天的月份来到了，那还不是春天。春天总是在该来的时候才来。街上一月份的积雪还冻得硬梆梆的。一些手拿乐器的人在街上演奏《在往昔美好的夏天》这支曲子，他们的动作和表情还像在12月份似的。各家各户的暖气都关了。每逢发生这此情况，人们就会知道，这座城市仍然处于冬天的控制之下。 一天下午，莎拉在她的卧室里冻得直打哆嗦。除了打舒伦伯格的菜单外，她没有事情可做。莎拉坐在摇椅上望着窗子外面，那个月是春天的月份了，它不停地对她呼唤：“春天来了，莎拉，肯定地说，春天来了。你身材匀称、美好，莎拉，你洋溢着青春的气息，你为什么这样伤感地望着窗外呢？” 莎拉的房间在这幢房子的背面，从窗子里望出去可以看到邻街的一家制盒厂的没有窗子的砖墙。但是她却想起了长满青草的牧场、树林、灌木丛和玫瑰花。 去年夏天，莎拉到乡下去，她爱上了一个农民。 （写故事可别这样倒叙，这是一种拙劣的技巧，使人失去兴趣，还是往下写吧。）
莎拉在森尼鲁克农场住了两个星期，在那里她爱上了农民富兰克林的儿子沃尔特。农民们谈恋爱到结婚往往用不了多久。不过年轻的沃尔特是个新型的农艺师。他的牛圈里装着电话，他还能准确地计算出加拿大来年的小麦产量，对他种植的农作物会产生什么影响。
就在这偏僻的地方，沃尔特赢得了她的心。他们坐在一起，用蒲公英编了一个花冠戴在莎拉头上。他赞美蒲公英的黄花配她那棕色头发所产生的效果，于是她就没有把花冠摘下来，手里挥动着草帽回到寓所。 沃尔特说，他们要在来年春天结婚，一开春就结婚。后来莎拉就回到城里来打字。
一阵敲门声把莎拉从回想那一个幸福的日子的梦中惊醒，一个侍者拿来一张用铅笔写的潦草的家庭餐馆第二天的菜单，是老舒伦伯格的难看的笔迹。 莎拉在打字机旁坐下来，把一张卡片卷在滚轴上。她是个灵巧的工作者，通常一个半小时就可以把21张卡片全部打好。
今天菜单上更动的项目比往常要多。各种汤都比较清淡，肉食花样也有所改变，整个菜单充满了春天的气息，油炸食品似乎都不见了。 莎拉的手指在打字机上跳动，就像夏天的小溪上飞舞的小虫。她从上到下仔细地看着，按照各种菜名的长短把它们打在恰当的位置上。刚要打水果名称的当儿，莎拉对着那张菜单哭了起来。泪水从她失望的心灵深处涌上来积聚在她的眼睛里。她的头一直抵在打字机的小桌子上。
她已经两个星期没有收到沃尔特的信了，而菜单的下一个菜名正好是蒲公英和一种什么鸡蛋——别管它是什么鸡蛋！——蒲公英，沃尔特正是用蒲公英的金黄色的花朵做成的花冠，为他爱情的王后和未来的妻于加冕——蒲公英啊，春天的使者，——她那最幸福的日子的纪念品。
然而春天是多么奇妙啊！一定会有信息送到这个用石头和钢铁筑成的寒冷的大城市里来的。除了穿着毛茸茸的绿衣服的田野的信使蒲公英——法国人把它叫作狮子的牙齿——还有谁来传递春天的信息呢！蒲公英开花的时候，它就盘在姑娘的深棕色头发上成全好事；而鲜嫩未开花的时候，它就跑到开水壶里去了。
过了一会儿，莎拉忍住了泪。菜单一定得打出来。她神思恍惚心不在焉地按着打字机的键，而她的思绪、她的心灵已飞往乡村和她的青年农民在一起了。不久她回到曼哈顿的石砌建筑中来，打字机又开始跳动。 6点钟，侍者送晚饭来，把打好的菜单取走。莎拉闷闷地吃了晚饭，到7点半，隔壁房里的两个人吵起架来；在楼上那个房间住的男人好像在弄什么乐器；煤气灯的光稍微暗了一点，有人着手撤煤火；还可以听到后院篱笆那儿猫叫的声音。根据这种迹象，莎拉知道她现在该看书了。她拿出书来，把脚搁在箱子上看起来。
前门的铃响了，房东太太去开门，莎拉放下书来听。噢，是你，要是你，也会跟她一样的。
楼下门厅里传来宏亮的声音，莎拉跳起来去开门，书掉在地板上。你已经猜出来了。她跑到楼梯口时，她的农民正一跨三级地跑上楼来，把她搂在怀里。 “你为什么不写信？哦，为什么？”莎拉大声说。
“纽约可真是个大城市，”沃尔特·富兰克林说，“一星期以前我就照老地址去找你了。
我打听到你星期四离开那里的。从那以后，我通过警察局和别的办法到处找你！”
“我给你写信了呀。”莎拉说。
“从来没收到过！” “那你怎么找到我的呢？” 年轻农民满面春风地一笑。 “今天晚上，我到隔壁的那家家庭餐馆去，”他说，“我不在乎它有没有名气，每年这个时候，我都喜欢吃些蔬菜。我的眼睛在那份用打字机打得漂漂亮亮的菜单上看了一遍，想找一样蔬菜吃，我看着看着，就把椅子弄翻了，把老板喊来。他告诉我你住在哪儿。” “这是怎么回事？” “我知道，你打字机上的大写字母W，不论打在哪里，总是往上一些，不在－条线上。”富兰克林说。年轻人从口袋里拿出一张莱单，指着其中的一行。 她认出这是她那天下午打的第一张卡片，在它的右上角还有一滴眼泪的痕迹。但在本来应该是一种蔬菜名称的位置上，对那金色花朵的回忆使她的手指按在另一些键上。 在两道菜名之间，有这么一行字： 最亲爱的沃尔特和白煮鸡蛋。
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Affiliate Programs ：The best get paid by click program LinkGrand
Linkgrand is yet another pay-per click program just like Adbux or ClixSense, where you get paid for clicking on the advertisers link featured in the listing. They pay you 0.3 cents per click, as compared to 30 seconds in Adbux but you have to see it only for 20 seconds as against 30 seconds for others. It doesn't really matter whether you are from U.S. or from India or China, or from any other country. They accept people from everywhere.
Nature: Pay-per-clickArea: Every countryPayout: 0.3 cents for seeing the ads for 20 secondsMinimum payout: only $5.0Payment: Anytime, through paypal, if you have the minimum balanceReferral Program:
For referring advertisers: You earn 10% of the amount spend by the advertisors.
For referring members: You earn 30% of the amount earned my the members for visiting advertisors' links.Why should you join LinkGrand:
Low minimum payout.
Less time (20 sec.) required to be present on advertiser's site
Equally applicable in all the countries
Huge number of ad links, much more than Adbux or ClixSense
All membership plans are equal, no premium membership
For advertisors, it is best value for money. They get at least 1000 impressions for a paltry $5 (incredible!). Even further, you link remain forever in their list, even after you exhaust your limit.
You may click a link as many times as you wish. However, you will only receive credit if you are logged in and the circle beside the link is green.Why not:
Low payout per click; 0.3 cents as against 1 cent from Adbux and ClixSense, and this single factor is the biggest one.Recommendation:You can't make any significant money unless you have the ability and resources to develop a huge referral network. However, it is best suited to people outside, US, UK and Canada, because of it providing equal opportunities to them.If you want to join, you can click here.
Affiliate Programs ：The best paid survey programs for you!
You may be engaged in many paid survey programs,but the following programs are must-doing ones:
Brand New Paid Surveys Site Pays 75%Expresspaidsurveys will pay you 75% for EVERY sale referred! Now you can make the Easiest Sales Of Your Life with another of our best converting designs! As always, It's priced right and completely sells it's self! It costs nothing to try and you don't even need a website! You Earn 75 %= $23.50 per sale!!!
Paid SurveysWould you like to get paid up to $75 just for completing simple 10-25 minute online surveys? Would you like to get paid up to $150 per hour to participate in focus groups (giving your opinion)? Would you like to get paid up to $25 per hour to preview movie trailers? If you answered yes, then visit us to get paid for surveysSee also our comparison table of Survey companies.
Top Survey Site - #1 Paying Survey Site Online - PaidSurveysOnline.comIf you are looking for the TOP #1 converting surveys site this is it! The #1 survey site on clickbank.com for 3 years running and for a good reason. PaidSurveysOnline.com AFFILIATES MAKE MONEY - CONSISTENLY!! PaidSurveysOnline.com consistently out converts the competion 4-to-1. Other survey sites come and go but PaidSurveysOnline.com has remained the strongest preforming surveys site online today. Low return rates mean you keep more of your hard earned money. We pay 75% or $23.50 per sale! We use clickbank.com, a 3RD Party affiliate program so you are guaenteed to get paid every 2 weeks by a third party to ensure you honestly get paid every penny you have earned.
If you are ready to start making serious money sign up today.
Golden SurveyGoldenSurvey Affiliate Program: Join the #1 Get Paid For Your Opinion Affiliate Program! HIGHEST CONVERTING SITE ONLINE! Offer your visitors to Get Paid To Take Surveys Online!
Make money off your online video！Ii's great!
With nearly 100 million videos viewed each day, it’s hard to beat the audience that YouTube has built.
But YouTube, for all its size and splendor, also has vulnerabilities. A new generation of viral video sites is trying to beat the powerhouse at its own game by answering the two major criticisms -- a need for revenue and greater quality control of the clips.
But YouTube, for all its size and splendor, also has vulnerabilities. A new generation of viral video sites is trying to beat the powerhouse at its own game by answering the two major criticisms -- a need for revenue and greater quality control of the clips.
Monday, 15 December 2008
How to keep your money safe?
People generally know they are taking some risks when they buy stocks, corporate bonds and mutual funds. But during the financial stresses of the last few weeks, they've discovered that even seemingly safe havens became quite unpredictable.With institutions such as Washington Mutual failing, for example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has been stepping in to make sure people receive money back when banks collapse.But people aren't guaranteed to get everything they have had in banks. The FDIC has limits on the money they will return to people -- $100,000 for an individual, $100,000 per person in joint accounts, and $250,000 in individual retirement accounts.
Money market funds, too, used to be considered as safe as savings accounts. But no more.
You can't afford to make no-brainer decisions with money now, especially with the money you intend to keep completely safe.
A couple of weeks ago, a money market fund had its value fall below $1 per share and investors began to lose money. With investors rushing to pull billions out of the funds earlier this month, the government quickly stepped in and promised to make sure that people with money in the funds wouldn't lose money. The government is insuring the funds for a year.
But the protection isn't as far-reaching as many believe.
Some financial advisers think that any money put into a money market fund now has a government guarantee. But that is not the case, according to the Treasury Department. Rather, money that was in a money market fund on Sept. 19 is fully protected. An individual who adds money will only have protection on the original money.
This means investors must think carefully about the money market funds they are using. Some are riskier than others. If people pull money from one money market fund and put it into another, they will forfeit the protection they would have had if they'd stayed with the fund they were using Sept. 19.
The explosive environment lately has made some financial advisers cautious about handling the cash their clients need to draw on for short-term needs -- especially retirees, who are often advised to keep a year to two years of cash handy for living expenses.
Money market funds have been a favorite short-term savings place because they often pay slightly higher interest rates than bank savings accounts or bank money market accounts.
Now that it's clear that money market funds are less safe than once thought, Steve Weinstein, president of Altair Advisers in Chicago, is using funds that invest only in Treasuries.
In addition, rather than relying on only one money market fund, some clients are dividing their money into several to lessen the risk, Weinstein said.
Those using bank savings accounts and CDs are also making sure they don't rely on a single institution.
Through a program called the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service, or CDARS, a person can have accounts larger than $100,000 and still receive FDIC protection. The person can deposit a large sum into a CDARS program at a bank, and then the program divides the money up into CDs at multiple institutions. For example, a person with $500,000 would have five CDs at five different banks, but have paperwork from a single source and full FDIC protection.
"It's all about diversification," Weinstein said. Given the current state of the financial system, it's difficult to anticipate risks, so spreading money into multiple accounts provides a level of protection.
Besides his cautious approach with cash, Weinstein is being careful with bonds.
Typically, investors have considered many municipal bonds as almost as safe as U.S. Treasury bonds. That's been especially true of general obligation bonds, or the bonds that states, cities and other governments pledge to pay with tax money, regardless of any stresses that might arise.
Currently, however, financial advisers are growing leery of municipal bonds too. With unemployment climbing and real estate values falling, cities and states are expected to have declining tax revenue.
The National Conference of State Legislators says many states will be facing financial pressures in 2009. The group estimates a $40.3 billion shortage in revenue to cover costs. Governments will be making cuts in expenses, and some already have been tapping rainy-day funds.
To protect investors, some advisers are selecting only general obligation bonds from states rather than cities.
Bruce Heyman, managing director of Goldman Sachs Private Wealth Management, has been using high-quality escrowed-to-maturity prerefunded municipal bonds. With such bonds, the investor is protected because U.S. Treasuries are put aside to cover the payments.
For investors who want safety, "make sure they are escrowed," Heyman said.
Of course, relatively safe municipal bonds -- like U.S. Treasuries -- are providing very little yield now. The municipal bonds Heyman likes may be yielding about 2.1 percent.
But Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management in Los Angeles, warns investors to beware of seeking higher yields with money that must be safe.
"We are in the midst of a crisis, not the end," Cohen said. "It's ludicrous to seek more yield in the middle of a crisis."
Not all olive oil is as pure as it seems! money principle
Even before Rachael Ray coined her perky catchphrase “EVOO,” extra virgin olive oil’s popularity was skyrocketing. The international olive oil industry has become bigger and more profitable than the wine industry, according to Armando Manni of Manni Extra Virgin Olive Oil. The figures support his assertion – according to the International Olive Oil Council, the US imported 90,000 metric tons of EVOO in 1990. By 2006 that figure had risen to 240,000 metric tons.Nowhere is the industry’s growth more apparent than in the restaurant and retail sector. At the Four Seasons Silicon Valley, executive chef Alessandro Cartumini treats oil with a reverence usually reserved for a fine wine or liqueur: his menu at Quattro offers a variety of Manni olive oils for three dollars a pour. Shelves in the olive oil aisles of Whole Foods Markets are packed full with bottles, while customers at Draeger’s gourmet markets can select from over 70 olive oils.So which oil to choose? Do you buy the brand that claims to have won awards, or the oil that hails from the most alluring locale? Perhaps the bottle with the bonus pouring spout, the one that’s an olive-y green, or the sleek glass flask that matches your Method dish soap dispenser? Those who judge an olive oil by its bottle, take note: heat and UV rays break down some of the oil’s healthful properties, so don’t display it on the counter. Stash it instead in a cool, dark place away from the stove.At the recently opened The Olive Bar in Campbell, customers can sample up to 16 EVOO varietals. Proprietor Ed De Soto was a food broker for years, but wasn’t educated about olive oil until a year ago. “I had olive oil in my garage for two to three years. I thought rancid was a flavor,” he recalls.“Rancid products are pathogens and sources of free radicals,” says Mike Bradley, president of Veronica Foods, the De Sotos’ supplier. Free radicals contribute to aging, heart disease and cancer – things that polyphenols, a type of antioxidant found in good quality, well-stored olive oil, should fight and protect against. Polyphenols are a relatively recent discovery – in the past, the focus of olive oil’s health benefits was on how its monounsaturated fats help lower LDL, the bad cholesterol, without lowering HDL, the good one.Manni, who sells to some of the finest restaurants in the world, including Napa’s The French Laundry, is manic about polyphenols. He works with the University of Florence to analyze the best time to harvest his olives, pours his oils into 3.4oz bottles of dark, UV-filtering glass, and tops them with inert gas to protect these antioxidants. Polyphenol levels of 250mg per liter are considered high; Manni’s oils contain levels as high as 450mg per liter. These meticulously produced oils cost over $300 for 10 bottles.Veronica Foods, which produces Delizia olive oil, holds its oil in stainless steel tanks to minimize exposure and deterioration. The De Sotos then transfer the oil into stainless steel drums, and dispense it in dark glass bottles. Ken Manley, the head gourmet buyer for Draeger’s, lauds such methods. “The oil lasts so much longer. You can taste the difference.”While dark glass is better for the oil, many producers insist on using transparent bottles, often considered more visually appealing. “We buy some clear bottles because they sell quickly,” says Manley. “I’ve talked a dozen companies into changing their packaging to the dark bottle, but it’s a double-edged sword, because producers want to show off their oil color.”This, despite the fact that color not only has no bearing on the oil’s flavor, but can even be the sign of an inferior product. Some producers crush olives with leaves to make the oil greener. Bradley says with soybean oil fetching 40 cents a pound, compared with five dollars a pound for olive oil, unscrupulous producers may blend olive oil with soybean oil and green dye.So, unless you want to take home an extra virgin oil that’s about as virginal as Paris Hilton, be sure to read the label carefully. “Citrus Olive Oil produced in Italy” tells you nothing. Ideally, the olives were crushed with citrus, but it could just as well be older Italian oil infused with citrus to disguise the rancid taste. Or Tunisian olive oil blended with citrus flavoring and bottled in Italy. “It’s legal to put ‘Product of Italy’ if it’s the last country of handling,” explains Patty Darragh, executive director of the California Olive Oil Council (COOC).Bradley also warns buyers to be wary of misleading labeling such as “pure olive oil” and “light.” These products can consist of as little as five percent virgin oil, with the rest consisting of refined, inferior oil. As a result, the polyphenol levels are miniscule.“A lot of imported oils are mislabeled or adulterated,” cautions Darragh. “Currently there are no federal standards for imported oils, so it’s buyer beware.”The word “handpicked” on a label implies a superior, artisan product. Handpicked olives cost more ($500 per ton, versus $80 to $120 per ton for those picked by machine) and are better than the machines, which “bat the heck out of olives,” according to Albert Katz, whose Katz & Company makes the award-winning Rock Hill olive oil. But handpicking doesn’t guarantee good oil. “You can handpick and still screw up your olives if you don’t press right away,” he says.While deceptive labeling is common Bradley insists, “These frauds eriphery. What’s hurting the industry is the ridiculously low standards and lack of understanding by the public, which includes the retailers.”A good olive oil label should read like that of a fine wine: “Abbae de Queiles, 0.1 percent acidity, organic Arbequina olives, harvested November 2006,” with additional details such as “grown in the Navarra region of Spain, crushed within two hours of picking.”When you get past the bottling and labeling, be sure to taste the oil. The peppery tasting EVOOs tend to be higher in polyphenols. Just like wine, other variables can affect antioxidant levels and flavor, including terroir (climate, soil and altitude), dry farming, harvesting and storage, says Bradley.Once you get your chosen EVOO home, use it within a couple of months. “If you don’t have use-by dates, you get a false sense of how long the product will last,” said Manley.“A lot of olive oils are just sitting in a warehouse, but they need to be consumed within two years,” agrees Darragh.While there may be varying levels of quality, Bradley is adamant that good olive oil shouldn’t be too hard to find. “If your trees are healthy, you pick it on time at its peak of ripeness and you crush it in a timely fashion, it’s hard to make bad olive oil.”
Olive oil for love or money
California olive oil history dates back hundreds of years to the late 1700s, when the first olive trees were brought over from Spain. As the industry grew, olive trees became a common sight in Northern California and the Central Valley, and olive oil processing mills began opening to meet demand for the golden nectar.According to Paul Vossen, UCCE farm advisor for Marin and Sonoma counties, California is now home to 11 olive oil processing mills, ranging in annual production size from 4,000 to 150,000 gallons each, as well as several smaller mills. "Production has been steadily increasing each year, except for 2000-01 when there was a very small crop," Vossen said. Since 1996-97, California olive oil production has increased from 123,000 gallons to 400,000 gallons in 2002-03.
This growth caught the attention of California wineries during the 1990s, and dozens began planting olive trees with oil production in mind. "Wineries account for about 12-15% of the state's annual extra virgin olive oil production," said Patricia Darragh, executive director of the Berkeley-based California Olive Oil Council (COOC).
Though she couldn't confirm the total number of wineries that are currently producing olive oil, Darragh said that more than two dozen have been certified by the COOC. "There is a dramatic increase in production by wineries, year over year," she said. "The industry overall is growing dramatically and many more wineries are becoming involved."
Thanks to the efforts of wineries like B.R. Cohn, Preston Vineyards, Joseph Phelps Vineyards and Wente Vineyards, high-end California olive oil is making a name for itself on the national gourmet food scene. But is producing olive oil worth the effort?
Climate, Soils And Care
Like grapevines, olive trees are not for the impatient. The trees must be planted in the right location, and tended properly. It takes three or four years for the trees to bear fruit, and the olives should be hand-harvested at the peak of ripeness (usually in October or November), avoiding any contact with the ground.
UC Davis is in the process of studying trial olive orchards in different parts of the state, to determine where the trees grow best. "Ideal growing conditions are deep, dry gravely soil, with good drainage," Vossen said. "A climate that does not get below 24[degrees]F that might kill the trees in the winter, nor temperatures below 30[degrees]F during the months of November and December that might freeze and ruin the fruit prior to harvest. Other than that, they seem to grow and produce well in the Central Valley and in cool coastal areas."
Profiting From "Liquid Gold"
Specialty extra virgin olive oils often sell for $20-50 per bottle--an amount that leads some people to believe it's a huge profit-maker. But before you start ripping out Chardonnay vines to plant olive trees, consider the cost of production.
"Profit on the North Coast is better for winegrapes at $2,000 per ton of fruit," Vossen said. "Olives on the North Coast are expensive to grow because of the high cost of land. The land parcels are small and the land is not as flat and less likely to be able to be harvested mechanically." Olive production tends to be more profitable for wineries in the Central Valley, Vossen added, where "land is cheaper, labor rates are a bit lower, water is cheaper, etc., and the land is flatter and better adapted to over-the-row mechanical harvest. Most olives are worth from $300 to $600 per ton. With yields of about 5 tons per acre and lower cost mechanical harvest, I believe there is a pretty good potential for the super-high-density production system."
According to Sharon Cohn, who handles day-to-day olive oil production at B.R. Cohn Winery with her husband Bruce, "It costs about $200 per gallon to get (the oil) into the bottle--it's like liquid gold." When asked to compare olive oil and wine production, Bruce Cohn commented, "Neither of them make any money. I don't know anyone who's making money in olive oil." So why does he do it? "I do it because I like it, and because the trees are here," he said. "And our tasting room visitors like it. We sell out of our oil every year."
Sharon said she truly enjoys the olive oil side of the business, and wishes that she and Bruce had started it earlier. "We could have started losing money even sooner!" Bruce added, with a laugh. "Unless you're doing it in a big way, you're not going to make money doing it. It's a labor of love, and a lifestyle issue."
Damian Parker, production manager for Joseph Phelps Vineyards, expressed a similar view. "We are trying to break even, it's more of a lifestyle thing for Joe (Phelps)," he said. "Joe wanted to diversify some of the farming on the ranch, and growing olive trees and making olive oil is very Mediterranean. Joe has an affinity for Mediterranean varietals and Napa's climate is very suited for them." Phelps planted 3.5 acres of olive trees in 1998, and added an additional acre in 2001. "Until you have mature trees, it's very hard to make any money. To date we have not."
Though she couldn't confirm the total number of wineries that are currently producing olive oil, Darragh said that more than two dozen have been certified by the COOC. "There is a dramatic increase in production by wineries, year over year," she said. "The industry overall is growing dramatically and many more wineries are becoming involved."
Thanks to the efforts of wineries like B.R. Cohn, Preston Vineyards, Joseph Phelps Vineyards and Wente Vineyards, high-end California olive oil is making a name for itself on the national gourmet food scene. But is producing olive oil worth the effort?
Climate, Soils And Care
Like grapevines, olive trees are not for the impatient. The trees must be planted in the right location, and tended properly. It takes three or four years for the trees to bear fruit, and the olives should be hand-harvested at the peak of ripeness (usually in October or November), avoiding any contact with the ground.
UC Davis is in the process of studying trial olive orchards in different parts of the state, to determine where the trees grow best. "Ideal growing conditions are deep, dry gravely soil, with good drainage," Vossen said. "A climate that does not get below 24[degrees]F that might kill the trees in the winter, nor temperatures below 30[degrees]F during the months of November and December that might freeze and ruin the fruit prior to harvest. Other than that, they seem to grow and produce well in the Central Valley and in cool coastal areas."
Profiting From "Liquid Gold"
Specialty extra virgin olive oils often sell for $20-50 per bottle--an amount that leads some people to believe it's a huge profit-maker. But before you start ripping out Chardonnay vines to plant olive trees, consider the cost of production.
"Profit on the North Coast is better for winegrapes at $2,000 per ton of fruit," Vossen said. "Olives on the North Coast are expensive to grow because of the high cost of land. The land parcels are small and the land is not as flat and less likely to be able to be harvested mechanically." Olive production tends to be more profitable for wineries in the Central Valley, Vossen added, where "land is cheaper, labor rates are a bit lower, water is cheaper, etc., and the land is flatter and better adapted to over-the-row mechanical harvest. Most olives are worth from $300 to $600 per ton. With yields of about 5 tons per acre and lower cost mechanical harvest, I believe there is a pretty good potential for the super-high-density production system."
According to Sharon Cohn, who handles day-to-day olive oil production at B.R. Cohn Winery with her husband Bruce, "It costs about $200 per gallon to get (the oil) into the bottle--it's like liquid gold." When asked to compare olive oil and wine production, Bruce Cohn commented, "Neither of them make any money. I don't know anyone who's making money in olive oil." So why does he do it? "I do it because I like it, and because the trees are here," he said. "And our tasting room visitors like it. We sell out of our oil every year."
Sharon said she truly enjoys the olive oil side of the business, and wishes that she and Bruce had started it earlier. "We could have started losing money even sooner!" Bruce added, with a laugh. "Unless you're doing it in a big way, you're not going to make money doing it. It's a labor of love, and a lifestyle issue."
Damian Parker, production manager for Joseph Phelps Vineyards, expressed a similar view. "We are trying to break even, it's more of a lifestyle thing for Joe (Phelps)," he said. "Joe wanted to diversify some of the farming on the ranch, and growing olive trees and making olive oil is very Mediterranean. Joe has an affinity for Mediterranean varietals and Napa's climate is very suited for them." Phelps planted 3.5 acres of olive trees in 1998, and added an additional acre in 2001. "Until you have mature trees, it's very hard to make any money. To date we have not."
For Lou Preston, owner of Preston Vineyards in Sonoma County, olive oil production is more than a labor of love. "But if we had to rely on the wholesale market for distribution the profit would disappear," he said. The oil is a brisk seller in the winery's tasting room, Preston said, thanks in part to its COOC extra virgin certification and last year's favorable Wine Spectator review.
Profits aside, Preston's olive oil also plays an important role in the winery's Mediterranean focus. "Our mission is to give our visitors an integrated farm-based food experience--wine, bread from the winery forno, cured olives, olive oil, pickles and fresh produce from the organic kitchen gardens," he said. "Everything is from our farm, everything is organically grown."
Profits aside, Preston's olive oil also plays an important role in the winery's Mediterranean focus. "Our mission is to give our visitors an integrated farm-based food experience--wine, bread from the winery forno, cured olives, olive oil, pickles and fresh produce from the organic kitchen gardens," he said. "Everything is from our farm, everything is organically grown."
Livermore's Wente Vineyards has also managed to make a profit producing olive oil from the winery's century-old trees, according to sales and marketing president Carolyn Wente. "My grandfather used to make oil and cure olives until the 1960s, when the labor became too expensive to justify picking and processing," she said. "I began producing the oil again in 1986."
Wente's olive oil is sold in the winery's tasting room, and brokers distribute it on a limited basis to high-end retail accounts. "It sells very well," Wente said.
Getting Into The Act
If you're thinking of getting into the olive oil business, remember what your sixth grade teacher always said, "Do your homework." The following resources will help you save time, money and headaches down the road.
"Olive Production Manual"--This practical guide covers olive botany, orchard planning, orchard maintenance (including nutrient analysis, irrigation systems, pest control and crop management), harvesting and post-harvest processing. Available on the UC Davis Web site for $32: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/merchant.ihtml?pid=299&step=4.
"Producing Olive Oil in California"--This pamphlet offers background and practical information for olive oil producers. Available for $7 through UC Davis. To order, visit the Web site: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/merchant.ihtml?pid=548&lastcatid=149&step=4.
UC Davis Cost Analysis Study--Paul Vossen and his colleagues at UC Davis completed a study of olive oil production in February, 2004. View it on the university's Web site at http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu.
California Olive Oil Council--Created in 1992, the COOC's mission is to establish California as a source of world-class olive oil. For industry resources and information on the organization's certification program, visit the Web site cooc.com.
Oliveoilsource.com--This Web site includes a listing of U.S. olive oil producers, as well as statistics and information on starting an olive oil business.
RELATED ARTICLE: Wineries Press On
Despite its monetary challenges, wineries continue to devote time, money and passion to upscale olive oil production. Here's a look at what a few of California's best oil-producing wineries are doing.
Wente's olive oil is sold in the winery's tasting room, and brokers distribute it on a limited basis to high-end retail accounts. "It sells very well," Wente said.
Getting Into The Act
If you're thinking of getting into the olive oil business, remember what your sixth grade teacher always said, "Do your homework." The following resources will help you save time, money and headaches down the road.
"Olive Production Manual"--This practical guide covers olive botany, orchard planning, orchard maintenance (including nutrient analysis, irrigation systems, pest control and crop management), harvesting and post-harvest processing. Available on the UC Davis Web site for $32: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/merchant.ihtml?pid=299&step=4.
"Producing Olive Oil in California"--This pamphlet offers background and practical information for olive oil producers. Available for $7 through UC Davis. To order, visit the Web site: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/merchant.ihtml?pid=548&lastcatid=149&step=4.
UC Davis Cost Analysis Study--Paul Vossen and his colleagues at UC Davis completed a study of olive oil production in February, 2004. View it on the university's Web site at http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu.
California Olive Oil Council--Created in 1992, the COOC's mission is to establish California as a source of world-class olive oil. For industry resources and information on the organization's certification program, visit the Web site cooc.com.
Oliveoilsource.com--This Web site includes a listing of U.S. olive oil producers, as well as statistics and information on starting an olive oil business.
RELATED ARTICLE: Wineries Press On
Despite its monetary challenges, wineries continue to devote time, money and passion to upscale olive oil production. Here's a look at what a few of California's best oil-producing wineries are doing.
Year Oil Production Began: 1990
Picking And Processing: The winery's grape management company harvests the olives. The crop is pressed at The Olive Press in Glen Ellen.
Acreage And Varieties: The Cohns have 10 acres of French Picholine trees, planted on the Olive Hill estate in 1875. According to Bruce Cohn, 1 ton of Picholine olives produces 27 gallons of oil (Mission produces 45 gallons per ton).
Oils: The winery offers three oils: Sonoma Estate Extra Virgin ($50/500ml); California Certified Organic Extra Virgin ($18/500ml); and California Extra Virgin ($18/500ml). The non-estate oils--about 4,000 12-bottle cases--are purchased under contract from growers in the Central Valley. Production for the Sonoma Estate oil is 125 gallons per year.
Picking And Processing: The winery's grape management company harvests the olives. The crop is pressed at The Olive Press in Glen Ellen.
Acreage And Varieties: The Cohns have 10 acres of French Picholine trees, planted on the Olive Hill estate in 1875. According to Bruce Cohn, 1 ton of Picholine olives produces 27 gallons of oil (Mission produces 45 gallons per ton).
Oils: The winery offers three oils: Sonoma Estate Extra Virgin ($50/500ml); California Certified Organic Extra Virgin ($18/500ml); and California Extra Virgin ($18/500ml). The non-estate oils--about 4,000 12-bottle cases--are purchased under contract from growers in the Central Valley. Production for the Sonoma Estate oil is 125 gallons per year.
Notes: The Cohns are planning to open a culinary center at the winery in 2005, in which the winery's olive oils will play a central role.
Joseph Phelps Vineyards, St. Helena
Year Oil Production Began: 1998
Picking And Processing: The Phelps vineyard crew--about 14-16 men--harvests the olives. (If the olives haven't ripened before the crew goes home to Mexico in the winter, the picking is left to the remaining winery staff). The olives are pressed at McEvoy Ranch in Petaluma.
Acreage And Varieties: Phelps has 4.5 acres of olive trees, including the following varieties: Frantoio (70%), Pendolino (11%), Leccino (14%) and Maurino (5%). The winery also has a few Picholine trees and about 30 Mission trees on the Spring Valley ranch and at Backus.
Oils: Phelps' extra virgin olive oil sells for $20 per 375ml bottle. The winery produced 79 cases of the 2002 oil, and estimated bottling about 100 cases of the 2003.
Preston Vineyards, Healdsburg
Year Oil Production Began: Early '90s
Picking And Processing: The winery's vineyard and winery staff picks the olives, with the aid of pneumatic picking wands. The olives are pressed at Frantoio in Mill Valley and at McEvoy.
Acreage And Varieties: Preston began planting olive trees in the late '80s, and today has 1,000 olive trees. About 75% of the trees are Italian oil varieties, including Leccino, Pendolino, Frantoio, Casaliva, Grignano and Mauriolo. The winery also grows Manzanillo, Mission and Sevillano for curing and/or oil.
Oils: The 2003 Olio Nuevo ($25/500ml) is Preston's 10th vintage. The winery's largest harvest to date was 150 gallons, and Preston expects the number to peak at 650 gallons as the trees mature.
Wente Vineyards, Livermore
Year Oil Production Began: 1986
Picking And Processing: The olives are hand picked over a one-month period. Modesto-based Nick Sciabica & Sons cold presses the oil in small batches within 24 hours of picking.
Acreage And Varieties: French grapegrower Louis Mel imported and planted Wente's Lucque and Picholine trees in 1880. Wente's oil blend also includes Manzanillo, Ascolano, Mission and Sevillano varietals.
Oils: Wente produces about 200 9-liter cases per year of its Oro Fino Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil ($19.95/375ml).
Joseph Phelps Vineyards, St. Helena
Year Oil Production Began: 1998
Picking And Processing: The Phelps vineyard crew--about 14-16 men--harvests the olives. (If the olives haven't ripened before the crew goes home to Mexico in the winter, the picking is left to the remaining winery staff). The olives are pressed at McEvoy Ranch in Petaluma.
Acreage And Varieties: Phelps has 4.5 acres of olive trees, including the following varieties: Frantoio (70%), Pendolino (11%), Leccino (14%) and Maurino (5%). The winery also has a few Picholine trees and about 30 Mission trees on the Spring Valley ranch and at Backus.
Oils: Phelps' extra virgin olive oil sells for $20 per 375ml bottle. The winery produced 79 cases of the 2002 oil, and estimated bottling about 100 cases of the 2003.
Preston Vineyards, Healdsburg
Year Oil Production Began: Early '90s
Picking And Processing: The winery's vineyard and winery staff picks the olives, with the aid of pneumatic picking wands. The olives are pressed at Frantoio in Mill Valley and at McEvoy.
Acreage And Varieties: Preston began planting olive trees in the late '80s, and today has 1,000 olive trees. About 75% of the trees are Italian oil varieties, including Leccino, Pendolino, Frantoio, Casaliva, Grignano and Mauriolo. The winery also grows Manzanillo, Mission and Sevillano for curing and/or oil.
Oils: The 2003 Olio Nuevo ($25/500ml) is Preston's 10th vintage. The winery's largest harvest to date was 150 gallons, and Preston expects the number to peak at 650 gallons as the trees mature.
Wente Vineyards, Livermore
Year Oil Production Began: 1986
Picking And Processing: The olives are hand picked over a one-month period. Modesto-based Nick Sciabica & Sons cold presses the oil in small batches within 24 hours of picking.
Acreage And Varieties: French grapegrower Louis Mel imported and planted Wente's Lucque and Picholine trees in 1880. Wente's oil blend also includes Manzanillo, Ascolano, Mission and Sevillano varietals.
Oils: Wente produces about 200 9-liter cases per year of its Oro Fino Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil ($19.95/375ml).
T.C.
RELATED ARTICLE: Grapevine Nursery Adds Olive Trees
While other grapevine nurseries were expanding their offerings to include varietals like Syrah and Pinot gris, Santa Rosa's NovaVine chose to offer something different--olive trees. According to VP Dennis Black, NovaVine began selling Spanish olive trees in 1999. "We realized there was opportunity in olive oil," Black said.
Arbequina was the first variety NovaVine imported from Spain, followed by Mission, Manzanillo and four Tuscan varieties. Most of the trees are sold to landscapers, olive growers and wineries, Black said, and the wineries have shown particular interest in the Arbequina and Tuscan varieties.
"California wineries are definitely in the olive oil business," he continued. "They're taking it very seriously and a lot of serious effort is taking place. Wineries are doing more food and wine pairings and a lot of wineries have their own chefs and are doing cooking classes. Olive oil fits into this nicely."
Olive trees start at $15 for a 1-gallon size tree. For more information, visit the Web site novavine.com.
T.C.
RELATED ARTICLE: Napa Valley Futures Raise Nearly $1 Million At Premiere Napa Valley Auction
Months before the glamour and hoopla of the annual Napa Valley Wine Auction, national and international wine wholesalers, retailers and restaurateurs descended on St. Helena for the auction-before-the-auction: Premiere Napa Valley.
The eighth annual event, held Feb. 21 at the Culinary Institute of America at Greystone, raised a total of $987,200 to help support programs sponsored by the Napa Valley Vintners, official host of the auction.
Before the auction began, more than 500 trade and media attendees sampled unique barrel wines, primarily 2002 and 2003 reds created from special vineyard blocks, using innovative winemaking techniques. While most producers poured Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot wines, some chose to experiment with different varietals. For example, Ceja Vineyards poured an unusual blend of Merlot, Pinot noir and Syrah, while Sterling Vineyards and Flora Springs presented Malbec wines.
More than 270 paddle holders competed for 158 lots of Napa wine futures, and a total of 1,065 cases were sold to 60 winning bidders. The highest single bid of the day was $35,000 for a 20-case lot of Silver Oak Cellars 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon blend.
As was the case last year, the event's top bidder was Gary Fisch, owner of Gary's Wine and Marketplace in Madison, N.J. Fisch spent $203,900 on 20 different lots, including the five-case Shafer Vineyards and Stag's Leap Wine Cellars lots, selling for $28,000 and $21,000 respectively.Top Lots at Premiere Napa Valley 2004
Silver Oak Cellars $35,000
Shafer Vineyards $28,000
Joseph Phelps Vineyards $26,000
Pride Mountain Vineyards $26,000
Stag's Leap Wine Cellars $21,000
Viader Vineyards & Winery $18,000
Vineyard 29 $17,000
Beringer Vineyards $14,500
Duckhorn Vineyards $14,000
Lewis Cellars $14,000
Staglin Family Vineyard $14,000
Beaulieu Vineyard $13,000
Darioush Vineyard $13,000
Husic Vineyards $13,000
Spottswoode Vineyard & Winery $13,000
The auction wines are scheduled for private release, to the successful
bidders only, between 2004 and 2007.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Wines & VinesCOPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
RELATED ARTICLE: Grapevine Nursery Adds Olive Trees
While other grapevine nurseries were expanding their offerings to include varietals like Syrah and Pinot gris, Santa Rosa's NovaVine chose to offer something different--olive trees. According to VP Dennis Black, NovaVine began selling Spanish olive trees in 1999. "We realized there was opportunity in olive oil," Black said.
Arbequina was the first variety NovaVine imported from Spain, followed by Mission, Manzanillo and four Tuscan varieties. Most of the trees are sold to landscapers, olive growers and wineries, Black said, and the wineries have shown particular interest in the Arbequina and Tuscan varieties.
"California wineries are definitely in the olive oil business," he continued. "They're taking it very seriously and a lot of serious effort is taking place. Wineries are doing more food and wine pairings and a lot of wineries have their own chefs and are doing cooking classes. Olive oil fits into this nicely."
Olive trees start at $15 for a 1-gallon size tree. For more information, visit the Web site novavine.com.
T.C.
RELATED ARTICLE: Napa Valley Futures Raise Nearly $1 Million At Premiere Napa Valley Auction
Months before the glamour and hoopla of the annual Napa Valley Wine Auction, national and international wine wholesalers, retailers and restaurateurs descended on St. Helena for the auction-before-the-auction: Premiere Napa Valley.
The eighth annual event, held Feb. 21 at the Culinary Institute of America at Greystone, raised a total of $987,200 to help support programs sponsored by the Napa Valley Vintners, official host of the auction.
Before the auction began, more than 500 trade and media attendees sampled unique barrel wines, primarily 2002 and 2003 reds created from special vineyard blocks, using innovative winemaking techniques. While most producers poured Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot wines, some chose to experiment with different varietals. For example, Ceja Vineyards poured an unusual blend of Merlot, Pinot noir and Syrah, while Sterling Vineyards and Flora Springs presented Malbec wines.
More than 270 paddle holders competed for 158 lots of Napa wine futures, and a total of 1,065 cases were sold to 60 winning bidders. The highest single bid of the day was $35,000 for a 20-case lot of Silver Oak Cellars 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon blend.
As was the case last year, the event's top bidder was Gary Fisch, owner of Gary's Wine and Marketplace in Madison, N.J. Fisch spent $203,900 on 20 different lots, including the five-case Shafer Vineyards and Stag's Leap Wine Cellars lots, selling for $28,000 and $21,000 respectively.Top Lots at Premiere Napa Valley 2004
Silver Oak Cellars $35,000
Shafer Vineyards $28,000
Joseph Phelps Vineyards $26,000
Pride Mountain Vineyards $26,000
Stag's Leap Wine Cellars $21,000
Viader Vineyards & Winery $18,000
Vineyard 29 $17,000
Beringer Vineyards $14,500
Duckhorn Vineyards $14,000
Lewis Cellars $14,000
Staglin Family Vineyard $14,000
Beaulieu Vineyard $13,000
Darioush Vineyard $13,000
Husic Vineyards $13,000
Spottswoode Vineyard & Winery $13,000
The auction wines are scheduled for private release, to the successful
bidders only, between 2004 and 2007.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Wines & VinesCOPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)