IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers
From: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:22:46 -0600 To: believer@telepath.com Source: Wired http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16035.html?3 Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers by Declan McCullagh 4:00 a.m.5.Nov.98.PST The phones are already ringing when Steve Portela arrives at his office every morning. Orders are piling up as they never have before. Walton Feed, his bulk food company, doubled its workforce this year to 125 people and a new warehouse will open in late November. It isn't enough. Orders placed today won't be delivered for six months. "I'm falling further behind every day," Portela complains. The source of Portela's woes? Widespread worries about the Year 2000 computer problem. The looming bug has sent thousands of Americans scrambling to load up on bulk food, generators, solar cells, and gold coins. Some of the products, if ordered today, won't arrive on a customer's doorstep until spring 1999. And delays are expected to grow. Spikes in demand are nothing new to Portela. The Mount St. Helens eruption, the Los Angeles riots, and the last major California earthquake all spurred people into grabbing their credit cards and phoning Walton Feed. From a perch 6,000 feet up in the Idaho mountains, the company has grown into one of the nation's largest bulk food suppliers. But nervous jitters caused by those disruptions are peanuts compared to growing fears that Y2K will snarl electric power, telecommunications, and the banking system. "Add it all together, and Y2K surpasses everything," Portela says. This time it's not just survivalists stockpiling sealed barrels from Walton's extensive selection of wheat, rice, and other dried foods. "It's common everyday folks, people just like you," Portela says of his customers. "We're not talking about any radical people." Other food companies have similar bellyaches. "The demand is amazing -- 99.99 percent of the people we deal with are preparing for Y2K," says Tamera Toups, office manager for Montana-based Peace of Mind Essentials." Unlike Walton's, Peace of Mind Essentials doesn't boast a storeroom full of towering bins of grain. Instead, it places orders that are later filled by warehouses. Toups estimates volume has leapt 500 percent this year. "If anyone doesn't have an order in by the end of April, their chances of getting it before 2000 are pretty slim," she said. "The window might be even smaller than that." You'll still be able to buy bulk food after next April, of course. America Inc., a food exporter, has plenty of it. But Walton Feed makes a niche product prized by Y2Kers: sealed 50-pound drums of food with the oxygen removed, a process that delays spoilage and eliminates grain-munching critters. A year's supply tips the scales at 600 pounds and costs $300, plus shipping. Trying to procure a diesel generator, on the other hand, is shaping up to be increasingly difficult. Loren Day, president of China Diesel Imports, spends a good portion of each day puzzling out how to crank out more and more generators to meet a swell of Y2K orders. Shipments of his company's most popular 8,000-watt model are already running six months behind. "Orders are up about 1,000 percent since the first of the year," Day says. "And the amount of people who will want a generator now is nothing compared to the amount of people who will want a generator later." Day, whose 50-person company is the largest US distributor of diesel generators, usually sells to rural customers who live beyond the reach of electric power lines. "Now with this Y2K thing it's gone crazy," he said. He said he now has the both of the world's largest generator manufacturers running at near capacity to satisfy US demand. Why don't Y2Kers simply pick up a $500 gasoline generator at Home Depot or their local hardware store? Day believes they're so worried about the oft-criticized reliability of the portable units, that they're willing to pay diesel prices, starting at $1,750. "The main thing is the longevity and fuel economy of the diesel," he said. Diesel fuel is an oil, so it keeps longer than gasoline, which spoils after a year. Those Y2K consumers who dread running out of fuel are also turning to renewable energy. "We're totally swamped by Y2K," said Laura Myers, a sales representative for solar equipment distributor Sunelco. "We're beginning to see some lead times on some of our products. By next spring it's going to be insane." Sales at the Hamilton, Montana-based Sunelco have tripled because of Y2K, Myers said. She predicts that orders placed after next spring won't arrive until 2000. "It's been a huge increase," said Davy Rippner, a vice president at Alternative Energy Engineering, a California-based firm. "The things that we're out of and we can't keep in stock are the Baygen [hand-cranked] radios and the Russian-made hand-dynamo flashlights." Then there are the full-blown home solar systems, which start at $3,000 and can range up to $30,000. "A lot of small installers around the country that have been struggling to make a living are now booked for months in advance," said Karen Perez, who publishes Home Power magazine with her husband Richard from the couple's off-the-grid home outside of Ashland, Oregon. The Perez family won't do anything to prepare for Y2K -- except spend time handling the sharp uptick in recent subscriptions to their magazine. "We're six miles from the nearest phone and power line," she said. "As far as Y2K with us, the only thing that I'm planning on doing personally is getting a stash of non-hybrid seeds." Non-hybrid seeds are particularly prized by Y2Kers who stay up nights worrying that potential widespread computer crashes could disrupt food distribution. Most hardware store seeds are hybrid varieties. They grow well, but they can be sterile. Since seeds from hybrid plants may not germinate, some Y2Kers are stockpiling the non-hybrid varieties. "[We've been] getting calls about bulk seeds and buying in quantities and packing them for storage for some period of time," said Dave Smith, vice president of Seeds of Change in Santa Fe, New Mexico. "We definitely think that there will be an increase in sales because of this problem." Burt Blumert doesn't need to speculate. The Burlingame, California, company he owns, Camino Coin, has seen sales of precious metal coins double from last year because of Y2K jitters. "It's widespread now," Blumert said. In May, Blumert began to run ads for a "Y2K Life Preserver," a $3,500 collection of coins that includes British gold sovereigns, silver dollars, and pre-1965 silver dimes and quarters. He markets the collection as a kind of financial Y2K insurance policy, just in case banking glitches or more widespread problems call for a permanent currency. "When people buy gold, they're dropping out," he said. "This is the ultimate dropout, when the institutions themselves aren't working." Copyright © 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************
Seems to me that it would have been just as easy for "believer" to send the URL to the story as the whole thing. Same with ol'VZ. Not only is it in poor taste, but it means less people will read the article on wired.com, which is what pays the rent. -Declan At 01:28 PM 11-7-98 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
From: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:22:46 -0600 To: believer@telepath.com
Source: Wired http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16035.html?3
Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers by Declan McCullagh
4:00 a.m.5.Nov.98.PST The phones are already ringing when Steve
At 9:35 PM -0800 11/7/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Seems to me that it would have been just as easy for "believer" to send the URL to the story as the whole thing. Same with ol'VZ.
Not only is it in poor taste, but it means less people will read the article on wired.com, which is what pays the rent.
Myself, I try to mostly just snip out a few paragraphs of a story and comment on them, fair use and all. However, Declan's point about "what pays the rent" brings up an obvious point: does _anybody_ look at those damned banner ads? This is the new "blind spot"...that foveal region about a third of the way down a Web page screen that has dancing icons, "click on me" junk, and corporate logos. My guess is that nearly all of us skip this junk completely, and I think marketing studies will someday confirm this. (There have been tantalizing reports in places like the "Wall Street Journal" that basically almost nobody sees these ads, but the full message hasn't sunk in.) And the advertising creeps are getting even creepier. Intel was running a banner ad that looked like a typical Mac or Windows error/alert box, something like "Click Here to Resume Operation." Creepy. And annoying. And even my current favorite search engine, Metacrawler, now has banner ads scattered throughout the search results. Tonight's ad (they change frequently, of course) even looked like a *search script*! A field for entering text and then an OK button...I didn't try it, but it was obviously an attempt to mislead people--embedding a search script inside a search result. (It was a "fake search script" to "Find people just like you," from "PlanetAll.com") And the common pages--Wired, Yahoo, Excite, Dejanews, .....--devote the left third to junky promotions, the top fourth to their damned name ("Metacrawler" in 40-point type), and then scatter banned ads across a third of what's remaining. It's not uncommon for only 2-3 search results to come back on a screen of 1024 x 768. Declan's own site, Wired.com, runs junk across the top, junk on the left side, junk on the right side, and doesn't even use the screen real estate. His story on Y2K, for example, is crammed into about a column inch or two in the center. This is what we've come to. Beautiful high resolution screens with junk filling them. (Yes, I tried the utilities which purport to flush banner ads, but they didn't work well (long delays, cruftiness).) Friends of mine routinely turn off all graphics, a point I'm about to reach. So, Declan may think the banner ads at Wired.com pay the rent, and the bean counters may think this is so, but I doubt any of us are looking at the ads. Except the dummies. --Tim May Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
I like the wired.com site and hit it almost daily. I consider it one of the highest quality sites on the net, and their system of linking to other daily articles on other sites I really like. (wish they would summarize their articles better though before you click through-- something that they have resisted for a long time but for what reason I have no idea) I do look at banner ads but rarely click on them. regrding copyright issues on the web, there is an interesting article in an old CUD called "the cyberspatial copyright" that captures my own thinking on the subject, for anyone with the lack of laziness to seek it out <g> it would have been nice if Declan identified his affiliation with Wired in his complaint.. a nice post TCM, you have written on the idea of the worthlessness of banner ads long ago. but you've been way wrong too (er, ah, more diplmatically, "off") based on your old posts. I recall a post, I think, in which you predicted that ads would eventually be thrown away on the net after proven worthless. your current msg contains a similar theme. clearly the absolute opposite has happened. ads are successfully funding the net and entire new cool and innovative startups such as "doubleclick" etc. that are in many ways "virtual businesses" that run on information flow. 3rd wave, alvin toffler, is definitely HERE. TCM, you appear never to have worked in advertising. advertisers do not put out ads so that every person who reads it buys the product or clicks on the ad. they are satisfied with 1/100 "click thrus", and that's exactly what they get. online advertising is very,very cost effective if done properly. it can really be "microtargeted" in a way existing advertising isn't. so TCM, you are confusing two issues. advertising in general is annoying, ubiquitous, in-your-face in our culture. some estimates are that 1000+ ads are seen daily by each individual when you look at tv, magazine, outdoor, etc. online advertising shares all these traits. however, online advertising does not have to be a miracle cure. it only has to be as good (but idealy better) than *existing* advertising systems in use. and they are very inefficient and wasteful at times if you are aware of that industry. online advertising is downright streamlined compared to other forms that have preceded it. consider the breakthrough of geocities in which entire free *personal* (not corporate!!) web sites are supported by advertising solely!! geocities is a small cyberspace miracle unappreciated by many. they are growing insanely and their quality is getting to be really top notch. personally I think online advertsiing is really cool because it is funding the civilization of cyberspace. it's annoying and tacky and in-your-face, but it pays the bills, and is doing more so every day. it will get less obnoxious over time in some ways as you begin to run into only the ads that interest you based on "microtargeting" so to speak. you buy stuff, right TCM? well online ads may get to the point where you stop complaining and find them a very valuable resource to make your buying decisions--even objectively (for example an ad could link to an objective 3rd part like "consumer reports"). I think this day is not too far off. in many ways it is already here.
On Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 11:50:05PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
Myself, I try to mostly just snip out a few paragraphs of a story and comment on them, fair use and all.
I particularly dislike articles that are things forwarded from other lists without comment (IP seems a particular offender here). These are rarely interesting.
This is the new "blind spot"...that foveal region about a third of the way down a Web page screen that has dancing icons, "click on me" junk, and corporate logos. My guess is that nearly all of us skip this junk completely, and I think marketing studies will someday confirm this. (There have been tantalizing reports in places like the "Wall Street Journal" that basically almost nobody sees these ads, but the full message hasn't sunk in.)
Click through rates are something like 2%, so most are screening them out. I rarely noticed what the ads actually said.
(Yes, I tried the utilities which purport to flush banner ads, but they didn't work well (long delays, cruftiness).)
I don't know which ones you have tried but junkbuster http://www.junkbuster.org/ (a proxy on port 8000) works _very_ well on my linux system, particularly with the "blank gif" patch. It blanks out 99% of banner gifs, which makes pages like metacrawler and wired look more visually attractive and load faster. Until I lost all the banner ads I hadn't realised how distracting all those animated gifs at the top of the screen were and its now much faster and easier to read the info you want, without them.
Friends of mine routinely turn off all graphics, a point I'm about to reach.
I tried this but found it made the net too hard to use.
So, Declan may think the banner ads at Wired.com pay the rent, and the bean counters may think this is so, but I doubt any of us are looking at the ads. Except the dummies.
It would give a brave browser manufactor (Opera?) quite an advantage if they built the banner ad killer into the browser directly. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk http://www.pineal.com/ i'm a programmer: i don't buy software, i write it. --tom christiansen
Tim May wrote:
This is the new "blind spot"...that foveal region about a third of the way down a Web page screen that has dancing icons, "click on me" junk, and corporate logos. My guess is that nearly all of us skip this junk completely, and I think marketing studies will someday confirm this. (There have been tantalizing reports in places like the "Wall Street Journal" that basically almost nobody sees these ads, but the full message hasn't sunk in.)
And the advertising creeps are getting even creepier. Intel was running a banner ad that looked like a typical Mac or Windows error/alert box, something like "Click Here to Resume Operation." Creepy. And annoying.
Yep, I ignore them completely. A few of those search here type things did catch my attention. My basic hatred of these isn't that they exist, but that they're large, annoying, and animated. Typically, soon as I see the page fully load I hit ESC or the Stop icon to prevent these evil horrors from popping up. A much more evil thing that I've seen when visiting pages of tripod or other free web site members and now warehouse.com are actual Java Japplets or JavaScripts that pop up another window with an advertisement. Tripod or one of those (I tend to try and forget the ads as hard as I can) has also taken to putting a TV like lower right corner logo that hangs around, even when you scroll the window -- what's really nasty about these fucking things is that they scroll a bit with the window, then jump back to the bottom. What's next? In your face pop up Gif89 movies with AU/WAV sound tracks that can't be dismissed until they play completely before you get to see the content pages? Some places (like Wired?) are annoying since they have a window that's 1/3 content with ads on top and on the side and bottom. I'm trying to read the fucking article, not trying to be distracted by the flashing, flickering eye sores to the right and left. :( Some of the really fucked up sites actually have porno ads with porn in them, which makes them real welcome if I ever visit a page from my work. I wouldn't mind the pr0n if I was at home, but such things are frowned upon at work, and fuck, I didn't even ask to see the shit... :( Talk about feeping creatureism. This is about as bad as flashing HTML was in its inception. Sure you can disable JavaScript, but if you do some sites won't work at all. Ditto for Japplets. Might be nice to have some sort of filter list for browsers that says "If GIF89 and (it's linked elsewhere, or to a CGI or at the top of the page)" don't show it. I guess it's time to do some Mozilla source hacking... -- =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Sunder |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================
In <36471E6E.3E8E96D4@brainlink.com>, on 11/09/98 at 11:55 AM, Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> said:
Might be nice to have some sort of filter list for browsers that says "If GIF89 and (it's linked elsewhere, or to a CGI or at the top of the page)" don't show it. I guess it's time to do some Mozilla source hacking...
Rather than hacking nutscrape you might want to run through a modified proxy and have it filter all such garbage. This stuff is not a problem as I only run textmode for http with no java/javascript. If I can't navigate a website that way it is their loss. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh
-
Ray Arachelian
-
Steve Mynott
-
Tim May
-
Vladimir Z. Nuri
-
William H. Geiger III