Slashdot Mirror

I completely agree with your point regarding total cost, most people don't factor everything. However, I would say that if you are willing to live without the status symbol of a new car, you can do a bit better with used cars.

Most people can't bear to drive around a two generation old model and give up the status of owning the latest and greatest. But it is less than half the cost. If you are willing to drive slightly older vehicles, not only do you spend far less, but you save more of the environment. The total environmental cost of producing a new car is (by some sources) two times the cost of the car itself.

Example: Here in the states, you can buy an eight year-old Honda Accord with about 80K miles on it for around $7,000. This is a car that is going to go to 180k miles, meaning you can drive it at least 100,000 miles for an upfront cost of $0.07 / mile. Do your research, this is a car that will require very little maintenance with not much more than a timing belt, brakes and a CV joint or two. Here's the math for my typical annualized costs:

Upfront Cost: $1,050 (15,000 miles)
Maintenance: $500 (gratuitous, I spend less)
Gas: $1,280 (27 miles/gallon at $2.30/gal)
Insurance: $450 (no collision)
Taxes: $80

TOTAL: $3,360 / year ($0.224 / mile)

This is a 4-door, mid-sized car, with full safety features, airbags, windows and mirrors, nice paint, air conditioning, moon roof, quality wheels, etc. Drop back to a smaller car (like a Honda Civic) and you can do even better ($2,000 less upfront cost or about $0.03/mile). The trick is to find a well made automobile that doesn't need a lot of on-going maintenance, you have to read good consumer information (Consumer Reports:Used Cars) to properly evaluate.

The metro area in which I live has terrible mass transit, it would take me almost four hours to commute the 15 miles I do to work. Biking is deadly, there are no bikelanes and only narrow roads and highways. Same goes for just about everything else we do, mass transit is not an option. But this proves that one can still own a safe car, save money and the environment. Just don't buy everything shiney and new the car makers are hawking.

Consumer Reports has a somewhat up to date chart of their most recent survey for tech support for Laptops and Desktops.

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv4.jsp?C ONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=596745&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=16 2693

Not only that but the Ionic Breeze doesn't work. So, not only are you saving money, but your solution actually works!

Unless you've got a case that has an Ionic Breeze built into it

Dell was one of his vendors. As far as notebook support is concerned, Dell doesn't fare well when compared to Apple.

Here you go. $26/year or $5/month should give you access to reviews of pretty near everything under the sun.

You're welcome.

Consumer Reports has a different opinion. Apple Rated #1 in Customer Support

"At 9.0 for desktops and 9.2 for notebooks, Apple's impressive reliability scores are at least a point higher than the industry averages. Nearly all respondents to our survey who supplied quotes about their Apple desktops found them extremely reliable. Compared with other brands, a much lower percentage of Apple desktop systems needed repairs over the last year."

Too few respondents report needing support with or repairs to their Apple computers to rate the company in these areas. Last year, Apple had better-than-average support for its desktops and notebooks, and its notebook repairs were similarly well regarded. (There were also too few respondents to rate desktop repairs in 2003.)

"In recent subscriber surveys, Consumer Reports has found Apple laptops to be among the most reliable and Apple technical support to be top-notch. Apple computers are also less susceptible to most viruses and spyware than Windows-based computers. The Apple PowerBook is relatively expensive as laptops go, however. "

That's funny, they must have paid off ConsumerReports then. Note: the links require subscription, I can't find articles that are free-reg.

Here's a summary of what the articles say:

For Desktops (3/05):

"Quick Picks For reliability and support: 12 Apple (built-in 17-inch LCD display) $1,675 Apple provides top-notch reliability and support. Its computers are currently less vulnerable to viruses and spyware than Windows-based models. On the downside, however, the Apple has limited internal expandability. If you add an extra hard drive, it must be an external one."

"For reliability and support: 18 Apple $1,300 Apple has been a reliable brand and has the best record for tech support."

That's funny, they must have paid off ConsumerReports then. Note: the links require subscription, I can't find articles that are free-reg.

Here's a summary of what the articles say:

For Desktops (3/05):

"Quick Picks For reliability and support: 12 Apple (built-in 17-inch LCD display) $1,675 Apple provides top-notch reliability and support. Its computers are currently less vulnerable to viruses and spyware than Windows-based models. On the downside, however, the Apple has limited internal expandability. If you add an extra hard drive, it must be an external one."

"For reliability and support: 18 Apple $1,300 Apple has been a reliable brand and has the best record for tech support."

Then why is it that Apple is consistently ranked #1, ahead of all other vendors, in customer service and support, and has been for years? I wouldn't call that an "adversarial relationship" with customers. (1,2)

Consumer Reports is probably at least a little more reliable, and their survey likes Apple desktops. I'm not a subscriber so I can't see their laptop rating or methodology, so that report probably isn't fully reliable either, but I imagine it at least has a larger cross-section of people than PCWorld.

If anyone else knows where to find better data about PC quality, I'd be delighted to follow a link.

Consumer Reports is a such a respected publication because they have strict standards for the products they test. They don't accept items from the product makers, they go out into the marketplace and buy their test subjects using cash whenever possible. (Up until a while ago they even bought cars with cash, until they realized that car dealers began recognizing them as the only people who paid cash for cars, and the IRS requirement of reporting large cash transactions got in their way too.) As a result, their tests are immune to any tweaking...

It'd be nice if the tech publications could afford to do this, because at times they start to resemble the video game websites set up by kids who do it only to get prerelease copies of games for free under the guise of reviewing them. Such kids always have to write glowing reviews of everything they get because as soon as they post a negative review their stream of free stuff grinds to a halt.

Bottom line is that there's a foolproof way of preventing tampering in any review, but it costs money. Any review that involves accepting free stuff compromises the integrity from the start.

As offered here, IF the box mentions any sort of "By using this software..." kind of message on the outside of the box then the buyer is at fault.

Not necessarily. Federal law says any information that's "material" to a consumer's buying decision must be "clear and conspicuous".

Here is an article that talks about this - the relevant part is about 2/3 the way down.

'"The FTC would not comment on our readers' fine print. However, "Consumers shouldn't have to use a magnifying glass to read important terms and conditions of any offer, " says Timothy J. Muris, FTC chairman. "Burying important terms in mouseprint is illegal, unethical, and ultimately bad business." He pledged to take action against offenders.'

I would say that most consumers, buying a box containing pretty much anything, would think when they pony up their money that they are buying not just the box but also the contents of the box. It would seem to me, then, that the license terms, or at least the fact that there is a license, is "material" information that's necessary for consumers to make an informed purchase decision. Therefore, if that information is not clearly and conspicuously displayed on the box, the consumer would have legal recourse if they decided they did not agree to the license upon installing the game and could not get their money back immediately.

From what I understand from other posts, this information is not clear and conspicuous on the box, and therefore Valve is in violation of federal law.

Anyone who's downloaded the game via Steam remember if the EULA is displayed before or after providing your CC#? Or if, at least, there's some sort of checkbox saying you agree to the linked terms and conditions before clicking the submit button? If not, seems to me that would be a violation of law as well.

I don't know how or if this would affect these 20,000 people who had their accounts shut off (it probably wouldn't), but it would affect somebody who bought the game and then decided they didn't like the license afterwards. Valve needs to put this info on the box. They also need to say the product requires activation on the box. I know other software publishers don't do this, but as this is a fairly new concept I just don't think any companies have been sued for it yet. But they will be eventually, as it's definitely material information.

(I know EULA's themselves have been challenged and have been upheld in courts - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about providing customers with information prior to purchase informing them of both the existence of a EULA and the requirement of product activation. They can still be required to agree to the EULA upon installing the product.)

There may be other laws Valve is violating with the 20,000 accounts they've disabled, though. They can't, for example, take away products you've legally purchased because you stole a different product. That would be equivalent to the RIAA wiping your hard drive remotely because they found one illegal MP3 on it. Or the police confiscating your legally purchased Corvette and Mustang because the 350Z on your lot was listed in their database as stolen.

I don't know exactly what their EULA says, if there's some clause in there that says violation of the license for one product is equivalent to violation of the license for all products you own. I honestly doubt there is, but even if there is I'm not sure it'd hold up in court. No EULA can overturn federal, state, or local law. All a EULA can do is say "this is the law and this is how we're applying it to this product". They can't make up their own laws in a EULA. So if consumer laws protect customers from having products confiscated that have nothing to do with a crime that's been committed, as many states do, then the EULA is not going to be able to override that.

Do we (consumers) need to start a database to somehow screw businesses now too?

Of course, retailers would dearly like those guys to be buried six feet deep...

That's the most recent one that doesn't require a subscription, but Apple is consistently and continually number one in lack of need for repairs, number one in product quality, and number one in support. This has been true for years, and was still true in Consumer Reports' most recent report a couple of months ago.

Just a comment about Underwriters Laboratories...

As an employee of the company, I can say with reasonable confidence that It's not a consortium of anything; nor is it a government-backed initiative.

It's a privately held, not-for-profit corporation that performs 3rd-party safety testing. Very much like Consumer Reports, with the exception that we do not do performance testing (unless a customer wants it.)

Later...

Because, you know, there's no way that a private consumer organization could ever replace government, or provide more value.

Thanks for demonstrating the benefits of public education there. While the government may keep people from "dieing", it has a very bad track record in education.

One could even present the argument that a group of competing private testing companies would provide more value and safety than one centralized body that isn't accountable for the costs when they screw up.

As far as the FDA's real track record, look up the histories of things like Saccharin, Cyclamates...

Look at some of the new science being done about DDT

Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] has nothing to worry about from IBM.

IBM's GXP Deathstar hard drives [slashdot.org], as/. regulars are well [slashdot.org] aware of [slashdot.org], are exactly that. Death comes to your data on these drives eventually [techreport.com]. Too bad for a large number of customers [techreport.com], it came sooner rather than later.

When the news first broke [techreport.com] on these drives, some [techreport.com] tech sites [storagereview.com] came out [viahardware.com] with the news, and others [tomshardware.com] kept fairly silent. Silence isn't a crime. But continuing to use Deathstars in review gear should be. Why? Because some readers, myself included, used reviews and testing gear examples from Tom's Hardware to build our first computers. Take advice and recommendations from the experts, and you get a better computer, right?

As the current/. story points out, why bite the hand that feeds you advance facts on hardware under ndas, and direct contact with company engineers?

Consumer Reports [consumerreports.org] buys everything [consumerreports.org] they test. With the money that Tom's Hardware has made from advertising on its site (from reader views), they should be doing the same.

Don't take my word for it. Check the dates of when the Deathstar stories first appeared. Then check the hardware reviews on Tom's Hardware. Not just hard drive reviews. Check reviews of other hardware related or dependent upon hard drive speed to get some benchmarks or results. Then see what hard drives are used in the benchmarks, and in the review gear.

While some of their readers went down in flames, others were announcing that the there was a problem, and they continued on as if nothing was wrong. They may have acknowledged the problem in a small story or two iirc (maybe not even that), but they continued using the hard drives in their review gear, without a footnote or warning about them.

Why? emx

Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] has nothing to worry about from IBM.

IBM's GXP Deathstar hard drives [slashdot.org], as/. regulars are well [slashdot.org] aware of [slashdot.org], are exactly that. Death comes to your data on these drives eventually [techreport.com]. Too bad for a large number of customers [techreport.com], it came sooner rather than later.

When the news first broke [techreport.com] on these drives, some [techreport.com] tech sites [storagereview.com] came out [viahardware.com] with the news, and others [tomshardware.com] kept fairly silent. Silence isn't a crime. But continuing to use Deathstars in review gear should be. Why? Because some readers, myself included, used reviews and testing gear examples from Tom's Hardware to build our first computers. Take advice and recommendations from the experts, and you get a better computer, right?

As the current/. story points out, why bite the hand that feeds you advance facts on hardware under ndas, and direct contact with company engineers?

Consumer Reports [consumerreports.org] buys everything [consumerreports.org] they test. With the money that Tom's Hardware has made from advertising on its site (from reader views), they should be doing the same.

Don't take my word for it. Check the dates of when the Deathstar stories first appeared. Then check the hardware reviews on Tom's Hardware. Not just hard drive reviews. Check reviews of other hardware related or dependent upon hard drive speed to get some benchmarks or results. Then see what hard drives are used in the benchmarks, and in the review gear.

While some of their readers went down in flames, others were announcing that the there was a problem, and they continued on as if nothing was wrong. They may have acknowledged the problem in a small story or two iirc (maybe not even that), but they continued using the hard drives in their review gear, without a footnote or warning about them.

Why? emx

The Microsoft codec looks like a cheaper alternative than the others. But of course, Microsoft's history strongly suggests that it'll subsidize its entry into a market, then apply the screws later once it has got leverage. But then, Sony has its own market domination techniques. On the third hand, IBM was topped by just such arrogance. At least consumers are moving away from dependence on physical media, so we might get to escape into a a world of our own alternatives, no matter what these giant players decide for us.

BTW, your .sig has an interesting link to the Annenberg factcheck.org. That's like a rudimentary Consumer Reports for politics. I'd like to see a class action lawsuit, on behalf of a politician's constituents, suing for damages from breach of contract in broken campaign promises. Speeches, ads, platforms: they're all well documented agreements that are routinely violated. It might start with just a single town school board member, and build precedent to keep the president straight.

you can call me when these things are an actual PRODUCT
You know, it's not like anyone called you here in the first place. This is Slashdot and we discuss technologies that are being developed. Don't like it? Then leave it. Go read Consumer Reports instead.

Linux Today used to be one of my favorite magazines. Well, I guess is still is, but it doesn't hold a candle to MacWorld. Just like I have little interest in Linux on my desktop (I use it a great deal for servers), now that OS X is as good as it is, my magazine tastes have changed accordingly.

Unrelated completely, but I recommend Consumer Reports every chance I get. Not just the magazine, but the online subscription to see past reports. You will never have a better consumer advocate that Consumer Reports and their publisher, Consumers Union.

Back to tech, If I haven't already let my Wired subscription go, I will next time I get a chance. Fluff.

RP

Linux Journal is a great magazine too. Their articles are incredibly rich in technical details - and the coverage isn't just linux kernel focused. They also have great articles about system administration tools, embedded systems, new hardware and general open source software development. They do accept advertising, but the ads are actually useful and relevant -- embedded h/w suppliers, cluster computing manufacturers, hosting providers, etc. I'm sure this is all preaching to the choir, though.

I wonder if they have plans to move this into other, higher quality vehicles in the future? While I admit that BMW's are very expensive and prestigous, independent car reviews like Consumer Reports always give them the lowest possible marks for reliability, a key indicator of quality. Any chance they're going to port this to high quality makes such as Nissan, Honda or (the king of reliability) Toyota?

Before anyone flames me -1 Troll or something, here's a link to the Consumer Reports review of the BMW 3-series. Consumer Reports does not accept advertising dollars and has been independent and objective for decades (you need a subscription). Their electrical systems and power equipment get the absolute worst rating and they managed the bare minimum "reliability check-mark" only three years out of eight studied. And that's the best of the bunch! Their SUV line gets some of the worst quality marks in automobile history.

God, why would the quality leader in portable music hook up with a quality sinkhole like BMW? People who pay the premium for iPods pay for their stuff to just work. People who buy BMW's pay a premium for prestige, and don't mind if the car breaks down twenty times a year. These are two totally separate markets.

I strongly recommend Consumer Reports, both the print version (monthly) and the online searchable database. Neither are free, because they don't accept any advertising. They don't even accept free stuff from manufacturers to test. They go out and pay retail for everything that they rate. They're a non-profit organization and they do an excellent job. They not only tell you the best of a given category, but they also tell you the best value, which is not necessarily the best.

My only problem with Consumer Reports is that there are a lot of geeky things that I'm interested in that they don't touch, because they're geared towards the mainstream consumer. Understandable. All in all, some of the best money I've ever spent is on Consumer Reports.

RP

Consumers Union (which publishes Consumer Reports) was sued by Suzuki in 1988 when it reported problems with its SUVs. The lawsuit was initially dismissed, but Suzuki appealed and they're back in court.

Tom's Hardware has nothing to worry about from IBM.

IBM's GXP Deathstar hard drives, as /. regulars are well aware of, are exactly that. Death comes to your data on these drives eventually. Too bad for a large number of customers, it came sooner rather than later.

When the news first broke on these drives, some tech sites came out with the news, and others kept fairly silent. Silence isn't a crime. But continuing to use Deathstars in review gear should be. Why? Because some readers, myself included, used reviews and testing gear examples from Tom's Hardware to build our first computers. Take advice and recommendations from the experts, and you get a better computer, right?

As the current /. story points out, why bite the hand that feeds you advance facts on hardware under ndas, and direct contact with company engineers?

Consumer Reports buys everything they test. With the money that Tom's Hardware has made from advertising on its site (from reader views), they should be doing the same.

Don't take my word for it. Check the dates of when the Deathstar stories first appeared. Then check the hardware reviews on Tom's Hardware. Not just hard drive reviews. Check reviews of other hardware related or dependent upon hard drive speed to get some benchmarks or results. Then see what hard drives are used in the benchmarks, and in the review gear.

While some of their readers went down in flames, others were announcing that the there was a problem, and they continued on as if nothing was wrong. They may have acknowledged the problem in a small story or two iirc (maybe not even that), but they continued using the hard drives in their review gear, without a footnote or warning about them.

Why?

Tom's Hardware has nothing to worry about from IBM.

IBM's GXP Deathstar hard drives, as /. regulars are well aware of, are exactly that. Death comes to your data on these drives eventually. Too bad for a large number of customers, it came sooner rather than later.

When the news first broke on these drives, some tech sites came out with the news, and others kept fairly silent. Silence isn't a crime. But continuing to use Deathstars in review gear should be. Why? Because some readers, myself included, used reviews and testing gear examples from Tom's Hardware to build our first computers. Take advice and recommendations from the experts, and you get a better computer, right?

As the current /. story points out, why bite the hand that feeds you advance facts on hardware under ndas, and direct contact with company engineers?

Consumer Reports buys everything they test. With the money that Tom's Hardware has made from advertising on its site (from reader views), they should be doing the same.

Don't take my word for it. Check the dates of when the Deathstar stories first appeared. Then check the hardware reviews on Tom's Hardware. Not just hard drive reviews. Check reviews of other hardware related or dependent upon hard drive speed to get some benchmarks or results. Then see what hard drives are used in the benchmarks, and in the review gear.

While some of their readers went down in flames, others were announcing that the there was a problem, and they continued on as if nothing was wrong. They may have acknowledged the problem in a small story or two iirc (maybe not even that), but they continued using the hard drives in their review gear, without a footnote or warning about them.

Why?

Consumer Reports consistently ranks Apple #1 in lowest incidence of repair and best support among all computer manufacturers.

Most recent Consumer Reports report available on their web site (June 2003)
Most recent report, available to CR subscribers, referenced in News.com article (March 2004)

So if Apple's support is "horrible", then I guess everyone else is a lot worse (especially since Dell, the next closest to Apple, got the middle rating on 3 out of 4 support categories, while Apple got the top rating in all categories).

Overall, the WSJ's total paid subscriptions -- online + print -- have increased. This number (2,091,062) excludes deep discounted subscriptions (under 25% of paper edition's cost) and only counts once those who subscribe to both. Numbers here.

The WSJ's online publishing has been a major success. I think only Consumer Reports has had comparable success with paid online subscriptions. I can't remember their numbers off the top of my head though.

iPod Battery FAQ

http://ipodbatteryfaq.com/

Q: Is the iPod's battery replaceable?

A: Yes. Apple has an official battery replacement program for $99. You send your iPod in (any model iPod), and Apple will replace the battery for $99. AppleCare programs for iPod will also soon be available in Europe.

Q: Is the iPod's battery user-replaceable?

A1: Yes and no. The iPod's case is not designed to be opened, so, in that respect, it's not what would generally be referred to as "user-replaceable". But, the case can be opened, and there are several third parties that offer replacement batteries for the iPod, such as iPodBattery.com (instructions, with pictures: original, non-"dockable" iPod, new, slim "dockable" iPod) and PDASmart, for as low as $49. Some will even do the replacement for you if you send it in.

A2: TechTV's Call for Help has a story, with video , discussing and demonstrating replacing an iPod battery (the video was produced before the Apple service options were available).

Q: What is the iPod's warranty? Does it cover the battery? Is there any way to extend it?

A1: The iPod warranty is one year. It does cover the battery.

A2: You can extend the iPod's warranty, including battery coverage, to two years with AppleCare Protection Plan for iPod. Numerous retailers, such as Best Buy, CompUSA, Circuit City, etc., also have very inexpensive extended warranty coverage available for iPod. Often these plans simply replace the product with a comparable new unit.

Q: What's the deal? Does Apple think the iPod is disposable?

A: No. Like all Apple products, the iPod is engineered to last. This is why Apple is consistently ranked number one in product quality and support by leading consumer groups, such as Consumer Reports.

Q: I heard that the iPod's battery only lasts 18 months, and then you have to buy a new iPod! Is that true?

A1: NO! The vast, vast majority of even the earliest iPods, now over two years old, continue to function just fine. Some iPods, however, have had issues with batteries. Lithium ion batteries are only good for 300 to 500 charge/discharge cycles (more). For this reason, certain customers' usage patterns may cause the batteries to degrade, or fail, sooner than others.

A2: If the battery does fail, and the iPod is no longer under its original one year warranty or $59 AppleCare Protection Plan for iPod, or any of numerous third party service plans, you don't have to buy a new iPod. You may replace the battery yourself for as little as $49, or have Apple perform the replacement for $99.

Q: Why didn't Apple use better batteries?

A: Apple uses the best lithium ion battery technology available from leading battery manufacturers. This is the best, most cost effective battery technology available given the requirements of the device.

I like the idea in theory, but I don't think that it would be beneficial in practice. I'm a programmer for a mid-sized business, and I'm already hugely annoyed by bureaucratic red tape. Why create more?

Instead, what if there was a review body similar to the Consumers Union? They could test and review a variety of software (business, home productivity, entertainment) and produce their reviews similar to the magazine Consumer Reports.

Supposedly, this is what the magazine shelves are already filled with. In practice, those magazines are concerned only with following whatever is hyped as "the hot new thing", instantly forgotten after its release. Or sometimes recalled in the December-issue "year in review".

Consumers Union, on the other hand, is not concerned with "sneak previews" of new products. Instead it reviews stuff over the long haul, bringing the name of the manufacturer back into discussion with each new review. It asks the same review questions (does the reality match the marketing), but after the product has already been in use by consumers. They pool their member's money in order to purchase actual products, which they then test to the point of destruction.

This kind of review is very useful to people who aren't addicted to buying the latest gadget on its release day. For people who are addicted, they don't have the moral authority to blame the manufacturer for the bad stuff they're selling. Stop buying it first, then complain so that neophytes aren't suckered into becoming new addicts. (For instance, I never paid George Lucas one red cent for his Clown Wars. I boycotted after the disaster that was Episode I. If it's garbage, then stop buying it.)

I would imagine tapes went quicker; there were very few cars manufactured eight track players, and probably none with LP's.

Actually...

Seems like a disaster in the making to me, but people gotta have their tunes!

Explain Microsoft again to me then? Bottled water? 93 Octane gasoline?

Ha!

The answer to all three is marketing.

Many bottled waters just come from the tap in a different city. I have lived in a very few areas where the tap water tastes awful or just has a very high mineral content. By and large, however, tap water is just fine and is no healthier than bottled water.

Where Octane is concerned, consumers believe that higher is better, as with so many other things. Despite studies that reliably show that octane makes no difference as long as your car is not knocking on the octane you're using.

Microsoft? Marketing. Well, plus other "tactics" too. :)

And to the topic parent, who would have thought that Google could arise and compete against such a well established competitor? When there is not an artificial barrier to entry, it's not uncommon for a small new company to challenge an established market leader.

Such fees are not necessarily standard. Take the Universal Service Fee, a 7.2 percent federal levy imposed to help subsidize phone service for rural communities, low-income citizens, schools, and hospitals. All four major carriers charged more than than 7.2 percent for that fee. Such discrepancies arise from variations in the way companies apply the fee. Until recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said that it has no authority to intervene if companies collect more than they need, but now the agency is considering a proposal to do just that.

Other charges look like they are government-mandated but aren't. Sprint, for example, uses a separate billing line for for property taxes it pays.

SAProxy for Windows (Based on SpamAssassin) got the highest marks.

The article mentioned is on CNN, not Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports' web site is consumerreports.org.

Your best bet is to do some real research rather than relying upon the anecdotal experiences of Slashdot readers and friends.

Consumer Reports tends to review televisions every few months. Their most recent comprehensive review (27-36 inches, HD-ready, and projection) was in the March 2003 issue. Perhaps your local library has a copy? They also have most of their content online at www.consumerreports.org for a $4.95 monthly subscription ($24 per year).

If you're considering spending $1000, it's worth spending $5 on research.

If the content is worth it, people will pay.

Consumer Reports, which accepts no ads, has been in operation since 1936. The online version is $24 per year. I think it is fair to characterize $2 per month as a micropayment (the Digiworld subscription is roughly 89 cents per week), so this is proof by example that the business model can work.

"Just by knowing the birth date and ZIP code of the governor of Massachusetts, Latanya Sweeney, a computer-privacy researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, was able to retrieve his health records from a supposedly anonymous database of state employee health-insurance claims. Sweeney also demonstrated that she could do the same for 69 percent of the 54,805 people on the voting list of Cambridge, Mass."

"...don't get complacent: anonymity is hard to achieve. Where once a company needed a name, address, phone number, or Social Security number to identify a person, database technology has made that unnecessary. "Eighty-seven percent of the population of the US can be uniquely identified [only] by their date of birth, gender, and five-digit zip code," says Latanya Sweeney, ALB '95 assistant professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh."

"Recent work includes:

* Identifiability server -- a computational system that determines the identifiability of given data sets and/or of individuals in the United States based on either field descriptions of the data set or on actual data values. For example, combinations of values such as {date of birth, gender, 5-digit ZIP} combine to uniquely identify 87% of the population in the United States."

Same fatal flaw as every free product info model - business-based info (ads) vice the info wanted by the user. Every form of this idea has the same problem.

My local newspaper web site has a business pages link, but only pulls up those who are paying to be there, so it is not usefull at all. The local yellow pages are only usefull in this way because almost EVERYBODY is listed. When shopping for anything, I don't wish for access to the vacuuous drivel on the products web site, I wish for instant lookup in Consumer Reports or other independant review. Ask your OnStar system for the nearest Mexican restraunt and it will drive you right passed three of them to take you to the one that paid to be listed in OnStar's system.

Stupid question of the day: How do you get Slashcode to not put the web site name in square brackets next to a link?

Here is a working link for the report on Consumer Report's site.

A short and free review by Consumer Reports can be summed up by the quote: We weren't impressed
Although you can argue that these PCs are sufficient for most tasks, the fact that they are being sold at Wal-mart opens them up to criticism like this because, really, are wal-mart customers going to know the difference between buying a Windows PC and a Lindows PC? I would buy one of these as a techie, but I wouldn't recommend it to most folks that shop for electronics at Wal-mart.

Whirlpool Polara GR556LRK combines an oven and cooler.

• Auto On Info Reliability Table (and their Maker Average Table)
• Consumer Reports (login required)
• Canadian Auto Association survey (and their Top 10)
• MSN Autos (unverified, doesn't work in Mozilla)

At first I read this as a troll. But I think the issue here is that the poster does not recognize that risk costs money.

Financial services to the poor have, all else equal, much higher default risk. And default costs swamp everything else. Consider that the margin over cost of funds for most consumer credit is 2-3%. A default rate of 1% destroys the profitability.

The problem is that the traditional way of managing risk is to limit the amount of money involved. In other words, someone who makes $20K a year gets a $500 credit limit or a $2000 car loan (for a used car, obviously), and someone who makes $200K gets much more. Interest rates can be the same for both -- it's the size of the loan which limits the risk.

Instead, banks aren't lending to people who make $20K, but other companies are. Instead of giving someone who makes $20K a small loan with reasonable interest, they offer larger loans but with much higher interest. Or they'll make a poorer person put up their house as collateral on a car loan (which is also high interest...). Well, that's not what our poor friend needs, but he pays extra/takes a big risk because that's all he can get.

_That's_ the sort of thing which the post you replied to was talking about. And yes, it's a real problem.

Unsolicited plug: I subscribe to CR both the paper and online versions, it saves me money, wasted time, and lots of bad decisions every year.

When I started out in stereo equipment in the 1970's, you could go to any dealer and get handouts with product specifications on just about any product sold. You could compare transient intermodulation distortion, total harmonic distortion, FM sensitivity, wow & flutter, etc. Now you go into some place like Best Buy or Circuit City and there is nothing but a tag on the shelf. You're lucky if it shows even the most basic specs (e.g., watts per channel, number of discs the changer holds, etc.) and God help you if you ask the salesman for anything more. He'll look at you like you have three heads.

Nowadays we shouldn't have to depend on salespeople to know every detail about every product. They have hundreds/thousands of products in their stores-- even a Slashdot geek would have problems keeping current on the detailed specs on all those items.

Consumers have a huge advantage over salespeople. We can actually research the items we want in depth since we have the advantage of focussing on at most a handful of items. Thanks to how easy it is these days to exchange information it's trivial to get in-depth specifications on whatever we want.

Remember the Bad Old Days before most major vendors had their product info online? People were lucky to find any information anywhere. Brand, faith, and luck were pretty much all we had.

Now, however we can pop right on over to the various manufacturers' websites and get all the information we could want about the product. No info available? Hmmm, maybe that product drops off the list right there.

As if that wasn't enought, we can go to Consumer Reports' website and see what they think of a product. We can go to Epinions and see if a bunch of people we don't know are griping about it. We can check Reseller Ratings to see if an online store is screwing people over, or really trying to do business.

This kind of information flow has the potential to really improve quality and reward quality as word of crappy products/merchants gets out. In addition, we get a better statistical sampling since we have more people commenting than just the one or two we might know who bought the same thing.

Unfortunately, the bitter portion of me has to concede that most people just don't have the motivation to do any research. To them, I say you deserve what you get. ;-)