While GMail may be unacceptable for business communications in a company of 100+ employees, most people realize that in a small business, a separate mail server is just unnecessary overhead. Just because you can "afford" something doesn't mean that you should go ahead and do it.
What am I going to do, spend thousands on an exchange server and get WORSE e-mail service? (I hate Exchange's Web interface.) Even my business partners who have their own e-mail addresses on their domain choose Google Apps For Your Domain.
And while you may not be sure the person you're dealing with is really associated with the domain or the business in question - I've never found that to be a problem for the small shops.
As for communications being scanned by a third party and self-censoring accordingly, I actually trust Google when they say they're scanning for keywords, not context, that it's done via computer, not via human intervention - and it's a moot point anyway. You should self-censor on ANY e-mail communication these days because of warrantless wiretapping.
If my gmail.com e-mail address would make you seriously question the credibility of my business, it pegs you as a customer who values appearance over efficiency and effectiveness, and that's exactly the sort of customer that's not worth having.
-- Brian Boyko -- Sole Proprietor, Blogphilo New Media -- brian.boyko@gmail.com
Here's the weird thing - I think you're right about most people not needing a $1000 machine, but I think you're coming to the wrong conclusions.
Laptops and desktops are in the sub $1000 range for most buyers, because all they need is something to Web Browse/E-mail/Chat/Word Processing/Music/Movies.
What about a programmer or IT geek? Well, they're probably savvy enough to build a computer.
The $1000+ retail market, then, might be looking for something different. So, why would someone buy a $1000+ computer?
Theory 1: The "I can afford it" user.
It is true that Apple represents a counterculture, tasteful aesthetic - at least in their marketing materials. And this does appeal to the high-end, "I make too much money" consumer. But there's also the fact that if you CAN afford a Mac, you then have a choice between a Macintosh and a Windows computer at retail. The Macs have a reputation for being low-maintainance, a stable and secure OS, and simple. When price decreases as a consideration, you look for quality of product.
Theory 2: The Productivity Professional
At the $1000+ range, if price IS a consideration, you're looking at the productivity user - the person who needs the extra power afforded to them by the higher end computer. Music professionals, Video editors, Photo editors and Graphic Designers - and here, Apple's platform has better apps. Yes, there are Video, Photo, Graphic, and Music editors on the Windows platform. By and large, however, the Apple products are higher quality. (I use Final Cut Pro at home on my own projects, but Sony Vegas Pro on my Windows computer at work - work's a "windows only shop." Vegas is good, FCP is better.) If you're going to be dropping good money on something you're using for work, you might as well get the really good stuff instead of the acceptable stuff.
Theory 3: Boot Camp
Quite simply, of the Windows users most likely to have $1000+ computers, they're likely to be gamers, with big video cards and the like. Since the advent of Boot Camp, Macs can make inroads with this market when they previously could not.
The difference between animal-farm style "communism" and free-software style "communism" is that unlike Boxer, you can choose not to work on the windmill if you don't think the windmill is worth it. If no one thinks the windmill is worth it, it won't get developed.
I think I was trying to make the case that the windmill is worth it.
Indeed. I've got a MacBook Pro as my main computer, and an AMD dual-core 4200+ computer in my living room running Windows.
Yet, I prefer Linux as far as the user experience goes. But I don't even have a Linux partition. Why?
It's the apps.
I'm a documentary director so I got the MacBook Pro because I can use it as a monitor and I can use Final Cut Pro. Sony Vegas for windows is good, FCP is better. To date, there is no native GNU/Linux solution that matches the power, stability, and functionality of Final Cut Pro. It has saved me time and energy and has produced some amazing footage. I bought an entire computer and operating system simply for the functionality - FCP, for me, is the Mac killer app.
But I'd rather run FCP on Linux, if I could.
What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app.
Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization.
The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?)
GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent.
So long as the GIMP remains substandard compared to Photoshop (with poor typography support, bad CYMK profiles, etc.) you won't see graphic artists considering Linux. So long as Cinelerra remains substandard compared to Sony Vegas and FCP (with poor stability, complex user interface, no 24p support) you won't get the video guys. So long as gaming continues to be a hassle on Linux, you won't get the gamers.
That's the bad news.
The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at. If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra. Get together a group of buddies and work to tackle problems as a team.
I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.
When I was in college, older friends of mine (improv comedians) used to have contests to see who would be the first to come up with tasteless jokes after a tragedy.
I always thought it was in unbelievably poor taste and refused to participate.
Then I started working 9-5 jobs, paying my own bills, etc.
Yeah, those things probably can kill occasionally. But so can kicking, punching, shooting, even restraining. I'd rather get tasered than kicked, punched, or shot, and if they didn't have a taser, those would be the alternatives. This statement greatly implies that you've never been tazered; it also slightly implies that you've never been kicked or punched.
What's worse? Tasering someone, which only lasts a few seconds and can quick calm down a situation, or just straight out shooting them? Tazering someone. Full stop.
A cop has to consider his actions before he pulls the trigger, and on (admittedly rare) occasions, if he acts inappropriately he can be held accountable. If a cop shoots someone inappropriately, the family will know his name, and can sue in civil court.
If a cop tazers someone inappropriately, and the victim dies, then what are the chances that cop will be held to any standard?
If we hold that power corrupts, shouldn't we be encouraging consequences for abuse of that power?
At any rate, as has been mentioned before, the tazers are not being replacing guns, the tazers are being used in cases where talking to someone would do. A tazer, deployed, does not de-escalate a confrontation, it is escalating the confrontation - and it is the cop who is escalating it.
Keep in mind, I think that the tazer issue is merely a way for people to rally around the real issue, which is America's under-trained, over-violent, out-of-control police forces, without saying that they're "anti-cop." There needs to be a vast cultural shift in police forces before a weapon like a tazer is introduced, but there need to be a vast cultural shift in police forces regardless.
As for myself, I'd rather be shot than tazed, but that's just me.
If shooting someone with a taser was regarded as equal to shooting them with a gun, I'd happily see them deployed all over. Then it would actually be a question of using a taser _instead_ of a gun. There would need to be a great cultural shift to regard tazers as just as lethal as guns, but I suppose I would support replacing cop's guns with tazers entirely. (In cases where guns are actually called for, bring out SWAT.) In the U.K., N.Z., and other areas of the world generally considered safer than most of the U.S., the cops generally go around armed only with batons and leave the guns to the "Armed Offenders Squad."
Here's what many pro-tazer people argue, and I agree that it's a powerful argument: By using tazers in situations where a gun would previously be called for, tazers can save lives. As such, it creates another "level" of "minimum force" between the nightstick and lethality. And if used this way, I would agree that a tazer might be a good idea.
The problem that I see is that the tazer is being used not instead of using a gun, but being used instead of everything else before the point you pull out the gun. The tazer is being used before talking to people, being used on people who are complying, being used in cases where a gun would NEVER be called for. In other words, when a cop pulls out a tazer, more likely than not it is the cop that is escalating the situation.
I don't know if this is because cops think that the tazer is "no big deal" and are underestimating exactly how "maximum" a tazer's "minimum force" can be, or - and this is my theory - whether the past eight years in this country has made violent authority a cultural trend.
There is also the "A tazer is torture and torture is wrong under all circumstances" argument but that argument is so simple and straightforward it needs no nuanced explanation.
Time to manufacture conductive underwear then. Just short the tazer and avoid the trouble. The parent was modded funny - I think it should be modded insightful. I was thinking in the car if it would be possible to create a Faraday cage for the human body that would fit under clothing.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the vast majority of people who get tasered may actually deserve it? Have you considered the idea that tasers are properly classified as torture devices and that, as such, no one deserves it?
The Olympics exists for two purposes - to allow athletes to compete against others around the world for sport and to promote the idea of international competition taking the form of athletic events instead of warfare. To promote sport and to promote peace.
In the case of the former, per-sport international athletics associations can more than supplant the role.
In the case of the latter, no one can take a look at the bloody history of the 20th and early 21st centuries since the modern olympics were founded and believe that the Olympics has been terribly successful at promoting peace.
Instead, what ends up is that every two years (now that they're staggered) there's a massive orgy of corruption and controversy; and from time to time we have to put up with someone like China or Nazi Germany hosting - or sometimes the U.S. will boycott Moscow or Moscow will boycott the U.S...
More to the point; NIN and Radiohead are able to take advantage of the goodwill the fans have towards the band. Indeed, one could say that NIN and Radiohead couldn't have succeeded at this model if it wasn't for the extremely sharp contrast that they made with "Napster Bad" Metallica.
It's not just the players; I'm not sure HDTV penetration is where it needs to be. Case in point, my "TV" (really a projector) only does 1024x768. (Which is, coincidentally, what a 16:9 anamorphic PAL DVD needs to display at full rez.)
But I mean - I'm making high def movies (with the intent of finding distribution), and I don't even see the need to pay $1000 for a high-def screen to view it on - the computer monitor (which is high def) is enough for editing, but personally I think the movies look fine at 480p.
Dude, if an old guy with a beard approached me on the street and claimed to be Zeus, and then called down a lightning strike, you're right, first assumption is dreaming, then hallucinating, then con artist.
But you know what? Science is about eliminating the possibilities until you're left with certainty.
Dreaming? Pinch me.
Hallucinating? Do you see that too?
Con Artist? Do you mind doing that again under controlled conditions?
Alien with sufficiently advanced technology: Which is more likely: That aliens with technology indistinguishable from magic are claiming to be ancient manifestations of human myth or that the guy claiming to be Zeus - and can back up his claim - is claiming to be Zeus because he is Zeus.
Science is about evidence and models - not proof.
Case in point, let's say Zeus IS an alien, but the best guess for integrating him into our model of the universe is that he is, in fact, Zeus. A few years later when the the lighting technology is no longer "sufficiently advanced" and you find new evidence, you change your theory.
Ultimately, at the very least, a guy on the street claiming to be Zeus and calling down lightning on command is a new avenue of investigation, and the claims do not have to be taken at face value immediately. However, if the evidence holds up to scrutiny, then go ahead and call the guy Zeus.
This works for any god: Show me evidence, then we'll start investigating.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll disagree here.
While GMail may be unacceptable for business communications in a company of 100+ employees, most people realize that in a small business, a separate mail server is just unnecessary overhead. Just because you can "afford" something doesn't mean that you should go ahead and do it.
What am I going to do, spend thousands on an exchange server and get WORSE e-mail service? (I hate Exchange's Web interface.) Even my business partners who have their own e-mail addresses on their domain choose Google Apps For Your Domain.
And while you may not be sure the person you're dealing with is really associated with the domain or the business in question - I've never found that to be a problem for the small shops.
As for communications being scanned by a third party and self-censoring accordingly, I actually trust Google when they say they're scanning for keywords, not context, that it's done via computer, not via human intervention - and it's a moot point anyway. You should self-censor on ANY e-mail communication these days because of warrantless wiretapping.
If my gmail.com e-mail address would make you seriously question the credibility of my business, it pegs you as a customer who values appearance over efficiency and effectiveness, and that's exactly the sort of customer that's not worth having.
-- Brian Boyko
-- Sole Proprietor, Blogphilo New Media
-- brian.boyko@gmail.com
Here's the weird thing - I think you're right about most people not needing a $1000 machine, but I think you're coming to the wrong conclusions.
Laptops and desktops are in the sub $1000 range for most buyers, because all they need is something to Web Browse/E-mail/Chat/Word Processing/Music/Movies.
What about a programmer or IT geek? Well, they're probably savvy enough to build a computer.
The $1000+ retail market, then, might be looking for something different. So, why would someone buy a $1000+ computer?
Theory 1: The "I can afford it" user.
It is true that Apple represents a counterculture, tasteful aesthetic - at least in their marketing materials. And this does appeal to the high-end, "I make too much money" consumer. But there's also the fact that if you CAN afford a Mac, you then have a choice between a Macintosh and a Windows computer at retail. The Macs have a reputation for being low-maintainance, a stable and secure OS, and simple. When price decreases as a consideration, you look for quality of product.
Theory 2: The Productivity Professional
At the $1000+ range, if price IS a consideration, you're looking at the productivity user - the person who needs the extra power afforded to them by the higher end computer. Music professionals, Video editors, Photo editors and Graphic Designers - and here, Apple's platform has better apps. Yes, there are Video, Photo, Graphic, and Music editors on the Windows platform. By and large, however, the Apple products are higher quality. (I use Final Cut Pro at home on my own projects, but Sony Vegas Pro on my Windows computer at work - work's a "windows only shop." Vegas is good, FCP is better.) If you're going to be dropping good money on something you're using for work, you might as well get the really good stuff instead of the acceptable stuff.
Theory 3: Boot Camp
Quite simply, of the Windows users most likely to have $1000+ computers, they're likely to be gamers, with big video cards and the like. Since the advent of Boot Camp, Macs can make inroads with this market when they previously could not.
...To try to get Vista running on one of them.Then again setting yourself on fire would probably be a much more pleasant experience. Not with these gas prices.
The difference between animal-farm style "communism" and free-software style "communism" is that unlike Boxer, you can choose not to work on the windmill if you don't think the windmill is worth it. If no one thinks the windmill is worth it, it won't get developed.
I think I was trying to make the case that the windmill is worth it.
Indeed. I've got a MacBook Pro as my main computer, and an AMD dual-core 4200+ computer in my living room running Windows.
Yet, I prefer Linux as far as the user experience goes. But I don't even have a Linux partition. Why?
It's the apps.
I'm a documentary director so I got the MacBook Pro because I can use it as a monitor and I can use Final Cut Pro. Sony Vegas for windows is good, FCP is better. To date, there is no native GNU/Linux solution that matches the power, stability, and functionality of Final Cut Pro. It has saved me time and energy and has produced some amazing footage. I bought an entire computer and operating system simply for the functionality - FCP, for me, is the Mac killer app.
But I'd rather run FCP on Linux, if I could.
What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app.
Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization.
The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?)
GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent.
So long as the GIMP remains substandard compared to Photoshop (with poor typography support, bad CYMK profiles, etc.) you won't see graphic artists considering Linux. So long as Cinelerra remains substandard compared to Sony Vegas and FCP (with poor stability, complex user interface, no 24p support) you won't get the video guys. So long as gaming continues to be a hassle on Linux, you won't get the gamers.
That's the bad news.
The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at. If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra. Get together a group of buddies and work to tackle problems as a team.
I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.
When I was in college, older friends of mine (improv comedians) used to have contests to see who would be the first to come up with tasteless jokes after a tragedy.
I always thought it was in unbelievably poor taste and refused to participate.
Then I started working 9-5 jobs, paying my own bills, etc.
It's amazing how much that can harden you.
The wind picked up
The people cried
The cyclone came
And millions died.
Burma Save.
Down with Speed Skaters! And Computational Linguists!
A cop has to consider his actions before he pulls the trigger, and on (admittedly rare) occasions, if he acts inappropriately he can be held accountable. If a cop shoots someone inappropriately, the family will know his name, and can sue in civil court.
If a cop tazers someone inappropriately, and the victim dies, then what are the chances that cop will be held to any standard?
If we hold that power corrupts, shouldn't we be encouraging consequences for abuse of that power?
At any rate, as has been mentioned before, the tazers are not being replacing guns, the tazers are being used in cases where talking to someone would do. A tazer, deployed, does not de-escalate a confrontation, it is escalating the confrontation - and it is the cop who is escalating it.
Keep in mind, I think that the tazer issue is merely a way for people to rally around the real issue, which is America's under-trained, over-violent, out-of-control police forces, without saying that they're "anti-cop." There needs to be a vast cultural shift in police forces before a weapon like a tazer is introduced, but there need to be a vast cultural shift in police forces regardless.
As for myself, I'd rather be shot than tazed, but that's just me.
Here's what many pro-tazer people argue, and I agree that it's a powerful argument: By using tazers in situations where a gun would previously be called for, tazers can save lives. As such, it creates another "level" of "minimum force" between the nightstick and lethality. And if used this way, I would agree that a tazer might be a good idea.
The problem that I see is that the tazer is being used not instead of using a gun, but being used instead of everything else before the point you pull out the gun. The tazer is being used before talking to people, being used on people who are complying, being used in cases where a gun would NEVER be called for. In other words, when a cop pulls out a tazer, more likely than not it is the cop that is escalating the situation.
I don't know if this is because cops think that the tazer is "no big deal" and are underestimating exactly how "maximum" a tazer's "minimum force" can be, or - and this is my theory - whether the past eight years in this country has made violent authority a cultural trend.
There is also the "A tazer is torture and torture is wrong under all circumstances" argument but that argument is so simple and straightforward it needs no nuanced explanation.
Let's cancel the olympics.
No, seriously.
The Olympics exists for two purposes - to allow athletes to compete against others around the world for sport and to promote the idea of international competition taking the form of athletic events instead of warfare. To promote sport and to promote peace.
In the case of the former, per-sport international athletics associations can more than supplant the role.
In the case of the latter, no one can take a look at the bloody history of the 20th and early 21st centuries since the modern olympics were founded and believe that the Olympics has been terribly successful at promoting peace.
Instead, what ends up is that every two years (now that they're staggered) there's a massive orgy of corruption and controversy; and from time to time we have to put up with someone like China or Nazi Germany hosting - or sometimes the U.S. will boycott Moscow or Moscow will boycott the U.S...
I think it's time to get rid of the Olympics.
Blue screen of death metal?
More to the point; NIN and Radiohead are able to take advantage of the goodwill the fans have towards the band. Indeed, one could say that NIN and Radiohead couldn't have succeeded at this model if it wasn't for the extremely sharp contrast that they made with "Napster Bad" Metallica.
Besides, we don't need Metallica anymore.
We have Dethklok.
I want Bilbo played by Ron Perlman.
You know, there are better books than "The Canterbury Tales" but Chaucer gets some credit for being first.
Right. Like. Except, he's supposed to be the bad guy that Iron Man has to defeat. Why not make him the hero?
Who the hell modded this funny?
Sometimes, I think the Internet is full of sick people.
It's not just the players; I'm not sure HDTV penetration is where it needs to be. Case in point, my "TV" (really a projector) only does 1024x768. (Which is, coincidentally, what a 16:9 anamorphic PAL DVD needs to display at full rez.)
But I mean - I'm making high def movies (with the intent of finding distribution), and I don't even see the need to pay $1000 for a high-def screen to view it on - the computer monitor (which is high def) is enough for editing, but personally I think the movies look fine at 480p.
http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm
You wouldn't be able to see a teapot with Hubble. Just letting you know.
Dude, if an old guy with a beard approached me on the street and claimed to be Zeus, and then called down a lightning strike, you're right, first assumption is dreaming, then hallucinating, then con artist.
But you know what? Science is about eliminating the possibilities until you're left with certainty.
Dreaming? Pinch me.
Hallucinating? Do you see that too?
Con Artist? Do you mind doing that again under controlled conditions?
Alien with sufficiently advanced technology: Which is more likely: That aliens with technology indistinguishable from magic are claiming to be ancient manifestations of human myth or that the guy claiming to be Zeus - and can back up his claim - is claiming to be Zeus because he is Zeus.
Science is about evidence and models - not proof.
Case in point, let's say Zeus IS an alien, but the best guess for integrating him into our model of the universe is that he is, in fact, Zeus. A few years later when the the lighting technology is no longer "sufficiently advanced" and you find new evidence, you change your theory.
Ultimately, at the very least, a guy on the street claiming to be Zeus and calling down lightning on command is a new avenue of investigation, and the claims do not have to be taken at face value immediately. However, if the evidence holds up to scrutiny, then go ahead and call the guy Zeus.
This works for any god: Show me evidence, then we'll start investigating.