Is the core argument the ability to survive an N-day outage in 'survival mode', or is it to show there are alternatives to the always-connected grid? Either way, show me some numbers to back up your argument. If people want me to change, the obligation is on them to show the alternative works better/is more economical.
With respect to fuel, we have natural gas and there's no need to "go get fuel". Otherwise I'd go for a propane generator over a gas/diesel generator.
I actually did some back-of-the-envelope stuff for this for a friend in NJ. She was considering a $2k solar generator, that stored 1250 watt/hours. I pointed out that would provide about 4 hours for her fridge before running out of charge. For $2k she could get a a 7000 watt-hour (gasoline) generator or a 5000 watt natural gas/propane generator.
One more note: When we lose power, it's usually on the -leading edge- of the storm. (True for the Derecho, for snowstorms and for hurricanes.) Thus a credible analysis has to assume this as 'worst case'.
After the Derecho, we had some sun and some partly cloudy days. During "Sandy" we were in cloud for about 3 days (fortunately -we- didn't lose power then.) There are lots of places in the US and Canada that get less sun than we do.
Last time we lost power ("Derecho" storm in late June in Northern VA) we were out for about 80 hours. Our power requirements included air conditioning for that period (it was hot and muggy.) 1. How much storage (batteries) would we need to have 4 days worth of power available to us for a grid failure? 2. How many square feet/meters of solar panels would be required to charge those batteries before the storm? 3. What would be the recovery time once the stored current was exhausted?
And then there's the economic questions: 4. What would the batteries cost (taking into consideration substantial increased demand for rare earths, etc)? 5. What would the solar cells cost (also taking into consideration substantial increased demand for rare earths, etc?
Finally 6. Compare that cost to the installation of a conventional generator, either gas/diesel powered or natural gas/propane powered (and I'll grant you some appropriate 'market trade rate' penalty for the carbon produced by the generator.)
When you think about the innovation at Microsoft I can't see a decline. Rather Microsoft is drawn into the economic turmoil and will experience slower growth rates. I am a PC! Microsoft should reinvent itself and beat Apple with an open source strategy. That would win the hearts and mind of the ubergeeks.
On what class of platforms? PCs? I don't think so... That's the big change that's happening; the PC is not dead, but its growth is severely limited.
And it's not "ubergeeks" who buy most machines and make profits for hw/sw vendors, but consumers and corporate CIOs.
The specific quote is "modest", and I agree with the characterization of " 'modest' is to Ballmer as 'poor' is to a neutral observer" (particularly when compared to Apple or Android alternatives.)
Depends on when you want to start the clock: Product Development or Product Introduction? I see your point from a introduction/marketing perspective, but I also suspect that Apple would have introduced the iPad when it did (because it was ready) even without the "threat" from Netbooks.
Actually, not true. Apple started work on tablets long before there were Netbooks (and before the iPhone.) The MacBook Air is Apple's response to Netbooks.
However, there is certainly a bit of serendipity (at least) about the timing of the iPad introduction with respect to the push by PC hardware makers for NetBooks. What both NetBooks and tablets revealed is substantial consumer discontent with conventional (mostly Windows) laptops for many uses.
On another topic I cited the 'horns effect' - the opposite of the 'halo effect,' saying that Microsoft runs risks with Windows 8 tablets. If Win 8 Tablets (particularly the ARM version that will not run conventional Windows applications) don't meet consumer expectations, the cost to move to another tablet (iPad or Android) is pretty low. And that ill-will could well spread to other Microsoft products, particularly laptops but also phones.
>A larger investment in STEM yields higher returns, so subsidies can be higher.
The problem is the Government is not the (direct) recipient of those returns. Let those who reap the returns pay the subsidy. Without getting political (I've had quite enough of that for at least 4 years), government is not the solution for all problems, particularly for problems where business can provide a solution.
Shouldn't schools charge more for degrees that cost more?
Depends on if you want more of them or not. Making science-based degrees more expensive means we're going to have less of them. That's a bad thing.
That assumes the market won't pay more for those more valuable degrees. A big part of the problem here is education doesn't really behave like an open market.
Adding up sales of iPads, Kindles, Nooks, Android tablets, etc, and then saying "none of these people -wanted- what they've bought" (particularly in the face of people upgrading their devices) -really is idiotic-.
To me that's the real counter-argument: Lots of people have bought more than one tablet, which means they must have found utility in the concept and the product. (Claimer, my wife's on her 2nd iPad device and my mother loves the hand-me-down 1st gen iPad. Me, I'm sticking with my MB Pro because I want a full size tactile keyboard.)
The argument about Microsoft's marketing approach in the cited article is also relevant: Microsoft should sell its tablets on the basis of what you can do with them, rather then on some pseudo-demand buzz.
p.s. I think Microsoft's Surface is notable/worthy because it's not such an obvious clone of the iPad. That doesn't mean I want one, it means I'm crediting Microsoft with "thinking different";-) Your opinion may vary.
This is the most significant concern raised by the article, and I think it's legitimate. That's why I continue to buy backup drives and keep my data local (except for the backup at my friend's house.)
At a minimum, we need warranted Service Level Agreements with cloud providers, that include guarantees with penalties when access to their services (cloud based apps or data) fails. "Sorry about that, we won't let it happen again" ain't good enough.
Well, it seems barring a miracle, the Microsoft we're both anticipating is a smaller/less important company in 2020 than it was in 2000 or 2010, and mostly we're arguing about the degree of diminution. And that's a self-inflicted wound.
(p.s. are we allowed to have a reasoned discussion on Slashdot? Shouldn't we be flaming each other at this point?:-)
However, the BYOD movement and further losses on desktops will put price and technology pressure on Microsoft. Most of those tools are part-and-parcel of the Microsoft monoculture. They don't work very well with other vendor's products. The growth of cloud services that are workstation/end user device neutral pose a substantial risk to the company.
If Win 8 is a success, consumers and businesses will continue Microsoft dominance. If it's a failure, at best it's a major crack in the foundation.
Enterprises have different economies. Now don't get me started on CIO decision-making and the blind faith investment in Microsoft infrastructure, but I was specifically talking about individuals who make decisions on behalf of themselves.
Mod parent up insightful (I contributed to this thread so I can't use my moderator points.) The Microsoft hardware vendor lock-in is a very interesting ramification that I had not thought about.
If this article is right and Windows 8 ends up confusing and thereby pissing off consumers, I think this will be a huge win for Apple and Android. When you plopped $1k-$2k for a computer (in the olden days:-) and then added several $50-$150 software packages, the cost to abandon that platform is significant. But when your expenditures are in the $500-$600 range, tablet and apps, it'll be a lot easier to put the tablet up on eBay and go buy an alternative.
And the associated risks for Microsoft, let's call it the "horns effect*," could be catastrophic. People will say, "I gave Microsoft a chance for this new item, they suck. I'm not throwing more money at them. Look at how much I've spent on Windows computers/applications over the last 10+ years! Fool me twice, shame on me!" This really is a 'bet-the-company' move by Ballmer & Co (and of course we have 12 years of history of Microsoft under Ballmer to project from...)
Mod parent up insightful. This is a real concern and has both benefits and risks. Look at how Google is doing with Motorola, they've bought both the patents and the associated lawsuits.
I've done -a lot of software development- on a 24x80 screen running EMACS, including code and documentation. Early on, I used my first Mac to do graphics to merge into documents done with the Scribe markup langauge. Multiple monitors are nice, they can make one more productive, but a lot of time what I've seen in visual development environments is glitz that distracts from the task at hand.
So I'm not saying you're wrong, but at the same time a lot of people did a lot of good work without multiple bitmapped monitors.
And I've worked on some very large development efforts, where we had compile-engines working in the background; that's a mode I'm not sure you've recognized as legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the core argument the ability to survive an N-day outage in 'survival mode', or is it to show there are alternatives to the always-connected grid? Either way, show me some numbers to back up your argument. If people want me to change, the obligation is on them to show the alternative works better/is more economical.
With respect to fuel, we have natural gas and there's no need to "go get fuel". Otherwise I'd go for a propane generator over a gas/diesel generator.
I actually did some back-of-the-envelope stuff for this for a friend in NJ. She was considering a $2k solar generator, that stored 1250 watt/hours. I pointed out that would provide about 4 hours for her fridge before running out of charge. For $2k she could get a a 7000 watt-hour (gasoline) generator or a 5000 watt natural gas/propane generator.
One more note: When we lose power, it's usually on the -leading edge- of the storm. (True for the Derecho, for snowstorms and for hurricanes.) Thus a credible analysis has to assume this as 'worst case'.
After the Derecho, we had some sun and some partly cloudy days. During "Sandy" we were in cloud for about 3 days (fortunately -we- didn't lose power then.) There are lots of places in the US and Canada that get less sun than we do.
Last time we lost power ("Derecho" storm in late June in Northern VA) we were out for about 80 hours. Our power requirements included air conditioning for that period (it was hot and muggy.)
1. How much storage (batteries) would we need to have 4 days worth of power available to us for a grid failure?
2. How many square feet/meters of solar panels would be required to charge those batteries before the storm?
3. What would be the recovery time once the stored current was exhausted?
And then there's the economic questions:
4. What would the batteries cost (taking into consideration substantial increased demand for rare earths, etc)?
5. What would the solar cells cost (also taking into consideration substantial increased demand for rare earths, etc?
Finally
6. Compare that cost to the installation of a conventional generator, either gas/diesel powered or natural gas/propane powered (and I'll grant you some appropriate 'market trade rate' penalty for the carbon produced by the generator.)
EMACS
Not authoritative, but not good for MSFT: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3655882/windows-8-pc-sales-reportedly-well-below-microsofts-internal-projections
Fair enough! We'll have to wait for actual numbers, then.
When you think about the innovation at Microsoft I can't see a decline. Rather Microsoft is drawn into the economic turmoil and will experience slower growth rates. I am a PC! Microsoft should reinvent itself and beat Apple with an open source strategy. That would win the hearts and mind of the ubergeeks.
On what class of platforms? PCs? I don't think so... That's the big change that's happening; the PC is not dead, but its growth is severely limited.
And it's not "ubergeeks" who buy most machines and make profits for hw/sw vendors, but consumers and corporate CIOs.
Here's one: http://blogs.computerworld.com/tablets/21317/microsoft-ceo-ballmer-says-surface-windows-rt-tablet-sales-are-modest-hopes-boost-intel-windows-8-version
The specific quote is "modest", and I agree with the characterization of " 'modest' is to Ballmer as 'poor' is to a neutral observer" (particularly when compared to Apple or Android alternatives.)
Depends on when you want to start the clock: Product Development or Product Introduction? I see your point from a introduction/marketing perspective, but I also suspect that Apple would have introduced the iPad when it did (because it was ready) even without the "threat" from Netbooks.
Actually, not true. Apple started work on tablets long before there were Netbooks (and before the iPhone.) The MacBook Air is Apple's response to Netbooks.
However, there is certainly a bit of serendipity (at least) about the timing of the iPad introduction with respect to the push by PC hardware makers for NetBooks. What both NetBooks and tablets revealed is substantial consumer discontent with conventional (mostly Windows) laptops for many uses.
On another topic I cited the 'horns effect' - the opposite of the 'halo effect,' saying that Microsoft runs risks with Windows 8 tablets. If Win 8 Tablets (particularly the ARM version that will not run conventional Windows applications) don't meet consumer expectations, the cost to move to another tablet (iPad or Android) is pretty low. And that ill-will could well spread to other Microsoft products, particularly laptops but also phones.
>A larger investment in STEM yields higher returns, so subsidies can be higher.
The problem is the Government is not the (direct) recipient of those returns. Let those who reap the returns pay the subsidy. Without getting political (I've had quite enough of that for at least 4 years), government is not the solution for all problems, particularly for problems where business can provide a solution.
Shouldn't schools charge more for degrees that cost more?
Depends on if you want more of them or not. Making science-based degrees more expensive means we're going to have less of them. That's a bad thing.
That assumes the market won't pay more for those more valuable degrees. A big part of the problem here is education doesn't really behave like an open market.
Shouldn't schools charge more for degrees that cost more? Science requires expensive labs.
Now if institutions, both public and private, want to subsidize those costs, that would seem to be a more economics-based approach.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11749058/1/is-microsofts-ceo-steve-ballmer-crazy.html
Adding up sales of iPads, Kindles, Nooks, Android tablets, etc, and then saying "none of these people -wanted- what they've bought" (particularly in the face of people upgrading their devices) -really is idiotic-.
To me that's the real counter-argument: Lots of people have bought more than one tablet, which means they must have found utility in the concept and the product. (Claimer, my wife's on her 2nd iPad device and my mother loves the hand-me-down 1st gen iPad. Me, I'm sticking with my MB Pro because I want a full size tactile keyboard.)
The argument about Microsoft's marketing approach in the cited article is also relevant: Microsoft should sell its tablets on the basis of what you can do with them, rather then on some pseudo-demand buzz.
p.s. I think Microsoft's Surface is notable/worthy because it's not such an obvious clone of the iPad. That doesn't mean I want one, it means I'm crediting Microsoft with "thinking different" ;-) Your opinion may vary.
This is the most significant concern raised by the article, and I think it's legitimate. That's why I continue to buy backup drives and keep my data local (except for the backup at my friend's house.)
At a minimum, we need warranted Service Level Agreements with cloud providers, that include guarantees with penalties when access to their services (cloud based apps or data) fails. "Sorry about that, we won't let it happen again" ain't good enough.
Well, it seems barring a miracle, the Microsoft we're both anticipating is a smaller/less important company in 2020 than it was in 2000 or 2010, and mostly we're arguing about the degree of diminution. And that's a self-inflicted wound.
(p.s. are we allowed to have a reasoned discussion on Slashdot? Shouldn't we be flaming each other at this point? :-)
Fair enough. Here's some data on Microsoft's income by business line: http://betanews.com/2012/10/18/microsoft-q1-2013-by-the-numbers-16-1b-revenue-53-cents-eps/ As a SWAG, consumer PC sales is about a quarter of Microsoft's profit, with the two parts of business sales constituting the other 3/4. So you have a solid argument.
However, the BYOD movement and further losses on desktops will put price and technology pressure on Microsoft. Most of those tools are part-and-parcel of the Microsoft monoculture. They don't work very well with other vendor's products. The growth of cloud services that are workstation/end user device neutral pose a substantial risk to the company.
If Win 8 is a success, consumers and businesses will continue Microsoft dominance. If it's a failure, at best it's a major crack in the foundation.
Did you see the word "consumers" in my comment?
Enterprises have different economies. Now don't get me started on CIO decision-making and the blind faith investment in Microsoft infrastructure, but I was specifically talking about individuals who make decisions on behalf of themselves.
Mod parent up insightful (I contributed to this thread so I can't use my moderator points.) The Microsoft hardware vendor lock-in is a very interesting ramification that I had not thought about.
If this article is right and Windows 8 ends up confusing and thereby pissing off consumers, I think this will be a huge win for Apple and Android. When you plopped $1k-$2k for a computer (in the olden days :-) and then added several $50-$150 software packages, the cost to abandon that platform is significant. But when your expenditures are in the $500-$600 range, tablet and apps, it'll be a lot easier to put the tablet up on eBay and go buy an alternative.
And the associated risks for Microsoft, let's call it the "horns effect*," could be catastrophic. People will say, "I gave Microsoft a chance for this new item, they suck. I'm not throwing more money at them. Look at how much I've spent on Windows computers/applications over the last 10+ years! Fool me twice, shame on me!" This really is a 'bet-the-company' move by Ballmer & Co (and of course we have 12 years of history of Microsoft under Ballmer to project from...)
* opposite of the "halo effect"
Mod parent up insightful. This is a real concern and has both benefits and risks. Look at how Google is doing with Motorola, they've bought both the patents and the associated lawsuits.
This be an appropriate story for Talk Like a Pirate Day, matey! http://www.talklikeapirate.com/
see http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2h6414430571v56/
I've done -a lot of software development- on a 24x80 screen running EMACS, including code and documentation. Early on, I used my first Mac to do graphics to merge into documents done with the Scribe markup langauge. Multiple monitors are nice, they can make one more productive, but a lot of time what I've seen in visual development environments is glitz that distracts from the task at hand.
So I'm not saying you're wrong, but at the same time a lot of people did a lot of good work without multiple bitmapped monitors.
And I've worked on some very large development efforts, where we had compile-engines working in the background; that's a mode I'm not sure you've recognized as legitimate.