It also depends on what you want your phone to do. I can't stand not having control over my phone and not having a physical keyboard, so the iPhone would not be a phone I would really even consider.
And also you are comparing phones of different generations, you are comparing a high-end phone of 6 months ago with a high-end phone of today. Comparing the iPhone 4 to the Droid X would be a fair comparison, but 6 months is a year or so when it comes to mobile devices.
No, rather people would think that such things are normal. Just like lots of Windows users seem to think that buying a new computer because computers just "get slow" after a year is perfectly normal.
Why is it that ISPs (and cell phone carriers) seem to ignore economies of scale? Its expensive to lay cable as a small ISP but when you get larger and larger it becomes cheaper thus bandwidth becomes cheaper. It is even more obvious when it comes to cell carriers, it costs a lot of money to put up a tower, it costs significantly less to upgrade that tower to 3G/4G, etc.
Not to mention that the more people who have the ISP the more profit the ISP makes thus making it even easier to lay more cables and increase bandwidth.
The bigger the company, the cheaper the services and the better the quality of service should be based on economies of scale.
The first thing that needs to be done is to remove the artificial monopoly congress created for the USPS making it so they are the only ones that can deliver first-class mail, once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke.
In other news my Biology teacher thinks that Beowulf is a Shakespearean play. Something tells me that a Spanish teacher isn't an expert on analyzing statistics, hence why he teaches Spanish, not math or science.
Yes, the government does do research, but it would be more efficiently spent in the private sector on R&D to go into new products to increase the nation's wealth. Almost all the research that the government does (with the exception of all the research on how to efficiently kill other people...) would be done to some extent privately. When a private company requires research, profit is the bottom line, meaning that they aren't going to spend millions on a dead end product, on the other hand, the government routinely does it. Look at NASA for an example, think of all of the things that have been canceled (or extended) to no benefit of the taxpayer. Look at Constellation, lots of money spent on what could very well turn out to be a dead end. Look at the Space Shuttle project, a technological dead-end, unsafe and more expensive than capsule-based systems like Russia's Soyuz.
The cost is lower and the benefit is almost always higher with private enterprise, with the government there is waste everywhere, waste that spreads to paranoia (hey, you aren't going to get any more research dollars if you say Swine Flu will be just like an extended flu season...) and misinformation. Not to mention that with corporate R&D you don't have to pay for it if it turns out to be a dead end, but with government research you do.
The hoover dam has lead to a lack of sustainability. Look at Lake Mead, the lake is in danger of going nearly completely dry because people foolishly thought that the dam could provide complete power and infinite water in the desert. However, it can't. But thanks to the Hoover Dam people started growing things that could not normally be grown in areas with little rainfall such as cotton, this lead to the rise of large cities like Las Vegas which has 90% of their drinking water coming out of Lake Mead a lake which is nearly depleted.
All the Hoover Dam has created is a "water bubble" which is unsustainable and already in danger of collapsing, so much so that they had to put in an additional intake pipe to provide water when the other pipelines fail because the lake has gone down so much.
Had people really looked at this before they built the dam, large cities wouldn't be living beyond their means in terms of water, but of course no one really looked at it because FDR's wealth redistribution program was "needed" to get the economy moving.
An ARPANET would have been born and morphed internet with or without government support, its just in the late 60s early 1970s few people owned computers really powerful enough to go online and do anything meaningful. ARPANET was formed not because of some great government insight that private enterprise doesn't have, it was simply because no one else owned enough computers to make it be meaningful.
And how is it worth it for the science? You burn more fossil fuels trying to make the ethanol than you can create in the ethanol! You can't just add more energy to the ethanol, its like in the 1990s when dot-com businesses would sell things at a loss and make up for it in "volume", only rather than a dot-com you have no money invested in it is instead the government stealing money out of your paycheck.
Sugar Cane is another thing totally fucked up by governments in allowing massive tariffs to be placed on it whenever you import it, whenever the government messes with private enterprise, the consumers lose. By placing barriers to free trade in place, it pretty much means that corn syrup is cheaper than sugar cane because the US simply doesn't have enough places to grow sugar cane and because of artificial barriers its nearly impossible to import it.
As for algae, it is in its early stages, it is certainly something to watch.
How is that remarkable? Just about every major function of a typical computer can be done with a low-end Celeron and 2 GB of RAM. Games are about the only thing that low-spec system can't do. And gamers enjoy paying lots and lots of money for the best. If I can do everything that I do now on a $300 computer, why would I pay $800 and get a quad-core unless I'm a gamer? Yes, there are a few other areas such as CAD and the like that need high-powered systems, but in the cost-conscious world, it is gamers that are the only ones paying the money and really need the power. Whereas companies who need CAD have no problems spending $4K on a system, a gamer is only going to spend half to a fourth of it on a system.
Anytime that the government gets involved, it leads to unsustainable projects with no real market, no real innovation, and poor implementation to get a government contract and free money.
Look at Ethanol, sounds great, gas from plants, renewable and good for the environment... Except for the fact it takes more energy to make it than the ethanol contains. But of course the government subsidizes it which leads people to grow corn for ethanol rather than for feed and so taxpayers not only have to pay higher food costs but also have to pay for the subsidizes for a project that makes no sense.
Rather than looking towards good ways to tap a market, government involvement leads to lower quality and total disregard for the target market.
But I think a lot of price considerations have to do with the fact that most westerners aren't going to buy something with a price point that is "too" cheap. People are used to paying $200 for even the cheapest notebooks/netbooks/tablets, if people see a $35 one, they are probably just going to buy the more expensive one to save on "quality" even if they are the same device.
Of course, this was the same India that created the $10 non-laptop-component-printer that cost $30... So take any reports from cheap electronics in India with a grain of salt...
Yes, but DVDs had the PS2 and PCs to boost sales, Blu-Ray has the third-place console and a few PCs supporting it and the people who buy some of the most expensive home computers (Macs) don't have it and when the trend is for machines to forgo an optical drive altogether... I just can't see Blu-Ray reaching even remotely the level of support as DVD did. When flash memory reaches even cheaper levels than now, I don't think that an optical disk has a future, they are slow, expensive to re-write, and bulky.
Ok, so I'm going to be hit by a non-legal pothead than a legal pothead? I'm not really sure where this is going...
The legalization of pot isn't about introducing something new but rather legalizing something that people already do just illegally rather than legally.
And as for treating things, have them (or their insurance) pay for it, not me. If someone wants to get cancer, fine, so long as they are paying for it. Just have people pay for things they use and it all works out. Reduce government regulations and such to make healthcare cheaper (I mean, honestly, I can go to the vet, have a long consultation with a vet who has gone to school sometimes as long as the doctor and having everything be transparent for around $35, no insurance, no lack of quality. On the other hand it costs $200 or so for a shorter conversation with a "real" doctor and few things are transparent. WTF?) and increase competition.
Just fully legalize it and leave it like that. The idea of "Medical Marijuana" is simply stupid. Let pot smokers buy pot legitimately and let the currency circulate on real goods rather than on the black market. Really, why is there such opposition to letting it be sold like cigarettes with smoking/driving restrictions like alcohol.
And no, for the record I'm not a smoker, pot or otherwise, never tried it, never will. But thats just it, why should I have my tax dollars wasted on "enforcement" that just moves it underground and breeds crime. Phillip Morris doesn't spend their money on stolen goods because they are a legitimize business, on the other hand the "drug" dealer does. The money spent on "drugs" ends up being spent on stolen goods and breading violent crime because they can't just walk into Best Buy with cash and buy a new plasma, on the other hand they can talk to Pedro and get the stolen plasma just fine.
Its stupid, pointless and self-defeating to try to ban marijuana, simply legalize it and be done with it. No special difference, just sell it in the places cigarettes and booze are sold. Keeping money circulating out of the hands of the stolen goods market and reducing taxpayer waste, its a win-win, lower crime rates + lower theft (of the taxpayer) rates.
Why not simply let it be sold like any other product? I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs. Alcohol is slightly different because if you screw it up it can have toxic side effects but really when was the last time you heard of someone going to their local farmer's market to buy an ear of corn and it had toxic side effects? A plant is a plant is a plant. I similarly don't understand having different tax rates, unless the government goes around helping people grow something, it just needs a tiny sales tax.
Its completely stupid to tax something just because you don't like people doing it. Taxes should -only- reflect the 2 things a government should do, protect their citizens from force and fraud. If the government does something special to benefit someone/something they should be charged a higher rate, but its stupid to tax someone because you don't like it.
And for the record, no, I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, I think its a terrible habit that stinks and is bad for the body. But thats just it, I can choose not to do that. I can choose not to smoke, I can choose not to drink, I can choose not to eat McDonalds daily, that is my choice. I choose what I want, other people can choose what they want, I don't force my choices on them and they don't on me. That is how freedom works. If I don't like tobacco smoke, I don't smoke, I don't go to places without a dedicated non-smoking seating. If a business wants to allow people to smoke, let them. If I don't want to eat there because of it, I will take my business elsewhere.
You have to realize though that to the average person being able to do more things per day seems like a benefit to them rather than a loss. If you play the game and max out within 5 minutes, the chances of them coming back are slimmer than if it takes them a lot longer to "max out".
In all honesty, yes, most of these FB games are just basic RPG games with a real time clock built in.
And yes, having to pay extra for certain items/powers/etc. are typical with most RPGs today on today's consoles. The only difference is that you have to invite people to do more things and its time limited. Take out those two things and you basically have Harvest Moon rather than Farmville.
There is a -huge- difference between Facebook and cable companies. Facebook is not an abusive monopoly like cable companies are. In general, cable companies use public land for private gain, many times going even far enough to forbid competition in a town so the town gains a cheaper rate for crappy service.
If everyone wanted to, they could move from Facebook to another social networking site very easily. Saying that Facebook is a monopoly is akin to saying Hotmail, Yahoo Mail and Gmail are monopolies, they are popular, but there isn't really much stopping me from going to a different email provider.
And people -have- moved social networking sites many, many, many times in the past. One only needs to look at Friendster and Myspace to see that. What Facebook has done that will make it hard to de-throne is that -everyone- has a Facebook, they have made it easy for not only teenagers to have an account but also middle aged people and the elderly, something that Friendster and Myspace failed to do.
So you don't think that users would get mad if the information FB said would be private suddenly became public? What if on a forum the e-mail address you had hidden suddenly became public and they sold that to spammers? Its essentially the same thing with Facebook.
As for the changes, the vast majority of them were regressions simply change for the sake of changing. Yes, there -were- some great new features, namely the chat feature added in, but the "New Facebook"? It "fixed" bugs that didn't exist and added in whole hosts of other ones.
Things like that may be great for you, but what about the 50 year old person in accounting who uses the hunt and peck method of typing where that would be incredibly slow? The problem with company-wide password policies is that its not just for us who know the keyboard, know the point in having passwords like that, and such. What about the boss? Of course he is going to want root everything, but in general most bosses are pretty lousy with computers, he isn't going to want a password like that, he wants a password like his wife's name and birthday. The boss is not going to want limited access because in his mind he is the boss and should have full access to everything anytime, not that he really -wants- to set up cronjobs systemwide, but if you have an account that won't let him, he doesn't want to be locked out of that.
So instead of having a few people in the company knowing passwords, you lead to the people with a sticky note with all their passwords stuck to their monitor. Lets face it, perfect security is impossible, the average person can't remember insanely long abstract passwords, so either you have weaker passwords, the security question flaws, IT hell of having to reset passwords every other week, or the sticky note on the monitor.
Real security requires you to balance out risks, figure out who is the main threat and make passwords to combat that. If your main threat is from random blackhats, choosing a password like "jennifeR21211985" wouldn't be too terrible of a password, on the other hand, if the main threat was from people who knew the person, such a password like your kid's name with a random capital letter then their birthdate could be laughable.
Ok, so how do you remember the password? Yes, some of us/.ers can memorize a large password but for the vast majority of everyone else, they have to write it down. When you write it down, it means that anyone with physical access to your workstation/cubicle now has your password. Not to mention how security questions are usually a weak link...
Something tells me that a 6-7 character password of something meaningful yet obscure would have decent amounts of protection without leading in new security flaws.
In most systems, the password isn't the weak point, it is generally the security question or an off-site link. For example, you might require that users of an online banking system use a password 15 characters long, however, you e-mail them a link to change a password if needed through an e-mail account, well if that person's password is "e-mail" or something like that, all the security on your site vanishes.
Really, you have to figure out who would be trying to get into your account, family members? A random black-hat? Your friends? Your enemies? And base passwords on there, for example, if your main problem is with black hats, a password such as your dog's name with your birth year might be good enough to prevent brute force attacks like "fido1961" on the other hand, that password is laughably weak if your family or friends wants to get in and have some good skills. However, in most cases people write down passwords which lead to more weaknesses there because for some reason IT departments want people to have passwords of "Zn98iTgg4324YEneEjjRtZ34" which might be great at preventing a black hat from accessing it, but such an arcane password generally requires people to write it down.
Slashdot Mirror
It also depends on what you want your phone to do. I can't stand not having control over my phone and not having a physical keyboard, so the iPhone would not be a phone I would really even consider.
And also you are comparing phones of different generations, you are comparing a high-end phone of 6 months ago with a high-end phone of today. Comparing the iPhone 4 to the Droid X would be a fair comparison, but 6 months is a year or so when it comes to mobile devices.
No, rather people would think that such things are normal. Just like lots of Windows users seem to think that buying a new computer because computers just "get slow" after a year is perfectly normal.
Yeah, and Aurora is... owned by Rogers. Look at http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2008/13/c9876.html
Why is it that ISPs (and cell phone carriers) seem to ignore economies of scale? Its expensive to lay cable as a small ISP but when you get larger and larger it becomes cheaper thus bandwidth becomes cheaper. It is even more obvious when it comes to cell carriers, it costs a lot of money to put up a tower, it costs significantly less to upgrade that tower to 3G/4G, etc.
Not to mention that the more people who have the ISP the more profit the ISP makes thus making it even easier to lay more cables and increase bandwidth.
The bigger the company, the cheaper the services and the better the quality of service should be based on economies of scale.
The first thing that needs to be done is to remove the artificial monopoly congress created for the USPS making it so they are the only ones that can deliver first-class mail, once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke.
In other news my Biology teacher thinks that Beowulf is a Shakespearean play. Something tells me that a Spanish teacher isn't an expert on analyzing statistics, hence why he teaches Spanish, not math or science.
Yes, the government does do research, but it would be more efficiently spent in the private sector on R&D to go into new products to increase the nation's wealth. Almost all the research that the government does (with the exception of all the research on how to efficiently kill other people...) would be done to some extent privately. When a private company requires research, profit is the bottom line, meaning that they aren't going to spend millions on a dead end product, on the other hand, the government routinely does it. Look at NASA for an example, think of all of the things that have been canceled (or extended) to no benefit of the taxpayer. Look at Constellation, lots of money spent on what could very well turn out to be a dead end. Look at the Space Shuttle project, a technological dead-end, unsafe and more expensive than capsule-based systems like Russia's Soyuz.
The cost is lower and the benefit is almost always higher with private enterprise, with the government there is waste everywhere, waste that spreads to paranoia (hey, you aren't going to get any more research dollars if you say Swine Flu will be just like an extended flu season...) and misinformation. Not to mention that with corporate R&D you don't have to pay for it if it turns out to be a dead end, but with government research you do.
The hoover dam has lead to a lack of sustainability. Look at Lake Mead, the lake is in danger of going nearly completely dry because people foolishly thought that the dam could provide complete power and infinite water in the desert. However, it can't. But thanks to the Hoover Dam people started growing things that could not normally be grown in areas with little rainfall such as cotton, this lead to the rise of large cities like Las Vegas which has 90% of their drinking water coming out of Lake Mead a lake which is nearly depleted.
All the Hoover Dam has created is a "water bubble" which is unsustainable and already in danger of collapsing, so much so that they had to put in an additional intake pipe to provide water when the other pipelines fail because the lake has gone down so much.
Had people really looked at this before they built the dam, large cities wouldn't be living beyond their means in terms of water, but of course no one really looked at it because FDR's wealth redistribution program was "needed" to get the economy moving.
An ARPANET would have been born and morphed internet with or without government support, its just in the late 60s early 1970s few people owned computers really powerful enough to go online and do anything meaningful. ARPANET was formed not because of some great government insight that private enterprise doesn't have, it was simply because no one else owned enough computers to make it be meaningful.
And how is it worth it for the science? You burn more fossil fuels trying to make the ethanol than you can create in the ethanol! You can't just add more energy to the ethanol, its like in the 1990s when dot-com businesses would sell things at a loss and make up for it in "volume", only rather than a dot-com you have no money invested in it is instead the government stealing money out of your paycheck.
Sugar Cane is another thing totally fucked up by governments in allowing massive tariffs to be placed on it whenever you import it, whenever the government messes with private enterprise, the consumers lose. By placing barriers to free trade in place, it pretty much means that corn syrup is cheaper than sugar cane because the US simply doesn't have enough places to grow sugar cane and because of artificial barriers its nearly impossible to import it.
As for algae, it is in its early stages, it is certainly something to watch.
How is that remarkable? Just about every major function of a typical computer can be done with a low-end Celeron and 2 GB of RAM. Games are about the only thing that low-spec system can't do. And gamers enjoy paying lots and lots of money for the best. If I can do everything that I do now on a $300 computer, why would I pay $800 and get a quad-core unless I'm a gamer? Yes, there are a few other areas such as CAD and the like that need high-powered systems, but in the cost-conscious world, it is gamers that are the only ones paying the money and really need the power. Whereas companies who need CAD have no problems spending $4K on a system, a gamer is only going to spend half to a fourth of it on a system.
Anytime that the government gets involved, it leads to unsustainable projects with no real market, no real innovation, and poor implementation to get a government contract and free money.
Look at Ethanol, sounds great, gas from plants, renewable and good for the environment... Except for the fact it takes more energy to make it than the ethanol contains. But of course the government subsidizes it which leads people to grow corn for ethanol rather than for feed and so taxpayers not only have to pay higher food costs but also have to pay for the subsidizes for a project that makes no sense.
Rather than looking towards good ways to tap a market, government involvement leads to lower quality and total disregard for the target market.
According to Engadget, it has 2 GB of RAM (see http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/23/35-tablet-from-india-looks-to-be-worth-every-paisa-video/ )
But I think a lot of price considerations have to do with the fact that most westerners aren't going to buy something with a price point that is "too" cheap. People are used to paying $200 for even the cheapest notebooks/netbooks/tablets, if people see a $35 one, they are probably just going to buy the more expensive one to save on "quality" even if they are the same device.
Of course, this was the same India that created the $10 non-laptop-component-printer that cost $30... So take any reports from cheap electronics in India with a grain of salt...
Loading, Loading, Loading. Optical drives are slow when compared to HDD, SSDs and the like, especially when writing data to them in most cases.
Yes, but DVDs had the PS2 and PCs to boost sales, Blu-Ray has the third-place console and a few PCs supporting it and the people who buy some of the most expensive home computers (Macs) don't have it and when the trend is for machines to forgo an optical drive altogether... I just can't see Blu-Ray reaching even remotely the level of support as DVD did. When flash memory reaches even cheaper levels than now, I don't think that an optical disk has a future, they are slow, expensive to re-write, and bulky.
Ok, so I'm going to be hit by a non-legal pothead than a legal pothead? I'm not really sure where this is going...
The legalization of pot isn't about introducing something new but rather legalizing something that people already do just illegally rather than legally.
And as for treating things, have them (or their insurance) pay for it, not me. If someone wants to get cancer, fine, so long as they are paying for it. Just have people pay for things they use and it all works out. Reduce government regulations and such to make healthcare cheaper (I mean, honestly, I can go to the vet, have a long consultation with a vet who has gone to school sometimes as long as the doctor and having everything be transparent for around $35, no insurance, no lack of quality. On the other hand it costs $200 or so for a shorter conversation with a "real" doctor and few things are transparent. WTF?) and increase competition.
Just fully legalize it and leave it like that. The idea of "Medical Marijuana" is simply stupid. Let pot smokers buy pot legitimately and let the currency circulate on real goods rather than on the black market. Really, why is there such opposition to letting it be sold like cigarettes with smoking/driving restrictions like alcohol.
And no, for the record I'm not a smoker, pot or otherwise, never tried it, never will. But thats just it, why should I have my tax dollars wasted on "enforcement" that just moves it underground and breeds crime. Phillip Morris doesn't spend their money on stolen goods because they are a legitimize business, on the other hand the "drug" dealer does. The money spent on "drugs" ends up being spent on stolen goods and breading violent crime because they can't just walk into Best Buy with cash and buy a new plasma, on the other hand they can talk to Pedro and get the stolen plasma just fine.
Its stupid, pointless and self-defeating to try to ban marijuana, simply legalize it and be done with it. No special difference, just sell it in the places cigarettes and booze are sold. Keeping money circulating out of the hands of the stolen goods market and reducing taxpayer waste, its a win-win, lower crime rates + lower theft (of the taxpayer) rates.
Why not simply let it be sold like any other product? I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs. Alcohol is slightly different because if you screw it up it can have toxic side effects but really when was the last time you heard of someone going to their local farmer's market to buy an ear of corn and it had toxic side effects? A plant is a plant is a plant. I similarly don't understand having different tax rates, unless the government goes around helping people grow something, it just needs a tiny sales tax.
Its completely stupid to tax something just because you don't like people doing it. Taxes should -only- reflect the 2 things a government should do, protect their citizens from force and fraud. If the government does something special to benefit someone/something they should be charged a higher rate, but its stupid to tax someone because you don't like it.
And for the record, no, I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, I think its a terrible habit that stinks and is bad for the body. But thats just it, I can choose not to do that. I can choose not to smoke, I can choose not to drink, I can choose not to eat McDonalds daily, that is my choice. I choose what I want, other people can choose what they want, I don't force my choices on them and they don't on me. That is how freedom works. If I don't like tobacco smoke, I don't smoke, I don't go to places without a dedicated non-smoking seating. If a business wants to allow people to smoke, let them. If I don't want to eat there because of it, I will take my business elsewhere.
You have to realize though that to the average person being able to do more things per day seems like a benefit to them rather than a loss. If you play the game and max out within 5 minutes, the chances of them coming back are slimmer than if it takes them a lot longer to "max out".
In all honesty, yes, most of these FB games are just basic RPG games with a real time clock built in.
And yes, having to pay extra for certain items/powers/etc. are typical with most RPGs today on today's consoles. The only difference is that you have to invite people to do more things and its time limited. Take out those two things and you basically have Harvest Moon rather than Farmville.
There is a -huge- difference between Facebook and cable companies. Facebook is not an abusive monopoly like cable companies are. In general, cable companies use public land for private gain, many times going even far enough to forbid competition in a town so the town gains a cheaper rate for crappy service.
If everyone wanted to, they could move from Facebook to another social networking site very easily. Saying that Facebook is a monopoly is akin to saying Hotmail, Yahoo Mail and Gmail are monopolies, they are popular, but there isn't really much stopping me from going to a different email provider.
And people -have- moved social networking sites many, many, many times in the past. One only needs to look at Friendster and Myspace to see that. What Facebook has done that will make it hard to de-throne is that -everyone- has a Facebook, they have made it easy for not only teenagers to have an account but also middle aged people and the elderly, something that Friendster and Myspace failed to do.
So you don't think that users would get mad if the information FB said would be private suddenly became public? What if on a forum the e-mail address you had hidden suddenly became public and they sold that to spammers? Its essentially the same thing with Facebook.
As for the changes, the vast majority of them were regressions simply change for the sake of changing. Yes, there -were- some great new features, namely the chat feature added in, but the "New Facebook"? It "fixed" bugs that didn't exist and added in whole hosts of other ones.
Things like that may be great for you, but what about the 50 year old person in accounting who uses the hunt and peck method of typing where that would be incredibly slow? The problem with company-wide password policies is that its not just for us who know the keyboard, know the point in having passwords like that, and such. What about the boss? Of course he is going to want root everything, but in general most bosses are pretty lousy with computers, he isn't going to want a password like that, he wants a password like his wife's name and birthday. The boss is not going to want limited access because in his mind he is the boss and should have full access to everything anytime, not that he really -wants- to set up cronjobs systemwide, but if you have an account that won't let him, he doesn't want to be locked out of that.
So instead of having a few people in the company knowing passwords, you lead to the people with a sticky note with all their passwords stuck to their monitor. Lets face it, perfect security is impossible, the average person can't remember insanely long abstract passwords, so either you have weaker passwords, the security question flaws, IT hell of having to reset passwords every other week, or the sticky note on the monitor.
Real security requires you to balance out risks, figure out who is the main threat and make passwords to combat that. If your main threat is from random blackhats, choosing a password like "jennifeR21211985" wouldn't be too terrible of a password, on the other hand, if the main threat was from people who knew the person, such a password like your kid's name with a random capital letter then their birthdate could be laughable.
Ok, so how do you remember the password? Yes, some of us /.ers can memorize a large password but for the vast majority of everyone else, they have to write it down. When you write it down, it means that anyone with physical access to your workstation/cubicle now has your password. Not to mention how security questions are usually a weak link...
Something tells me that a 6-7 character password of something meaningful yet obscure would have decent amounts of protection without leading in new security flaws.
In most systems, the password isn't the weak point, it is generally the security question or an off-site link. For example, you might require that users of an online banking system use a password 15 characters long, however, you e-mail them a link to change a password if needed through an e-mail account, well if that person's password is "e-mail" or something like that, all the security on your site vanishes.
Really, you have to figure out who would be trying to get into your account, family members? A random black-hat? Your friends? Your enemies? And base passwords on there, for example, if your main problem is with black hats, a password such as your dog's name with your birth year might be good enough to prevent brute force attacks like "fido1961" on the other hand, that password is laughably weak if your family or friends wants to get in and have some good skills. However, in most cases people write down passwords which lead to more weaknesses there because for some reason IT departments want people to have passwords of "Zn98iTgg4324YEneEjjRtZ34" which might be great at preventing a black hat from accessing it, but such an arcane password generally requires people to write it down.