1. So they can sell the right to install an app on a phone that a consumer can't get rid of.
2. So they can set up "app stores" that collect a significant cut of whatever the user wants to buy.
3. So they can prevent third parties from creating and selling alternative services to their own products that are cheaper and/or better.
While I fully agree that those 3 items are not in the best interest of the customer, I can say that they also aren't "that bad". What you're forgetting is the fact that the average American would rather have ads or extra apps on their phones than pay more money. If you doubt that, let's look at the Kindle. According to Bezos, “No one really buys the non-special offers version,” So if Amazon gives people the choice and very few people pay the extra money to avoid the ads, why so angry at the carriers for forcing the choice on people?
No offense to T-Mobile users, but T-Mobile and Sprint really aren't playing the same game as ATT and Verizon. I doubt ATT and Verizon will make any changes until either they start loosing market share to T-Mobile or the other of the two makes the change first. Verizon isn't going to change their business model if it's not in their best interest as a company. In this case, their best interests may not be their customers best interests.
I've found in my IT work that it's often more important to look at how fast a software company provides updates to their software. For instance, if we're looking at software and they don't support the newest version of IE, I'm going to scrutinize them much more than if they don't support Chrome. If they support the newest version, I'd ask questions and do research to see how fast they were to support it. While internally, I like to give people the freedom to use whichever browser they want, it's not my job to make sure that every browser works with every web app we have. I need to make sure that the browser(s) we officially install and support are compatible. If using an app means that I can't use a secure web browser, I'm going to be pissed.
You mention examples of going from XP to Vista to Windows 7. Yes, it's important to pick software that can handle the migrations well. However, it's impossible to know what's coming down the pipe from too far away. For example, I consider the biggest migration in Windows to be the shift from 32bit to 64bit. It's a change that most people don't pay much attention to. It's done more for compatibility issues than XP to 7 ever caused us. I've had to deal with everything from software that is fully 64bit compatible, but some idiot designed the install shield setup to require 32bit on the OS before it installs. My company also used an ancient 16bit DOS app for their imaging system. Sure, it's easy to laugh at that and tell them to wake up and get something new, but when you're talking about millions of dollars of time, software, and legacy documents, it's a big deal to change it. When the software was purchased 15 years ago, it was cutting edge. They vendor had kept it running fine even with Windows 7 32bit. It just couldn't run in a 64bit world.
The point of this is, hindsight is 20/20. You can try to pick the right vendors, and vet your major purchases as much as you want. The problem is that seeing beyond a few years is very difficult for anyone to do. If you or anyone you know can spot technology trends beyond a few years out, please let me know. God knows that my stock picking could use all the help it can get.
You setup a server in such a way that someone could trip over the power cord, and we're supposed to take your IT background serious? Really? For your sake, I hope there is much more to the story, because that's some seriously bad stuff.
You talk about interoperability as an important thing...sure, it's important on some levels. Having said that, it's hard to convince the stakeholders that they can't get the product they want because our homogenized MS environment supports it fine, but we're concerned that we wont be able to run it if we potentially decided to switch to Linux in an undetermined amount of time. I'm sure that would go over REAL well. Obviously you're correct about smartphones and tablets being game changers. The difference between the mobile revolution and the Linux/Apple revolution is....wait for it....the mobile revolution actually happened. I don't care how much you like Linux or Apple, their market share in the enterprise is miniscule.
Now, if I was developing a public facing website, I'd make damn sure that it supported every browser and device that I reasonably could.
Maybe you actually have heard of hunting, and you consider it something that people shouldn't do. Okay. Please tell me how to cut the deer population down. As someone who has first hand seen that deer are the #1 killer animal in North America, I'm shocked that anyone would be so shortsighted to not support hunting.
Every now and then the power will flicker enough to force you to reset clocks on appliances, but I haven't had a real outage in years. Probably not since the great mid-west blackout in 2003-4. Going back 15+ years, I remember having some outages from ice storms. Specifically when you get an early ice storm and the trees still have leaves on them. You get a TON more branches snapping lines that way. Doesn't happen often though.
Please replace step 5 with ????? and step 6 with profit. Thanks.
Seriously though, I am shocked by how many people don't pay off their credit cards every month. I mean, what part of, "I can't live on my income, so lets see if I can live on my income if my costs go up 20% (interest)" makes sense. I know saving money is hard, but while most people blame greedy bankers for the financial collapse, it was more due to individuals who borrowed more than they could afford to repay. People who should have saved money and not bought things. I blame individuals more than banks or Wall Street.
Even if I have cash, I'd rather pay my small amount with a credit card so I don't get change back. I don't like change, and I don't want to have it in my pockets. I've used a debit and credit card on $0.20 transactions before. Stores don't mind. That gas station I just spent $0.20 at is also the place I spend over $100 a month at. I can promise you, they are not the only station in town. If they anger their customers, they will go elsewhere.
Yeah, cause we all know that the environment and sustainable energy are China's number one priority. Sure, you could buy panels in the USA, but once the demand gets high enough, you KNOW manufacturing in China will squeeze the domestic manufacturers till they crumble. Which leaves us back at destroying the planet to build solar panels that take years too have a net positive effect on the environment.
Isn't that how Geothermal HVAC works? I know it requires other inputs (AC Power), but it uses the ground or even a lake as it's source of heating and cooling.
Solar panels require energy to create. People never think about that. These magic devices don't just magically appear on your roof. They have to take raw materials, break them down enough to get the raw components, and then convert those into solar panels. All of that takes massive amounts of energy. Lets not forget that they then have to ship them from the other side of the world. In fact, it wasn't until earlier this month that solar panels http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use>generated more energy than they took to create them. So just think about this, by the time you get those panels installed on your roof, it will take you years and years before you've generated more electricity than you forced a company to use to create the damn panels in the first place. I wish I knew how long, because I'm guessing it's decades.
Ok, if solar power is useless then how the fuck did I get to brake even with my investment in microgeneration even without accounting for state support
Okay, let's figure this out. According to the EIA, the average USA home uses 940 KWH per month. Dividing that by 30, you've got an average of 31.333 KWH per day of needs. Now, assuming that you get 250 watts on average from each 1 square meter, than you would need 5.222 square meters of solar coverage per house to collect enough power to average out over the year. Since the average home has +80 m^2 of roof space, I'm sure the average person could find 5.222 m^2 of space facing the correct direction. Now, obviously, you'd have to oversize it. Depending on where you live, you'd have to go bigger to cover the higher AC usage. You'd also want to have more capacity to cover possible expansion. So lets assume that you'd need 7 square meters of panels. That would give you a good buffer. Unfortunately, you'll have to buy a !#$( ton of batteries to store all of that power for night time. Sure, you could use the power company as a "battery" of sorts, but if everyone did that, the electric company would go belly up. So lets assume that you have your own batteries. I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't want to oversleep their alarm clock because their daughter left a couple lights on over night, and the power ran out. Or maybe you had a slightly hotter day than average, and your AC used up more than it's fair share of electricity. So lets add more panels, and more batteries. Before you know it, you're spending a metric shit ton of money on panels and batteries. Lest we not forget that until a http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use>few weeks ago, solar panels took more energy to make than they generated.
Now, even if a solar panel would be a good investment for someone who lives in Arizona, I assure you that we don't get nearly as much sun in Michigan. If I put up solar panels, even after I cut down several trees (raising my cooling costs), I still wouldn't get nearly as much sun as necessary to heat my house. I also have an East/West slopped roof. I'm assuming that would be less than ideal for solar generation. I'm sure that there are some people that solar makes sense for, and maybe you're one of them. For the rest of us, it's a stupid idea, and it will take a long time to even out.
Oh, and these numbers used all assume that you're getting the efficiency mentioned in the article. The average CURRENT panel gets 15-20% efficiency, so you're talking about.066 KWH per 1m^2, which means you'd need > 20 m^2 to cover the average American home needs.
I agree, but I think the solution could be a lot easier. Most airports have stairs they can drive to the airplane door. Sure, that wouldn't help a disabled person, but there is no reason 200 people have to sit in a plane for hours when only 1 or 2 people can't walk down a flight of stairs.
How sad it must be to run Motorola and see all of your hard work at developing the company basically turn in to a multibillion dollar patent portfolio.
Slashdot Mirror
Since those are the networks that create revenue for the cable companies, would that mean that they would pay you to sign up?
1. So they can sell the right to install an app on a phone that a consumer can't get rid of. 2. So they can set up "app stores" that collect a significant cut of whatever the user wants to buy. 3. So they can prevent third parties from creating and selling alternative services to their own products that are cheaper and/or better.
While I fully agree that those 3 items are not in the best interest of the customer, I can say that they also aren't "that bad". What you're forgetting is the fact that the average American would rather have ads or extra apps on their phones than pay more money. If you doubt that, let's look at the Kindle. According to Bezos, “No one really buys the non-special offers version,” So if Amazon gives people the choice and very few people pay the extra money to avoid the ads, why so angry at the carriers for forcing the choice on people?
They are all valid reasons from a carriers standpoint. The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them invalid.
No offense to T-Mobile users, but T-Mobile and Sprint really aren't playing the same game as ATT and Verizon. I doubt ATT and Verizon will make any changes until either they start loosing market share to T-Mobile or the other of the two makes the change first. Verizon isn't going to change their business model if it's not in their best interest as a company. In this case, their best interests may not be their customers best interests.
They weren't on my lawn. I think they have line of sight from their house through my window and to the TV.
I know you are kidding, but this actually happens to me all the time. Damn kids.
Can we call it the Tourette Bible?
"Years ago, it meant something to be crazy. Now everyone's crazy." Charles Manson
"Insanity is relative. It depends on who has who locked in what cage." Ray Bradbury
"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." H.L. Mencken
I for one welcome our new pit digging overlords.
I've found in my IT work that it's often more important to look at how fast a software company provides updates to their software. For instance, if we're looking at software and they don't support the newest version of IE, I'm going to scrutinize them much more than if they don't support Chrome. If they support the newest version, I'd ask questions and do research to see how fast they were to support it. While internally, I like to give people the freedom to use whichever browser they want, it's not my job to make sure that every browser works with every web app we have. I need to make sure that the browser(s) we officially install and support are compatible. If using an app means that I can't use a secure web browser, I'm going to be pissed.
You mention examples of going from XP to Vista to Windows 7. Yes, it's important to pick software that can handle the migrations well. However, it's impossible to know what's coming down the pipe from too far away. For example, I consider the biggest migration in Windows to be the shift from 32bit to 64bit. It's a change that most people don't pay much attention to. It's done more for compatibility issues than XP to 7 ever caused us. I've had to deal with everything from software that is fully 64bit compatible, but some idiot designed the install shield setup to require 32bit on the OS before it installs. My company also used an ancient 16bit DOS app for their imaging system. Sure, it's easy to laugh at that and tell them to wake up and get something new, but when you're talking about millions of dollars of time, software, and legacy documents, it's a big deal to change it. When the software was purchased 15 years ago, it was cutting edge. They vendor had kept it running fine even with Windows 7 32bit. It just couldn't run in a 64bit world.
The point of this is, hindsight is 20/20. You can try to pick the right vendors, and vet your major purchases as much as you want. The problem is that seeing beyond a few years is very difficult for anyone to do. If you or anyone you know can spot technology trends beyond a few years out, please let me know. God knows that my stock picking could use all the help it can get.
You setup a server in such a way that someone could trip over the power cord, and we're supposed to take your IT background serious? Really? For your sake, I hope there is much more to the story, because that's some seriously bad stuff.
You talk about interoperability as an important thing...sure, it's important on some levels. Having said that, it's hard to convince the stakeholders that they can't get the product they want because our homogenized MS environment supports it fine, but we're concerned that we wont be able to run it if we potentially decided to switch to Linux in an undetermined amount of time. I'm sure that would go over REAL well. Obviously you're correct about smartphones and tablets being game changers. The difference between the mobile revolution and the Linux/Apple revolution is....wait for it....the mobile revolution actually happened. I don't care how much you like Linux or Apple, their market share in the enterprise is miniscule.
Now, if I was developing a public facing website, I'd make damn sure that it supported every browser and device that I reasonably could.
You've never heard of hunting? Well, let me give you a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting>link.
Maybe you actually have heard of hunting, and you consider it something that people shouldn't do. Okay. Please tell me how to cut the deer population down. As someone who has first hand seen that deer are the #1 killer animal in North America, I'm shocked that anyone would be so shortsighted to not support hunting.
Every now and then the power will flicker enough to force you to reset clocks on appliances, but I haven't had a real outage in years. Probably not since the great mid-west blackout in 2003-4. Going back 15+ years, I remember having some outages from ice storms. Specifically when you get an early ice storm and the trees still have leaves on them. You get a TON more branches snapping lines that way. Doesn't happen often though.
Isn't all Canadian money fake money?
Please replace step 5 with ????? and step 6 with profit. Thanks. Seriously though, I am shocked by how many people don't pay off their credit cards every month. I mean, what part of, "I can't live on my income, so lets see if I can live on my income if my costs go up 20% (interest)" makes sense. I know saving money is hard, but while most people blame greedy bankers for the financial collapse, it was more due to individuals who borrowed more than they could afford to repay. People who should have saved money and not bought things. I blame individuals more than banks or Wall Street.
Even if I have cash, I'd rather pay my small amount with a credit card so I don't get change back. I don't like change, and I don't want to have it in my pockets. I've used a debit and credit card on $0.20 transactions before. Stores don't mind. That gas station I just spent $0.20 at is also the place I spend over $100 a month at. I can promise you, they are not the only station in town. If they anger their customers, they will go elsewhere.
Yeah, cause we all know that the environment and sustainable energy are China's number one priority. Sure, you could buy panels in the USA, but once the demand gets high enough, you KNOW manufacturing in China will squeeze the domestic manufacturers till they crumble. Which leaves us back at destroying the planet to build solar panels that take years too have a net positive effect on the environment.
Isn't that how Geothermal HVAC works? I know it requires other inputs (AC Power), but it uses the ground or even a lake as it's source of heating and cooling.
Solar panels require energy to create. People never think about that. These magic devices don't just magically appear on your roof. They have to take raw materials, break them down enough to get the raw components, and then convert those into solar panels. All of that takes massive amounts of energy. Lets not forget that they then have to ship them from the other side of the world. In fact, it wasn't until earlier this month that solar panels http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use>generated more energy than they took to create them. So just think about this, by the time you get those panels installed on your roof, it will take you years and years before you've generated more electricity than you forced a company to use to create the damn panels in the first place. I wish I knew how long, because I'm guessing it's decades.
Ok, if solar power is useless then how the fuck did I get to brake even with my investment in microgeneration even without accounting for state support
Okay, let's figure this out. According to the EIA, the average USA home uses 940 KWH per month. Dividing that by 30, you've got an average of 31.333 KWH per day of needs. Now, assuming that you get 250 watts on average from each 1 square meter, than you would need 5.222 square meters of solar coverage per house to collect enough power to average out over the year. Since the average home has +80 m^2 of roof space, I'm sure the average person could find 5.222 m^2 of space facing the correct direction. Now, obviously, you'd have to oversize it. Depending on where you live, you'd have to go bigger to cover the higher AC usage. You'd also want to have more capacity to cover possible expansion. So lets assume that you'd need 7 square meters of panels. That would give you a good buffer. Unfortunately, you'll have to buy a !#$( ton of batteries to store all of that power for night time. Sure, you could use the power company as a "battery" of sorts, but if everyone did that, the electric company would go belly up. So lets assume that you have your own batteries. I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't want to oversleep their alarm clock because their daughter left a couple lights on over night, and the power ran out. Or maybe you had a slightly hotter day than average, and your AC used up more than it's fair share of electricity. So lets add more panels, and more batteries. Before you know it, you're spending a metric shit ton of money on panels and batteries. Lest we not forget that until a http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use>few weeks ago, solar panels took more energy to make than they generated.
.066 KWH per 1m^2, which means you'd need > 20 m^2 to cover the average American home needs.
Now, even if a solar panel would be a good investment for someone who lives in Arizona, I assure you that we don't get nearly as much sun in Michigan. If I put up solar panels, even after I cut down several trees (raising my cooling costs), I still wouldn't get nearly as much sun as necessary to heat my house. I also have an East/West slopped roof. I'm assuming that would be less than ideal for solar generation. I'm sure that there are some people that solar makes sense for, and maybe you're one of them. For the rest of us, it's a stupid idea, and it will take a long time to even out.
Oh, and these numbers used all assume that you're getting the efficiency mentioned in the article. The average CURRENT panel gets 15-20% efficiency, so you're talking about
I agree, but I think the solution could be a lot easier. Most airports have stairs they can drive to the airplane door. Sure, that wouldn't help a disabled person, but there is no reason 200 people have to sit in a plane for hours when only 1 or 2 people can't walk down a flight of stairs.
Nope. I'm digging my Galaxy 4. I don't ever want to sign a cell phone contract again.
It would be great if I ever wanted to become a pirate. I could pull the supertankers to my secret base and plunder them.
That was my question. Talk about jackpot if it did.
How sad it must be to run Motorola and see all of your hard work at developing the company basically turn in to a multibillion dollar patent portfolio.