If Asus ever decided to come out with a smart-phone they could call it the eeePhone and advertise it as "three 'e's are better than one 'i'" Of course, then they could easily be trumped by the ieeePhone...
"The GP's point was that no nuclear power plant has ever paid for itself, proof of which is that no private entity has ever built, run and made money out of a nuclear plant without substantial subsidies, be it in the form of participation to capital costs, tax breaks, or socialisation of accident risks [wikipedia.org] (as in the US)."
Sorry, that's not proof of anything. Even large companies have a hard time justifying large, new, projects if the up-front cost is extremely high. Also, profitability has nothing to do with whether or not a company lobbies the government for subsidies. The journal article you posted, however, does seem like a decent source though one study isn't, necessarily, incontrovertible proof.
Hrm, either they'll be 1080p, 120hz, and $200 or they'll be a distant memory because no-one bought the initial product and the company isn't big enough to ram it through a bad generation or two like the bug guys can.
He, it's funny. You, probably, think your a wise-ass for pointing that out but if you hadn't been too lazy to read the rest of his post you'd notice that he already mentioned CRTs...
First off, assuming they are using lasers that powerful, you are, hopefully, looking at the projected image and not directly into the projector. Also, the laser may be 100mW, but it's only pointing any given direction for a tiny percentage of a second (second / refresh rate * number of pixels). That shouldn't be long enough to do damage.
The business week article bothers me, especially when I get to the end and read the piece about how the author earned some kind of journalism award. I think it must have been the kind that comes hidden in a box of cracker-jacks.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should, seriously, consider the repercussions from moving to 15% ethanol but much of the rest of his article seems to be nothing more than histrionics. The examples of cars dying from ethanol seem to come from gas stations that get the wrong mix of gas (at least 20% ethanol) and car companies that didn't design their cars right. US gas has had the option of having up to 10% ethanol for many many years, why aren't car companies designing their fuel systems to handle it? He even gives an example of a flex fuel car that, accidentally, received 100% ethanol fuel (which it isn't designed for). He even admits that this was a mistake at the refinery, so what is the point of it being in the article at all (other than to produce inflammatory garbage journalism)? Those kinds of mistakes say nothing about whether ethanol is good technology, one way or the other.
Besides, if you don't monitor them you can't be sure they've eaten their meat. Think of all the children that might get pudding without having eaten their meat.
The problem here isn't that these newspapers are fawning over this report. The problem is that the point of the report has been mangled by incompetent journalists. The original report is about replacing your car with public transportation, not just your work commute. That's why they end up using 15000 miles (which is absurdly high for an average commute but much more reasonable for a total year of family driving).
I do find the parking rate high but, then again, my commute is the reverse (from the city into the suburbs) and my company has free parking. Even if it would be more reasonable to assume for a lower parking cost, $2.039 is absurdly low for gas (here in the Chicago area, things are up to around $2.50 from a previous low of about $2.19 at the cheapest gas stations).
Which would be a disingenuous thing to add to such a cost estimate because the extra cars are, obviously, a luxury that the owner has decided to pay for above-and-beyond their commuting costs. An apples-to-apples comparison should assume only the cost of maintaining/operating one car vs. the cost of one person commuting by mass transit.
Yes, that's exactly how it works but everyone else here seems to get something you've managed to missed. It's not just a half ounce of ink, it's all the ink used for the lifetime of the printer. That's a lot more than just one ounce (unless you're an idiot that throws out your printed when the half-filled intro cartridge, that comes with the printer, goes empty. This become doubly true when you're dealing with an office printer like the one mentioned by the OP.
Of course, the present inkjet printer market tends to design printers to be cheaply constructed so that they can get them in your home/office easier and gouge you for the price of ink but, even so, the printers last a pretty good while. The fact that the printers aren't made as durably as they should be may make the issue a little cloudier, but it's not the slam dunk you seem to imply it is.
The other question is which type of pollution is worse for the environment? Just because all that stuff goes into making an inkjet printer doesn't, necessarily, mean it has a bigger environmental impact. Remember, the ink in your printer cartridges is liquid which means it's easier to contaminate large quantities of water or air with it than with the solid waste that the printer in made from. Again, not so cut-and-dry of an issue.
I'm sure that they have to give an estimated price point when they look for investors and that without being optimistic they would probably have had a much harder time getting funding. The problem here is that they should have just kept their mouths shut about price when talking to the general public until they knew what it would, actually, cost.
Yea, and if anyone could ever force the release of documents proving they had, intentionally, crippled their internet access to maintain their voice business they'd be in a world of hurt similar to, or much worse, than this could turn into. That's the kind of stuff the FCC and the FTC exist to step on.
As for SMS, you're right. It is a separate protocol, but not in the way you seem to be suggesting. SMS exists because there happened to be unused fields in the header of digital voice service packets. That means that that data is sent every time your phone connects to a cell tower for any reason whether you send a text message or not. The end result, is that txt messages don't just cost the cell phone company less than broadband, they cost the company $0.00. Yup, that's right nothing, noda, zip, zilch.
Besides, the idea of saying that the difference in protocol makes the bits of digital data, somehow, different is a farce in-and-of itself. The only thing that should differentiate any of this is the fact that the actual voice data (not the txt messages) requires QoS priority. However, no-one is suggesting that they be forced to stop providing voice service on a different tier of pricing. On the other hand, if I decide to use the "unlimited" data plan they sold me to run VoiP then, as long as I'm willing to accept the increase in skipping that may or may not happen, I should be free to do so without their permission.
I understand that there is a difference between the QOS settings for voice and data. That makes sense. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to stop differentiating between voice and data, but if I choose to use my data connection to run VoiP (assuming I'm willing to put up with the increase in skipping, if there is one) or to tether to my laptop then that should be my decision to make, not theirs. They have no business even knowing what kind of software/hardware I'm using on my end of the wireless connection.
The idea that a laptop, inherently, uses more bandwidth than a smart phone is just pure bull-crap. A laptop or smartphone uses only as much bandwidth, at any given time, as the cell phone company has set their servers/towers to provide. If they sell an "unlimited" plan then I have every right to run my smart phone at max bandwidth 24/7 if I choose to. Otherwise, they shouldn't be calling it unlimited. They could implement usage caps if they're afraid of people over using they network, but they choose not to. Instead, they try to run a bait-and-switch scam by selling you a connection that is supposed to be "unlimited" 128kbps-384kbps (grabbed from an above post as the rated speeds for 3G) and then, artificially, ban selective applications that, if used, might require them to, actually, hold up their end of the bargain.
Actually, that's not true. I can, for an added fee, have the power company install beefier equipment that would allow me to install more zones (breakers) in my house or higher amperage zones/sockets. It just isn't common, as most people don't have a need for that much power.
Furthermore, I can leave all the appliances/lights in my house on 24/7 and, I assure you, I'll be using dramatically more power than my neighbor (unless he's an idiot too). A more practical example might be someone who runs a cluster of PCs for folding@home or something like it. They will be using much more power than their neighbors. The difference, is that power companies have been regulated for so long that they've been requires to, responsibly, upgrade their power grids with enough over-coverage that lot's of people can consume large amounts of power without impacting their neighbors. When they do, it's called a brownout or blackout and is the equivalent of the cable ISP overloading your local node or the neighbor kid running an open torrent feed. Thereâ(TM)s none of the abusive oversell you see in cable ISPs or which youâ(TM)re alluding to in cell phone ISPs.
The real difference between cell phone companies, as they are now, and public utilities like the electric company is that the electric company doesnâ(TM)t give a crap what I connect my power to (and they shouldnâ(TM)t). I could run an extension cord to my neighborâ(TM)s apartment and run all his appliances/lights and, as long as Iâ(TM)m not wiring it up in a way that will risk destroying their equipment, they wonâ(TM)t care (the local safety inspector might care, but thatâ(TM)s a separate issue). They know that theyâ(TM)ve been honest with their customers (most likely because theyâ(TM)re forced to be through government regulation) and that theyâ(TM)ve built their infrastructure right such that I can use all the power my fuses can handle 24/7 without impacting the local grid. They donâ(TM)t try to run scams like telling me that power to my AC or my electric range costs a special price per kilowatt. If they were allowed to run like the cell phone companies, theyâ(TM)d probably make up some garbage about the 240VAC plug for my major appliances being a âoespecial exceptionâ and charge double the rate per kWh.
Whether a cell phone is tethered or not, the cell phone provider has 100% control over how much bandwidth that connection gets. Thereâ(TM)s no reason a person connecting a laptop to a cell phone should be using any more bandwidth than a person browsing the same sites on a smart phone unless the phone company is stupid enough to let them. If the connection really isnâ(TM)t fast enough to handle video and VoiP, then those services wonâ(TM)t run well, right? On the other hand, if it isnâ(TM)t fast enough to handle those, then why are the companies allowed to advertise them as having the bandwidth they advertise now? The rates they advertise are more than enough to do those things. If they sell me a service that is supposed to be fast enough for that kind of stuff and then ban most of the specific applications that make it possible to use the speeds they advertisements then isnâ(TM)t that just an old-school bait-and-switch scam?
I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that explanation. We already have, perfectly valid, examples of what you're describing as an unrealistic business model for them. Those examples are electrical utilities, natural gas utilities, and municipal water (in places that meter it). Each of those services provide a product that is measured in what, to the consumer, is likely to be abstract units (kWh, gallons, etc.) and service devices for which the user, probably, has a poor idea of their consumption rate.
How many people really know how much power their refrigerator, computer, electric range, or air conditioner consume? It's not necessary for them to know the specifics as they get a general idea of which items use the most power/aren't necessities and limit the use of them if their electric bills start to sky-rocket.
The reason it's clear that cellphone companies are price gouging can be seen when you break down the cost per Kilobit of things like SMS and voice services versus other forms of bandwidth services (and, no, you don't just get to exempt SMS costs from whether or not the cellphone companies are gouging). Even compared to cellular internet rates, they're so high they should be criminal. This is the exact opposite of what you were describing. They aren't doing this to protect the users from confusion about what bandwidth is, they're using that confusion to rob people blind. Another great example of this can be seen in the absurd charges for bandwidth over your plan cap? When was the last time you saw the kWh rate for electricity jump by ~1000% (rough estimate based on what I know of plans from companies like Verizon) when you went over a set cap on electricity usage for the month? I can understand a little bit of a premium if the, absolutely have to, have a cap system at all but the numbers here are pure abuse.
What it comes down to, is that the cellphone industry in the US seems to act as a form of cartel (whether intentionally, or not). They use abusive policies and, in many cases, modified firmware to produce artificial vendor lock-in and arbitrarily inflated prices for "premium services". This is possible, predominantly, because they have a government enforced monopoly on the limited radio bands and, in many places, municipal easements needed to install cellphone towers. The proper response is that with this kind of, artificial, government barrier to competition they should be regulated the same way any other public utility is. The same goes for cable/ADSL ISPs who benefit even more from limited municipal easements in order to lay down their lines and install nodes.
While this is an April Fools joke, many ATMs, really, do run on Windows. I've seen a number of screenshots of crashed ATMs that either give a bluescreen or crash out to the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
If Asus ever decided to come out with a smart-phone they could call it the eeePhone and advertise it as "three 'e's are better than one 'i'" Of course, then they could easily be trumped by the ieeePhone...
"The GP's point was that no nuclear power plant has ever paid for itself, proof of which is that no private entity has ever built, run and made money out of a nuclear plant without substantial subsidies, be it in the form of participation to capital costs, tax breaks, or socialisation of accident risks [wikipedia.org] (as in the US)."
Sorry, that's not proof of anything. Even large companies have a hard time justifying large, new, projects if the up-front cost is extremely high. Also, profitability has nothing to do with whether or not a company lobbies the government for subsidies. The journal article you posted, however, does seem like a decent source though one study isn't, necessarily, incontrovertible proof.
Hrm, either they'll be 1080p, 120hz, and $200 or they'll be a distant memory because no-one bought the initial product and the company isn't big enough to ram it through a bad generation or two like the bug guys can.
He, it's funny. You, probably, think your a wise-ass for pointing that out but if you hadn't been too lazy to read the rest of his post you'd notice that he already mentioned CRTs...
First off, assuming they are using lasers that powerful, you are, hopefully, looking at the projected image and not directly into the projector. Also, the laser may be 100mW, but it's only pointing any given direction for a tiny percentage of a second (second / refresh rate * number of pixels). That shouldn't be long enough to do damage.
The business week article bothers me, especially when I get to the end and read the piece about how the author earned some kind of journalism award. I think it must have been the kind that comes hidden in a box of cracker-jacks.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should, seriously, consider the repercussions from moving to 15% ethanol but much of the rest of his article seems to be nothing more than histrionics. The examples of cars dying from ethanol seem to come from gas stations that get the wrong mix of gas (at least 20% ethanol) and car companies that didn't design their cars right. US gas has had the option of having up to 10% ethanol for many many years, why aren't car companies designing their fuel systems to handle it? He even gives an example of a flex fuel car that, accidentally, received 100% ethanol fuel (which it isn't designed for). He even admits that this was a mistake at the refinery, so what is the point of it being in the article at all (other than to produce inflammatory garbage journalism)? Those kinds of mistakes say nothing about whether ethanol is good technology, one way or the other.
Or, if you catch him and cut his fingers off. Then you'd be managing his right to use his digits...
Besides, if you don't monitor them you can't be sure they've eaten their meat. Think of all the children that might get pudding without having eaten their meat.
The problem here isn't that these newspapers are fawning over this report. The problem is that the point of the report has been mangled by incompetent journalists. The original report is about replacing your car with public transportation, not just your work commute. That's why they end up using 15000 miles (which is absurdly high for an average commute but much more reasonable for a total year of family driving).
I do find the parking rate high but, then again, my commute is the reverse (from the city into the suburbs) and my company has free parking. Even if it would be more reasonable to assume for a lower parking cost, $2.039 is absurdly low for gas (here in the Chicago area, things are up to around $2.50 from a previous low of about $2.19 at the cheapest gas stations).
Which would be a disingenuous thing to add to such a cost estimate because the extra cars are, obviously, a luxury that the owner has decided to pay for above-and-beyond their commuting costs. An apples-to-apples comparison should assume only the cost of maintaining/operating one car vs. the cost of one person commuting by mass transit.
Maybe the article writer is a fundamentalist Christian that believes all children are gifts from God and, thus, not a serious side effect.
"Let me get this straight..."
Yes, that's exactly how it works but everyone else here seems to get something you've managed to missed. It's not just a half ounce of ink, it's all the ink used for the lifetime of the printer. That's a lot more than just one ounce (unless you're an idiot that throws out your printed when the half-filled intro cartridge, that comes with the printer, goes empty. This become doubly true when you're dealing with an office printer like the one mentioned by the OP.
Of course, the present inkjet printer market tends to design printers to be cheaply constructed so that they can get them in your home/office easier and gouge you for the price of ink but, even so, the printers last a pretty good while. The fact that the printers aren't made as durably as they should be may make the issue a little cloudier, but it's not the slam dunk you seem to imply it is.
The other question is which type of pollution is worse for the environment? Just because all that stuff goes into making an inkjet printer doesn't, necessarily, mean it has a bigger environmental impact. Remember, the ink in your printer cartridges is liquid which means it's easier to contaminate large quantities of water or air with it than with the solid waste that the printer in made from. Again, not so cut-and-dry of an issue.
I'm sure that they have to give an estimated price point when they look for investors and that without being optimistic they would probably have had a much harder time getting funding. The problem here is that they should have just kept their mouths shut about price when talking to the general public until they knew what it would, actually, cost.
They should leave a message that says "reset after 10,000 years" repeated in all known written languages.
Wow, are you behind the times. You should see the newest generation of windmills...
It may not look like much, but when you convert it from Euros to US Dollars it's something like $1.3 billion. ;-)
Yea, and if anyone could ever force the release of documents proving they had, intentionally, crippled their internet access to maintain their voice business they'd be in a world of hurt similar to, or much worse, than this could turn into. That's the kind of stuff the FCC and the FTC exist to step on.
As for SMS, you're right. It is a separate protocol, but not in the way you seem to be suggesting. SMS exists because there happened to be unused fields in the header of digital voice service packets. That means that that data is sent every time your phone connects to a cell tower for any reason whether you send a text message or not. The end result, is that txt messages don't just cost the cell phone company less than broadband, they cost the company $0.00. Yup, that's right nothing, noda, zip, zilch.
Besides, the idea of saying that the difference in protocol makes the bits of digital data, somehow, different is a farce in-and-of itself. The only thing that should differentiate any of this is the fact that the actual voice data (not the txt messages) requires QoS priority. However, no-one is suggesting that they be forced to stop providing voice service on a different tier of pricing. On the other hand, if I decide to use the "unlimited" data plan they sold me to run VoiP then, as long as I'm willing to accept the increase in skipping that may or may not happen, I should be free to do so without their permission.
I understand that there is a difference between the QOS settings for voice and data. That makes sense. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to stop differentiating between voice and data, but if I choose to use my data connection to run VoiP (assuming I'm willing to put up with the increase in skipping, if there is one) or to tether to my laptop then that should be my decision to make, not theirs. They have no business even knowing what kind of software/hardware I'm using on my end of the wireless connection.
The idea that a laptop, inherently, uses more bandwidth than a smart phone is just pure bull-crap. A laptop or smartphone uses only as much bandwidth, at any given time, as the cell phone company has set their servers/towers to provide. If they sell an "unlimited" plan then I have every right to run my smart phone at max bandwidth 24/7 if I choose to. Otherwise, they shouldn't be calling it unlimited. They could implement usage caps if they're afraid of people over using they network, but they choose not to. Instead, they try to run a bait-and-switch scam by selling you a connection that is supposed to be "unlimited" 128kbps-384kbps (grabbed from an above post as the rated speeds for 3G) and then, artificially, ban selective applications that, if used, might require them to, actually, hold up their end of the bargain.
Actually, that's not true. I can, for an added fee, have the power company install beefier equipment that would allow me to install more zones (breakers) in my house or higher amperage zones/sockets. It just isn't common, as most people don't have a need for that much power.
Furthermore, I can leave all the appliances/lights in my house on 24/7 and, I assure you, I'll be using dramatically more power than my neighbor (unless he's an idiot too). A more practical example might be someone who runs a cluster of PCs for folding@home or something like it. They will be using much more power than their neighbors. The difference, is that power companies have been regulated for so long that they've been requires to, responsibly, upgrade their power grids with enough over-coverage that lot's of people can consume large amounts of power without impacting their neighbors. When they do, it's called a brownout or blackout and is the equivalent of the cable ISP overloading your local node or the neighbor kid running an open torrent feed. Thereâ(TM)s none of the abusive oversell you see in cable ISPs or which youâ(TM)re alluding to in cell phone ISPs.
The real difference between cell phone companies, as they are now, and public utilities like the electric company is that the electric company doesnâ(TM)t give a crap what I connect my power to (and they shouldnâ(TM)t). I could run an extension cord to my neighborâ(TM)s apartment and run all his appliances/lights and, as long as Iâ(TM)m not wiring it up in a way that will risk destroying their equipment, they wonâ(TM)t care (the local safety inspector might care, but thatâ(TM)s a separate issue). They know that theyâ(TM)ve been honest with their customers (most likely because theyâ(TM)re forced to be through government regulation) and that theyâ(TM)ve built their infrastructure right such that I can use all the power my fuses can handle 24/7 without impacting the local grid. They donâ(TM)t try to run scams like telling me that power to my AC or my electric range costs a special price per kilowatt. If they were allowed to run like the cell phone companies, theyâ(TM)d probably make up some garbage about the 240VAC plug for my major appliances being a âoespecial exceptionâ and charge double the rate per kWh.
Whether a cell phone is tethered or not, the cell phone provider has 100% control over how much bandwidth that connection gets. Thereâ(TM)s no reason a person connecting a laptop to a cell phone should be using any more bandwidth than a person browsing the same sites on a smart phone unless the phone company is stupid enough to let them. If the connection really isnâ(TM)t fast enough to handle video and VoiP, then those services wonâ(TM)t run well, right? On the other hand, if it isnâ(TM)t fast enough to handle those, then why are the companies allowed to advertise them as having the bandwidth they advertise now? The rates they advertise are more than enough to do those things. If they sell me a service that is supposed to be fast enough for that kind of stuff and then ban most of the specific applications that make it possible to use the speeds they advertisements then isnâ(TM)t that just an old-school bait-and-switch scam?
Nonsense, I, sir, am a professional, an equal opportunity criticizer. Besides, what's wrong with making a living doing what you love?
I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that explanation. We already have, perfectly valid, examples of what you're describing as an unrealistic business model for them. Those examples are electrical utilities, natural gas utilities, and municipal water (in places that meter it). Each of those services provide a product that is measured in what, to the consumer, is likely to be abstract units (kWh, gallons, etc.) and service devices for which the user, probably, has a poor idea of their consumption rate.
How many people really know how much power their refrigerator, computer, electric range, or air conditioner consume? It's not necessary for them to know the specifics as they get a general idea of which items use the most power/aren't necessities and limit the use of them if their electric bills start to sky-rocket.
The reason it's clear that cellphone companies are price gouging can be seen when you break down the cost per Kilobit of things like SMS and voice services versus other forms of bandwidth services (and, no, you don't just get to exempt SMS costs from whether or not the cellphone companies are gouging). Even compared to cellular internet rates, they're so high they should be criminal. This is the exact opposite of what you were describing. They aren't doing this to protect the users from confusion about what bandwidth is, they're using that confusion to rob people blind. Another great example of this can be seen in the absurd charges for bandwidth over your plan cap? When was the last time you saw the kWh rate for electricity jump by ~1000% (rough estimate based on what I know of plans from companies like Verizon) when you went over a set cap on electricity usage for the month? I can understand a little bit of a premium if the, absolutely have to, have a cap system at all but the numbers here are pure abuse.
What it comes down to, is that the cellphone industry in the US seems to act as a form of cartel (whether intentionally, or not). They use abusive policies and, in many cases, modified firmware to produce artificial vendor lock-in and arbitrarily inflated prices for "premium services". This is possible, predominantly, because they have a government enforced monopoly on the limited radio bands and, in many places, municipal easements needed to install cellphone towers. The proper response is that with this kind of, artificial, government barrier to competition they should be regulated the same way any other public utility is. The same goes for cable/ADSL ISPs who benefit even more from limited municipal easements in order to lay down their lines and install nodes.
"Linux Needs Critics"
Awesome, I love to criticize things. Here's an example:
@Linux: Your fat, you smell, and no one likes you.
So, how much does the position pay and when can I start?
While this is an April Fools joke, many ATMs, really, do run on Windows. I've seen a number of screenshots of crashed ATMs that either give a bluescreen or crash out to the desktop.
Sorry, that's just a symptom of your, severe, brain damage.
That makes more sense. I'd mod you up if I could.