This is a tough one for me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe that the MPAA's power comes not just from bribing and lobbying, but directly from the entire implementatin of copyright and patents -- any law that offers the use of force and legalizes a monopoly eventually creates distribution cartels and really powerful political cronies.
Here we see an eye-for-an-eye. Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind. I think it's appropriate here as in the long run, it isn't consumers who will "win" if this case continues, it is the lawyers and the law itself that wins. As cases are won and lost and precedents are set, we don't see the market of sellers and buyers made easier, instead we see more laws and legal precedents that put more power in the hands of those who can afford the legal costs.
So what happens if the MPAA loses? Can you or I use the same case tactics to defend our own information? What happens if the MPAA wins? They only get more powerful. In the end, someone else is enhancing their power (through the State), rather than a market that really doesn't need any more powerful players in the game.
I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.
I've tried so many PHP and MySQL books over the years that I can't even keep track of what I'm reading. Coding just doesn't seem to make sense to me in book form.
I learned the most I possibly could by downloading Wordpress (blog software), PHPBB (bulletin board software) and setting them up. I downloaded modifications and looked over the code in person.
Over the past few months I've become really adept at writing my own PHP and MySQL-based software, to the point that I'm starting to design my own CMS interface. Not a single thing I've learned from a book has stuck, but everything I learn in chomping on code in Notepad or emacs seems to stick forever.
I doubt you will find a 200% increase in median expendable income between 2000 and 2006.
People making median income are generally schmucks who don't realize that the same dollars they're getting paid in are going down in value significantly. Let's look at the M2 money supply figure of January 2000 -- 4675.6 billion. Now let's look at the M2 money supply figure of January 2006 -- 6738.0 billion. That is a 44.1% money supply inflation rate over the 6 year period. Ouch. Looking at the M3 figures is even more scary.
My income has doubled in those 6 years as I tie my income to more realistic measures of inflation. So should you. A measly 3% raise annually means you earn less and less over time, so for those only getting that pittance of a raise, of course you should expect to buy less and less. Why do you think most Americans live off of false home equity?
Actually, I am a believe in hard money and the soft and beneficial deflation that occurs when you have a real money standard. That being said, I see myself becoming MORE valuable as my billable rate decreases if I am no longer producing better than other people.
In my life, I've worked with my employees to compete with me openly -- if someone is working for me for more than 5 years, I think they've failed to learn from me. The more people that compete with me, the more I can use THEIR skills to prioritize what I am best at. If I was still doing the work I did 10 years ago, my billable rate should go down. It is also why I see no harm in paying older employees less rather than more, especially since younger employees in some industries are more productive. My billable rate goes higher every quarter because I can _prove_ that I will save a customer more money today than I did 3 months ago.
I'm an anti-copyright advocate who sees more power in releasing my information for free to the ether of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts, e-books and music, I openly request others to copy it and even put their own name on it. I've realized that once I put something into easily copied form, it will be copied. It might be partially used, fully mimiced, or completely turned upside down, yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am the original author.
For me as a writer, I love to know that people are reading me and replying to me -- that is my "profit" in the short term -- reader input. I tend to make up my own words that I write with, in order to see who might be copying me fully. I then look at what people say about their "writings", too. One such word I created was unanimocracy, but I've invented a few other phrases that are easily searched, too.
I believe the best way to "fix" plagiarism isn't to make it more illegal or immoral, but to work on a free market and open system where content creators can submit their creations to be cataloged as "the first." Let others copy it, but Google or another toolbar can easily flag a new creation as "very similar to another." Imagine if the Google toolbar had a "% of originality" for every site you visit (or every paragraph to highlight with your mouse). This could work for lyrics, guitar tabs, writings, opinion, news articles, etc.
Plagiarism is "OK" is some circles -- do a Google News search and see how many big named media outlets just regurgitate each others' news. Boring. Bloggers do the same thing, but many put a unique spin on the original writer's ideas.
I love when people plagiarize me. In the long run it builds my credibility even if they don't reference me as the original writer. I'd rather find free market solutions (such as the one I outlined above) rather than find penalties for the copying. If someone discovers that the person they respect didn't write the content on their own, the market fixes this by making the reader not read the plagiariser anymore. Easy solution.
In the long run, trying to protect your creative works will be a losing process. I use my previous creations to gain new customers who appreciate the information that I don't share. That is the product/service I sell, and I use my years of writing to show a history of original opinion and beliefs. Anything I write for public consumption is merely a marketing tool to get people to hire me for real face-time -- I could care less if someone else found a better way to make money with my thoughts. Most of my thoughts are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking about what others say.
My blog network forum is based completely on the comments of others -- I even pay my readers who give me the best comments. Their input on my writings is what gives me MORE information to sell at a higher price to those willing to pay for my knowledge. Why should I stop others from using my works to create new opinions that I can learn from?
I'm not sure I agree about not buying a PS3 on the "expensive" idea. I made a post a few days ago, Is the PS3 really more expensive? offering that the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation. The Central Bank has destroyed the dollar by almost 50% over the time since the PS2 was launched. Considering that devaluation, the PS3 really isn't that much more expensive. If you follow that thread, you see that the PS2 versus PS3 in Europe (which didn't see as much of a currency destruction as the USD has in the same time period) is NOT seeing a huge price increase in the PS3 as we are.
I still won't buy the PS3 on other grounds -- but definitely not the "its too expensive" idea. The PS3 is no more expensive than the PS2, comparing 2000USD versus 2006USD values.
It is false to believe that a free market offers any value in "goodwill equity" of any sort. I'm a businessman, and every time I provide a product or a service for my customer, the only equity that exists is the expectation that I will perform exactly as I am supposed to for a given payment, and that customer will pay me for my performance. The believe otherwise is a quick way to end up out of business.
I see it every year -- some kid takes over pop's huge business because the old man had a heart attack. The kid (usually in his 30s or 40s) drives the business into the ground and below within 2 years. He believed that the business didn't need to constantly re-win back old customers solely because they'd been around for years. Sony is no different than the businesses I see failing every year, even ones who have been around for 100 years and are now gone.
Every time a customer makes a purchase, it is with an expectation. No law is needed to protect the customer, because the customer can destroy a business in no time -- if each and every customer who is "hurt" by a previous transaction refuses to make a future one. Does "goodwill equity" give a customer a reason to buy again? Certainly. Does it mean the customer will be willing to accept one grievance or one mistake? Absolutely NOT.
To think that previously happy customers will forgive a mistake is to think that life is all happy-happy puppy-love bubble-gum and kisses. It isn't. This is business. You give the customer what they're paying for, or you go away.
Sony, go away. Please go away. You made too many mistakes, and the only goodwill you should be seeing is the clothing charity.
Let us stop this "Bush Administration" mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans -- this has to do with pure, raw power. The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Where are the Democrats who are decrying the laws THEY voted for as foul and evil? This is an election year, though, so we can't really tell if they're just jockeying for the camera or truly meaning they want less evil.
I'm sick of Bush. I was sick of Clinton. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. Don't point the finger at any one party. Bush is a moron, but look who voted for the laws in power today? Both parties.
I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.
If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.
The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.
Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?
A criminal that rapes someone may have talked during the rape -- it is the rape that was evil.
A criminal that shoots someone in the head used a gun -- it is the shooting that is evil. He could have used a baseball bat.
A criminal that blows up a building might use a cell phone -- it is the building exploding that is evil. He could have used e-mail or writing a big X on a tree.
We have to stop government from criminalizing actions that are part of our right to speech. This right is not something Constitutional or created out of any government document -- it is a natural right that all humans share, no matter what the laws say.
I'll continue to encrypt, and I'll dare the government to try to restrict me. If I have to, I'll encrypt by using an encryption program that hides my real text to make it look like readable language. Let them try to stop that. Or I'll use my own spoken code. Will they find a way to criminalize it?
A reader at my forum posted a question regarding the PS3 and if it is really more expensive than the PS2. In 2000, the PS2 sold for US$299. In 2006, the PS3 will sell for $599. Over the past 6 years, the dollar has fallen in value by about 50% in many areas of the market (not just gasoline or housing). Things haven't really gotten more expensive, the dollar has just become more worthless. You can thank Greenspan and Bernanke for their inflationary monetary policy.
For many households, their incomes have nearly doubled in the past 10 years, if not 6 years. I know my income is up nearly 300% in 7 years. For me, the PS3 is cheaper versus the true cost of living than the PS2 was, and I'm 32, not 25. Considering I was 26 when the PS2 came out, I am already past the "I can't afford XYZ" phase of my life.
Maybe things are coming to a head in the economy entirely, where people are earning more and more dollars, but those dollars are constantly worth less and less to a global market. For a guy like me living on a personal gold standard, most prices have been falling over the last 5 years, not rising. For those of us who see our paychecks going up every year, the PS3's reported initial price shouldn't see that outrageous, especially considering many of us aren't doing much more than we were doing 6 years ago, so getting a raise seems pointless.
At least the PS3 has many new features to show for the dollar price increase. What is the Euro price of the PS3? The dollar fell against the Euro almost 50% in that same time.
For me, I won't buy it anyway, since it's a Sony product and I'm through with them. I was a Sony fanboy for a decade, but not now with their junk and their consumer manipulations. They can go suck it. Even still, the PS3 seems comparble to the PS2 in actual value rather than dollar price.
Actually, I sold my labor to take the photographs for them -- they can do whatever they please with the photos. All my contracts stipulate that I still retain non-exclusive rights and may give the photos away to others at any cost or no cost at all:) I once sold a really bad photo to 3 papers (none of which ran them).
Actually, these scraper sites can be really effective in also hurting the sites they take content from. If they end up with a higher pagerank than the site they borrowed content from, the site with the borrowed content can be penalized (and even banned from AdSense themselves!).
Google is fighting that war fairly well with their new smart pricing system (in AdSense) but I would much prefer to see an option for publishers to opt-in to a better AdSense program that offers possibly better income if new content doesn't get ads until it is manually OKd by a live human. Maybe give up 20-25% revenue in exchange for a higher top end opportunity.
I appreciate justices who understand their job is to restrain the Federal government from trampling the rights of the individual, and in this case it looks like they're doing their job. Kudos and positive feedback.
I don't know if just restraining is enough anymore. When someone breaks a law, they can go to jail or pay a hefty fine. Why is it that Congress and the President can break their oath to uphold the Constitution's restrictions on their power and there is no real penalty?
Maybe it is time to penalize repeat offenders who vote for and pass (and don't veto) for unconstitutional laws. The voting booth is not enough to prevent future intrusions. A judge can sentence me to jail for breaking my oath to follow the law, the same should be true for those creating the laws.
As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to. Slashdot usually has good opinions from either side of the statism coin, and this is one place that I don't doubt that both sides of the pro/anti-government debate can offer some real insight to.
I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it. Drug wars, porn wars, family value wars, oil wars, a War on Everything seems to just make Everything worse.
I think child porn is disgusting, but the victims in this case have never seemed to be helped by the law. Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.
I'm not a fan of regular porn, either, but I don't really see how anyone can stop something that has an obvious market (including child porn or the odd varieties of porn). As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time. I've helped a few friends overcome their porn issues as best as I can, by offering my time and love and helping them become accountable to someone (voluntarily). I don't think we can eradicate porn of any kind through the law, and I also believe in people's inherent right to view porn in the privacy of their homes. Is the criminal the person looking at porn, the person making it, or the person who connects the two together? I would have to say that the person who is violated would be the kid, and the perp would be the person making it. Wouldn't it be wiser to go after the real criminal?
Just because there is a black market for something doesn't mean that the person who consumes the black market product is the problem. You can't fix the drug problem by jailing non-violent drug users. You can't fix the problem by jailing non-violent drug dealers. You can only create a fair justice system by prosecuting and jailing people who committed real acts of violence regardless of the reason -- shoot someone (drug war, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. Run someone over with your car (drunk, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. The base reasoning that "it was over drugs" or "it was because of alcohol" is not a just reason -- it is the violation of the person that was the criminal act, not the base reason behind the violation.
I think the enter War on Child Porn doesn't protect the children, but it does seem to give government more and more power over our lives. If we are to criminalize an act, it should be against the perp of the act and on behalf of a real victim. "John Doe (minor) versus Crazy McCracken (perp)" is the only lawsuit I ever want to see. The People versus lawsuits should be thrown out, and we need to return tort laws to finding a real victim and a real perp.
"Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present"
Read that over, and you'll realize that in this case, the Constitutional argument may not fly. That sentence is about Article VI
I'm familiar with the so-called "Supremacy Clause" and I disagree with your reading of it (and the Federal power-mongerers as well):
The clause is:
"This Constitution... shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."
Note that it says the judges in every state. It does not say Senators, Congressmen, police, citizens, aliens, or anyone else. The Supremacy Clause requires that state judges defer to the upper law, but if you read the article more:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
it relinquishes everyone else from the supremacy clause. Too bad that the scholars of the power-mongering federal government forget the rest of the article.
As for Missouri v. Holland, that is a sad case. I've studied MvH and the whole Bricker debate situation. I haven't read up on it in many years, though, so my debate potential there is lacking.
Why do you, a freedom-loving anarcho-capitalist wish to continue residing in the People's Republik of Illinois?
Good question. I've found various loopholes in the State and Federal tax laws based on income if you're paid in US Minted gold and silver. It seems that the State of Illinois is happy to accept the loophole (probably because it is used by many elite politicians, I am sure), but many other states won't give me a clear-cut answer.
I've worked very hard to extricate myself from the state entirely (including not using state roads, and criticizing state officials and state police officers every time I see one anywhere), and I believe Illinois has some hope in offering anarcho-capitalists the chance to extricate ourselves even more. I am currently pursuing some legal requests to see if what I think the law says is true, and if that is the case, things might change fairly quickly.
Why Illinois? For me, convenience. We have private FBO airports everywhere (and cheap ones) which means I may never need my car or public roads ever again (sounds crazy, but who knows). When people ask me what we would do if government didn't provide roadways, I'd point them to the fact that I don't think cars would exist like they do today if it wasn't for government subsidies -- maybe we would all be flying around, who knows? I recently flew about 85 miles because it was faster than my car (and cheaper!)
Most of Illinois is outside of Mayor Daley's domain, and much of Illinois is still gun-toting, get-off-my-law paleoconservatives. I may not agree with their political views, but most of them hate public education, detest unionization of publicans and want to have nothing to do with the high tax rate of the megalopolis. I can live with it, for now.
In the near future, if things go well in my life (as planned, hah!), it won't matter where I live. I've started to embrace the idea of owning my own little plane and just traveling by air as much as possible. The freedom to cover 500-600 miles in 4-5 hours of flying is amazing to me, can you imagine how much more my market would open up with almost no increase in cost?
It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting.
It is also dangerous and inappropriate for even elected national officials to undertake the task of destroying rights they are specifically not allowed to destroy (see Constititution, definition of "no law" means "no law").
The rights of the people are best protected when regulations are created and enforced close to home. The International government has no rights to give preferential treatment to one person or party over another. The bigger that government is the, less it should do to try to level any playing field. In the long run, more power at the upper levels of government are almost always abused to create paternalism and cartelization, not to actually protect rights.
Our own Congress in the U.S. has overstepped their bounds with the FCC and the myriad of unconstitutional laws affecting speech. These laws, if wanted by the people per the 9th and 10th amendments, are better suited for the state or the village to create and enforce.
The interstate commerce clause was not meant to give Congress the right to regulate trade or commerce on a control level -- it was written to give Congress the power to penalize states that infringe on a person's right to trade freely with other states within the union of states. Don't read more into simple words than is necessary.
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them. What other people want to do in other countries, states or even cities is none of my business: I have no desire to prevent them from harming themselves or encouraging them to be lazy by paying for their failures. The UN is the epitome of wealth transfer and power transfer, and if you look at the corruption that has occurred that we know about, it only makes me wonder what corruptions have occurred that we don't know about.
Bidding 20 hours, working 5 and still billing the full amount? Wow, we used to refer to that as "ripping someone off." But, I digress...
Off-topic, but important.
I run by business from a free-market capitalist perspective. I openly inform my customers of my high billing rate, and they know that I rarely work as many hours as I bid. But they also understand why I do this.
If I told you you would save US$11 in 8 hours if you paid me US$10 to do something for you, most people would jump on it. If I can save you US$5000 in a week if you pay me US$4900, most companies would jump on it. I don't do work unless I can prove to my customer that the money they paid me either made them more money, or saved them more money. The number of hours worked is irrelevant to the service or product that they received and the profit they gained from investing in my work.
If I bid 20 hours @ US$250 per hour and the next 10 bidders bid 40 hours @ US$100 per hour, I am more expensive, right? Yet I am finishing the work earlier, and to most of my customers, time is as important as quality. Price is no object if you profit from the price. If I am able to finish that 20 hour job in 10 hours (now worth US$500 per hour for my actual work), who cares, now the customer is ahead an entire day! If I finish it in 5 hours (I've had projects where that was the case), am I worth US$1000 an hour? It doesn't matter one bit -- the customer has gained 2 days over my original quote. They gained 4-5 days over the competition. If I can't prove to them that I saved them money or time or made them more efficient (return on investment), I won't bill them, period. I performed a 40 hour service for someone this year that I did not bill them for at all, because the end result didn't make one bit of difference to their business or their bottom-line. They've hired me since then, and I more than made up for that error of mine. They appreciated that I am up front with my attitudes on what money is.
Only the cellphone/pda and laptop in that whole laundry list of things could be truly considered "tools." The rest were redundant and/or unnecessary. I use one soft-sided leather briefcase that holds two cellphone/PDAs, my laptop, power cables, a handful of DVDs, a journal, a schetchbook and pencil set, my sunglasses, headphones, a digital camera, a half dozen PCMCIA cards and room enough for as much paper as I've ever had to schlep to any meeting.
I didn't even list everything I carry with me. My Nikon D50 camera with 3 lenses is very important -- I travel often and if I see something newsworthy I'll snap a photo or ten and see if I can sell them to a media organization. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to sell something as lame as a car accident or a famous person in a restaurant. Income is income. My GPS is very important since I find myself in a car in unknown territory. My Day-Timer is important because I write a lot of handwritten notes and thank-you cards that keep people hiring me and allow me to leave a little note for someone to remember to follow up on something (I have really interesting stationary that no one wants to throw out). My file folder is important so I can keep track of documents that can't be scanned or faxed to myself electronically.
I'm more efficient than most of my competition, and I am that way because I use every tool that I can. I've dreamt of having a "spy van" of equipment at my disposal, but I don't think that is the answer. I want to downsize even more (I am surprisingly a luddite in my non-work life), but I haven't found the right combination of tools in any one item, YET. As devices are more expandable and customizable, I have high hopes that in a few years I'll have one tool (I was thinking of a PDA/cell phone that was built into a mini-keyboard with no screen, sort of a laptop without a hard drive or a monitor).
Do I want to schlep all that junk around? Not really. When I've forgotten stuff or purposely left unnecessary items behind, the differenc
I've tried, repeatedly. The PDA has many functions that neither the laptop nor the paper-form works well for me in. My PDA is my billing tool (I keep VERY copious details for invoice submittal and prelaxing (my word) punchlists. I also have a digital signature grabber that I use when I am done with a project (rather than signing paper they sign the PDA which is encrypted and sent to my server and invoiced). My PDA also is a better reminder tool than either the laptop or the Day-Timer. I have complete A.D.D. (actually, D.A.D.A, which is worse, hah) so I need something that pops up reminders with a Bing! sometimes days in advance.
I think I just need to dump it all and get a reason assistant. I'd be more productive and it would be cheaper, too, heh.
My PDA is an HP iPAQ, with a proprietary power cable. I can charge it with USB but I still need a proprietary cable! My cell phone is a Samsung t809, with its own proprietary power cable (that no Samsung that I know of shares with it). Another proprietary cable. My GPS also uses a proprietary cable. I have no idea why these devices don't standardize on mini-USB (or is it micro-USB?) tha tmost cell phones use, there is more than enough pins to cover anything. Ugh.
I seriously have no less than 7 cables that I seem to always need. It is ridiculous, and it could all be fixed with Bluetooth if it worked well enough (it doesn't, not yet), and a universal power cable. 3A/12V is more than enough for any device, I'd say. Let them trickle charge if it isn't.
Weight isn't a problem, but this looks great and very reasonably priced, too.
I'm going to order about 10 bags from the various comments in this thread, and keep one:) I'll give the rest as "executive gifts" at Christmas time, hah.
I appreciate the link, it really looks amazing. I'd like some spandex expandability, though, how well does it hold together when stuffed or overstuffed?
Maybe you should just take the stuff you need instead of the stuff you think is going to impress the dorks you run into.
A few weeks ago I found myself in New York with no notice. Tomorrow I might have to go to San Fran and I am not home right now. If I leave all my stuff at home, I'll be without a tool that could make me more cash on a job, or possibly cause me to lose out to some other freelancer.
I would LOVE to trash everything and just rent whatever I need, but it doesn't work very well. The more you travel to find better work, the more you realize how important it is to have a home/office-on-the-go. For a while, the HoOf (Home Office) was key, now it is the HoOfOnDaGo, I guess.
I really don't like it, and I try to hide as much geek-junk as I can. My customers don't hire me for my tools, they hire me for my knowledge. It is the tools that help me finish a 20 hour-bid job in 5 hours, and keep the 15 hours profit for myself!
I love the quality of Tenba but haven't found a model I like. Which one do you have? It is possible that they've discontinued the better models, since I have seen interesting ones from time-to-time.
Why do you have both a PDA and pen planner? Why do you have a PDA and laptop if you carry your laptop everywhere you go? Why do you have a phone and PDA when there are convergent solutions from either end? What are you, stupid?
Very good question, and one that I have battled with for years. I was an original Newton MessagePad user with an old brick cell phone and a Compaq luggable (120V powered only).
Laptop: Perfect for handling my server, major e-mail tasks, long term scheduling, CAD, big spreadsheets and databases, and web design.
PDA: Posting to my blogs, reading e-mails quickly, scheduling tasks, to-do list, and viewing data I've entered on my PC.
Pen: I write down notes for other people. I write thank-you notes that I mail after a discussion or a check is written or I learn something new. I may write a note to put with my business card to give to someone. In meetings, a PDA is attracts too much attention but a Day-Timer doesn't. In court, you can't bring electronics in.
I forgot to mention that I bring my D50 camera with 3 lenses with, everywhere I go. In the first 4 months I had it, it paid for itself (sold news-worthy photos to local papers). I also carry a digital voice recorder (my PDA has a terrible mic).
Two cell phones: easy to figure, a cell phone is best as a phone, everything else it does is lame. I'm awaiting the Nokia N80, though.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a tough one for me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe that the MPAA's power comes not just from bribing and lobbying, but directly from the entire implementatin of copyright and patents -- any law that offers the use of force and legalizes a monopoly eventually creates distribution cartels and really powerful political cronies.
Here we see an eye-for-an-eye. Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind. I think it's appropriate here as in the long run, it isn't consumers who will "win" if this case continues, it is the lawyers and the law itself that wins. As cases are won and lost and precedents are set, we don't see the market of sellers and buyers made easier, instead we see more laws and legal precedents that put more power in the hands of those who can afford the legal costs.
So what happens if the MPAA loses? Can you or I use the same case tactics to defend our own information? What happens if the MPAA wins? They only get more powerful. In the end, someone else is enhancing their power (through the State), rather than a market that really doesn't need any more powerful players in the game.
I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.
I've tried so many PHP and MySQL books over the years that I can't even keep track of what I'm reading. Coding just doesn't seem to make sense to me in book form.
I learned the most I possibly could by downloading Wordpress (blog software), PHPBB (bulletin board software) and setting them up. I downloaded modifications and looked over the code in person.
Over the past few months I've become really adept at writing my own PHP and MySQL-based software, to the point that I'm starting to design my own CMS interface. Not a single thing I've learned from a book has stuck, but everything I learn in chomping on code in Notepad or emacs seems to stick forever.
Anyone else have problems with books on coding?
I doubt you will find a 200% increase in median expendable income between 2000 and 2006.
People making median income are generally schmucks who don't realize that the same dollars they're getting paid in are going down in value significantly. Let's look at the M2 money supply figure of January 2000 -- 4675.6 billion. Now let's look at the M2 money supply figure of January 2006 -- 6738.0 billion. That is a 44.1% money supply inflation rate over the 6 year period. Ouch. Looking at the M3 figures is even more scary.
My income has doubled in those 6 years as I tie my income to more realistic measures of inflation. So should you. A measly 3% raise annually means you earn less and less over time, so for those only getting that pittance of a raise, of course you should expect to buy less and less. Why do you think most Americans live off of false home equity?
Actually, I am a believe in hard money and the soft and beneficial deflation that occurs when you have a real money standard. That being said, I see myself becoming MORE valuable as my billable rate decreases if I am no longer producing better than other people.
In my life, I've worked with my employees to compete with me openly -- if someone is working for me for more than 5 years, I think they've failed to learn from me. The more people that compete with me, the more I can use THEIR skills to prioritize what I am best at. If I was still doing the work I did 10 years ago, my billable rate should go down. It is also why I see no harm in paying older employees less rather than more, especially since younger employees in some industries are more productive. My billable rate goes higher every quarter because I can _prove_ that I will save a customer more money today than I did 3 months ago.
I'm an anti-copyright advocate who sees more power in releasing my information for free to the ether of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts, e-books and music, I openly request others to copy it and even put their own name on it. I've realized that once I put something into easily copied form, it will be copied. It might be partially used, fully mimiced, or completely turned upside down, yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am the original author.
For me as a writer, I love to know that people are reading me and replying to me -- that is my "profit" in the short term -- reader input. I tend to make up my own words that I write with, in order to see who might be copying me fully. I then look at what people say about their "writings", too. One such word I created was unanimocracy, but I've invented a few other phrases that are easily searched, too.
I believe the best way to "fix" plagiarism isn't to make it more illegal or immoral, but to work on a free market and open system where content creators can submit their creations to be cataloged as "the first." Let others copy it, but Google or another toolbar can easily flag a new creation as "very similar to another." Imagine if the Google toolbar had a "% of originality" for every site you visit (or every paragraph to highlight with your mouse). This could work for lyrics, guitar tabs, writings, opinion, news articles, etc.
Plagiarism is "OK" is some circles -- do a Google News search and see how many big named media outlets just regurgitate each others' news. Boring. Bloggers do the same thing, but many put a unique spin on the original writer's ideas.
I love when people plagiarize me. In the long run it builds my credibility even if they don't reference me as the original writer. I'd rather find free market solutions (such as the one I outlined above) rather than find penalties for the copying. If someone discovers that the person they respect didn't write the content on their own, the market fixes this by making the reader not read the plagiariser anymore. Easy solution.
In the long run, trying to protect your creative works will be a losing process. I use my previous creations to gain new customers who appreciate the information that I don't share. That is the product/service I sell, and I use my years of writing to show a history of original opinion and beliefs. Anything I write for public consumption is merely a marketing tool to get people to hire me for real face-time -- I could care less if someone else found a better way to make money with my thoughts. Most of my thoughts are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking about what others say.
My blog network forum is based completely on the comments of others -- I even pay my readers who give me the best comments. Their input on my writings is what gives me MORE information to sell at a higher price to those willing to pay for my knowledge. Why should I stop others from using my works to create new opinions that I can learn from?
I'm not sure I agree about not buying a PS3 on the "expensive" idea. I made a post a few days ago, Is the PS3 really more expensive? offering that the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation. The Central Bank has destroyed the dollar by almost 50% over the time since the PS2 was launched. Considering that devaluation, the PS3 really isn't that much more expensive. If you follow that thread, you see that the PS2 versus PS3 in Europe (which didn't see as much of a currency destruction as the USD has in the same time period) is NOT seeing a huge price increase in the PS3 as we are.
I still won't buy the PS3 on other grounds -- but definitely not the "its too expensive" idea. The PS3 is no more expensive than the PS2, comparing 2000USD versus 2006USD values.
In terms of the price of gold, the PS3 is VERY cheap.
It is false to believe that a free market offers any value in "goodwill equity" of any sort. I'm a businessman, and every time I provide a product or a service for my customer, the only equity that exists is the expectation that I will perform exactly as I am supposed to for a given payment, and that customer will pay me for my performance. The believe otherwise is a quick way to end up out of business.
I see it every year -- some kid takes over pop's huge business because the old man had a heart attack. The kid (usually in his 30s or 40s) drives the business into the ground and below within 2 years. He believed that the business didn't need to constantly re-win back old customers solely because they'd been around for years. Sony is no different than the businesses I see failing every year, even ones who have been around for 100 years and are now gone.
Every time a customer makes a purchase, it is with an expectation. No law is needed to protect the customer, because the customer can destroy a business in no time -- if each and every customer who is "hurt" by a previous transaction refuses to make a future one. Does "goodwill equity" give a customer a reason to buy again? Certainly. Does it mean the customer will be willing to accept one grievance or one mistake? Absolutely NOT.
To think that previously happy customers will forgive a mistake is to think that life is all happy-happy puppy-love bubble-gum and kisses. It isn't. This is business. You give the customer what they're paying for, or you go away.
Sony, go away. Please go away. You made too many mistakes, and the only goodwill you should be seeing is the clothing charity.
Let us stop this "Bush Administration" mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans -- this has to do with pure, raw power. The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Where are the Democrats who are decrying the laws THEY voted for as foul and evil? This is an election year, though, so we can't really tell if they're just jockeying for the camera or truly meaning they want less evil.
I'm sick of Bush. I was sick of Clinton. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. Don't point the finger at any one party. Bush is a moron, but look who voted for the laws in power today? Both parties.
I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.
If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.
The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.
Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?
A criminal that rapes someone may have talked during the rape -- it is the rape that was evil.
A criminal that shoots someone in the head used a gun -- it is the shooting that is evil. He could have used a baseball bat.
A criminal that blows up a building might use a cell phone -- it is the building exploding that is evil. He could have used e-mail or writing a big X on a tree.
We have to stop government from criminalizing actions that are part of our right to speech. This right is not something Constitutional or created out of any government document -- it is a natural right that all humans share, no matter what the laws say.
I'll continue to encrypt, and I'll dare the government to try to restrict me. If I have to, I'll encrypt by using an encryption program that hides my real text to make it look like readable language. Let them try to stop that. Or I'll use my own spoken code. Will they find a way to criminalize it?
Don't criminalize tools, criminalize criminal actions.
A reader at my forum posted a question regarding the PS3 and if it is really more expensive than the PS2. In 2000, the PS2 sold for US$299. In 2006, the PS3 will sell for $599. Over the past 6 years, the dollar has fallen in value by about 50% in many areas of the market (not just gasoline or housing). Things haven't really gotten more expensive, the dollar has just become more worthless. You can thank Greenspan and Bernanke for their inflationary monetary policy.
For many households, their incomes have nearly doubled in the past 10 years, if not 6 years. I know my income is up nearly 300% in 7 years. For me, the PS3 is cheaper versus the true cost of living than the PS2 was, and I'm 32, not 25. Considering I was 26 when the PS2 came out, I am already past the "I can't afford XYZ" phase of my life.
Maybe things are coming to a head in the economy entirely, where people are earning more and more dollars, but those dollars are constantly worth less and less to a global market. For a guy like me living on a personal gold standard, most prices have been falling over the last 5 years, not rising. For those of us who see our paychecks going up every year, the PS3's reported initial price shouldn't see that outrageous, especially considering many of us aren't doing much more than we were doing 6 years ago, so getting a raise seems pointless.
At least the PS3 has many new features to show for the dollar price increase. What is the Euro price of the PS3? The dollar fell against the Euro almost 50% in that same time.
For me, I won't buy it anyway, since it's a Sony product and I'm through with them. I was a Sony fanboy for a decade, but not now with their junk and their consumer manipulations. They can go suck it. Even still, the PS3 seems comparble to the PS2 in actual value rather than dollar price.
Actually, I sold my labor to take the photographs for them -- they can do whatever they please with the photos. All my contracts stipulate that I still retain non-exclusive rights and may give the photos away to others at any cost or no cost at all :) I once sold a really bad photo to 3 papers (none of which ran them).
Actually, these scraper sites can be really effective in also hurting the sites they take content from. If they end up with a higher pagerank than the site they borrowed content from, the site with the borrowed content can be penalized (and even banned from AdSense themselves!).
Google is fighting that war fairly well with their new smart pricing system (in AdSense) but I would much prefer to see an option for publishers to opt-in to a better AdSense program that offers possibly better income if new content doesn't get ads until it is manually OKd by a live human. Maybe give up 20-25% revenue in exchange for a higher top end opportunity.
I appreciate justices who understand their job is to restrain the Federal government from trampling the rights of the individual, and in this case it looks like they're doing their job. Kudos and positive feedback.
I don't know if just restraining is enough anymore. When someone breaks a law, they can go to jail or pay a hefty fine. Why is it that Congress and the President can break their oath to uphold the Constitution's restrictions on their power and there is no real penalty?
Maybe it is time to penalize repeat offenders who vote for and pass (and don't veto) for unconstitutional laws. The voting booth is not enough to prevent future intrusions. A judge can sentence me to jail for breaking my oath to follow the law, the same should be true for those creating the laws.
As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to. Slashdot usually has good opinions from either side of the statism coin, and this is one place that I don't doubt that both sides of the pro/anti-government debate can offer some real insight to.
I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it. Drug wars, porn wars, family value wars, oil wars, a War on Everything seems to just make Everything worse.
I think child porn is disgusting, but the victims in this case have never seemed to be helped by the law. Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.
I'm not a fan of regular porn, either, but I don't really see how anyone can stop something that has an obvious market (including child porn or the odd varieties of porn). As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time. I've helped a few friends overcome their porn issues as best as I can, by offering my time and love and helping them become accountable to someone (voluntarily). I don't think we can eradicate porn of any kind through the law, and I also believe in people's inherent right to view porn in the privacy of their homes. Is the criminal the person looking at porn, the person making it, or the person who connects the two together? I would have to say that the person who is violated would be the kid, and the perp would be the person making it. Wouldn't it be wiser to go after the real criminal?
Just because there is a black market for something doesn't mean that the person who consumes the black market product is the problem. You can't fix the drug problem by jailing non-violent drug users. You can't fix the problem by jailing non-violent drug dealers. You can only create a fair justice system by prosecuting and jailing people who committed real acts of violence regardless of the reason -- shoot someone (drug war, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. Run someone over with your car (drunk, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. The base reasoning that "it was over drugs" or "it was because of alcohol" is not a just reason -- it is the violation of the person that was the criminal act, not the base reason behind the violation.
I think the enter War on Child Porn doesn't protect the children, but it does seem to give government more and more power over our lives. If we are to criminalize an act, it should be against the perp of the act and on behalf of a real victim. "John Doe (minor) versus Crazy McCracken (perp)" is the only lawsuit I ever want to see. The People versus lawsuits should be thrown out, and we need to return tort laws to finding a real victim and a real perp.
"Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present"
Read that over, and you'll realize that in this case, the Constitutional argument may not fly. That sentence is about Article VI
I'm familiar with the so-called "Supremacy Clause" and I disagree with your reading of it (and the Federal power-mongerers as well):
The clause is:
"This Constitution... shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."
Note that it says the judges in every state. It does not say Senators, Congressmen, police, citizens, aliens, or anyone else. The Supremacy Clause requires that state judges defer to the upper law, but if you read the article more:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
it relinquishes everyone else from the supremacy clause. Too bad that the scholars of the power-mongering federal government forget the rest of the article.
As for Missouri v. Holland, that is a sad case. I've studied MvH and the whole Bricker debate situation. I haven't read up on it in many years, though, so my debate potential there is lacking.
Why do you, a freedom-loving anarcho-capitalist wish to continue residing in the People's Republik of Illinois?
Good question. I've found various loopholes in the State and Federal tax laws based on income if you're paid in US Minted gold and silver. It seems that the State of Illinois is happy to accept the loophole (probably because it is used by many elite politicians, I am sure), but many other states won't give me a clear-cut answer.
I've worked very hard to extricate myself from the state entirely (including not using state roads, and criticizing state officials and state police officers every time I see one anywhere), and I believe Illinois has some hope in offering anarcho-capitalists the chance to extricate ourselves even more. I am currently pursuing some legal requests to see if what I think the law says is true, and if that is the case, things might change fairly quickly.
Why Illinois? For me, convenience. We have private FBO airports everywhere (and cheap ones) which means I may never need my car or public roads ever again (sounds crazy, but who knows). When people ask me what we would do if government didn't provide roadways, I'd point them to the fact that I don't think cars would exist like they do today if it wasn't for government subsidies -- maybe we would all be flying around, who knows? I recently flew about 85 miles because it was faster than my car (and cheaper!)
Most of Illinois is outside of Mayor Daley's domain, and much of Illinois is still gun-toting, get-off-my-law paleoconservatives. I may not agree with their political views, but most of them hate public education, detest unionization of publicans and want to have nothing to do with the high tax rate of the megalopolis. I can live with it, for now.
In the near future, if things go well in my life (as planned, hah!), it won't matter where I live. I've started to embrace the idea of owning my own little plane and just traveling by air as much as possible. The freedom to cover 500-600 miles in 4-5 hours of flying is amazing to me, can you imagine how much more my market would open up with almost no increase in cost?
It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting.
It is also dangerous and inappropriate for even elected national officials to undertake the task of destroying rights they are specifically not allowed to destroy (see Constititution, definition of "no law" means "no law").
The rights of the people are best protected when regulations are created and enforced close to home. The International government has no rights to give preferential treatment to one person or party over another. The bigger that government is the, less it should do to try to level any playing field. In the long run, more power at the upper levels of government are almost always abused to create paternalism and cartelization, not to actually protect rights.
Our own Congress in the U.S. has overstepped their bounds with the FCC and the myriad of unconstitutional laws affecting speech. These laws, if wanted by the people per the 9th and 10th amendments, are better suited for the state or the village to create and enforce.
The interstate commerce clause was not meant to give Congress the right to regulate trade or commerce on a control level -- it was written to give Congress the power to penalize states that infringe on a person's right to trade freely with other states within the union of states. Don't read more into simple words than is necessary.
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them. What other people want to do in other countries, states or even cities is none of my business: I have no desire to prevent them from harming themselves or encouraging them to be lazy by paying for their failures. The UN is the epitome of wealth transfer and power transfer, and if you look at the corruption that has occurred that we know about, it only makes me wonder what corruptions have occurred that we don't know about.
Bidding 20 hours, working 5 and still billing the full amount? Wow, we used to refer to that as "ripping someone off." But, I digress...
Off-topic, but important.
I run by business from a free-market capitalist perspective. I openly inform my customers of my high billing rate, and they know that I rarely work as many hours as I bid. But they also understand why I do this.
If I told you you would save US$11 in 8 hours if you paid me US$10 to do something for you, most people would jump on it. If I can save you US$5000 in a week if you pay me US$4900, most companies would jump on it. I don't do work unless I can prove to my customer that the money they paid me either made them more money, or saved them more money. The number of hours worked is irrelevant to the service or product that they received and the profit they gained from investing in my work.
If I bid 20 hours @ US$250 per hour and the next 10 bidders bid 40 hours @ US$100 per hour, I am more expensive, right? Yet I am finishing the work earlier, and to most of my customers, time is as important as quality. Price is no object if you profit from the price. If I am able to finish that 20 hour job in 10 hours (now worth US$500 per hour for my actual work), who cares, now the customer is ahead an entire day! If I finish it in 5 hours (I've had projects where that was the case), am I worth US$1000 an hour? It doesn't matter one bit -- the customer has gained 2 days over my original quote. They gained 4-5 days over the competition. If I can't prove to them that I saved them money or time or made them more efficient (return on investment), I won't bill them, period. I performed a 40 hour service for someone this year that I did not bill them for at all, because the end result didn't make one bit of difference to their business or their bottom-line. They've hired me since then, and I more than made up for that error of mine. They appreciated that I am up front with my attitudes on what money is.
Only the cellphone/pda and laptop in that whole laundry list of things could be truly considered "tools." The rest were redundant and/or unnecessary. I use one soft-sided leather briefcase that holds two cellphone/PDAs, my laptop, power cables, a handful of DVDs, a journal, a schetchbook and pencil set, my sunglasses, headphones, a digital camera, a half dozen PCMCIA cards and room enough for as much paper as I've ever had to schlep to any meeting.
I didn't even list everything I carry with me. My Nikon D50 camera with 3 lenses is very important -- I travel often and if I see something newsworthy I'll snap a photo or ten and see if I can sell them to a media organization. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to sell something as lame as a car accident or a famous person in a restaurant. Income is income. My GPS is very important since I find myself in a car in unknown territory. My Day-Timer is important because I write a lot of handwritten notes and thank-you cards that keep people hiring me and allow me to leave a little note for someone to remember to follow up on something (I have really interesting stationary that no one wants to throw out). My file folder is important so I can keep track of documents that can't be scanned or faxed to myself electronically.
I'm more efficient than most of my competition, and I am that way because I use every tool that I can. I've dreamt of having a "spy van" of equipment at my disposal, but I don't think that is the answer. I want to downsize even more (I am surprisingly a luddite in my non-work life), but I haven't found the right combination of tools in any one item, YET. As devices are more expandable and customizable, I have high hopes that in a few years I'll have one tool (I was thinking of a PDA/cell phone that was built into a mini-keyboard with no screen, sort of a laptop without a hard drive or a monitor).
Do I want to schlep all that junk around? Not really. When I've forgotten stuff or purposely left unnecessary items behind, the differenc
I've tried, repeatedly. The PDA has many functions that neither the laptop nor the paper-form works well for me in. My PDA is my billing tool (I keep VERY copious details for invoice submittal and prelaxing (my word) punchlists. I also have a digital signature grabber that I use when I am done with a project (rather than signing paper they sign the PDA which is encrypted and sent to my server and invoiced). My PDA also is a better reminder tool than either the laptop or the Day-Timer. I have complete A.D.D. (actually, D.A.D.A, which is worse, hah) so I need something that pops up reminders with a Bing! sometimes days in advance.
I think I just need to dump it all and get a reason assistant. I'd be more productive and it would be cheaper, too, heh.
Thanks for the help.
This is an great idea, and I wish it worked.
My PDA is an HP iPAQ, with a proprietary power cable. I can charge it with USB but I still need a proprietary cable! My cell phone is a Samsung t809, with its own proprietary power cable (that no Samsung that I know of shares with it). Another proprietary cable. My GPS also uses a proprietary cable. I have no idea why these devices don't standardize on mini-USB (or is it micro-USB?) tha tmost cell phones use, there is more than enough pins to cover anything. Ugh.
I seriously have no less than 7 cables that I seem to always need. It is ridiculous, and it could all be fixed with Bluetooth if it worked well enough (it doesn't, not yet), and a universal power cable. 3A/12V is more than enough for any device, I'd say. Let them trickle charge if it isn't.
Weight isn't a problem, but this looks great and very reasonably priced, too.
:) I'll give the rest as "executive gifts" at Christmas time, hah.
I'm going to order about 10 bags from the various comments in this thread, and keep one
I appreciate the link, it really looks amazing. I'd like some spandex expandability, though, how well does it hold together when stuffed or overstuffed?
Maybe you should just take the stuff you need instead of the stuff you think is going to impress the dorks you run into.
A few weeks ago I found myself in New York with no notice. Tomorrow I might have to go to San Fran and I am not home right now. If I leave all my stuff at home, I'll be without a tool that could make me more cash on a job, or possibly cause me to lose out to some other freelancer.
I would LOVE to trash everything and just rent whatever I need, but it doesn't work very well. The more you travel to find better work, the more you realize how important it is to have a home/office-on-the-go. For a while, the HoOf (Home Office) was key, now it is the HoOfOnDaGo, I guess.
I really don't like it, and I try to hide as much geek-junk as I can. My customers don't hire me for my tools, they hire me for my knowledge. It is the tools that help me finish a 20 hour-bid job in 5 hours, and keep the 15 hours profit for myself!
I love the quality of Tenba but haven't found a model I like. Which one do you have? It is possible that they've discontinued the better models, since I have seen interesting ones from time-to-time.
Thanks for the info.
Why do you have both a PDA and pen planner? Why do you have a PDA and laptop if you carry your laptop everywhere you go? Why do you have a phone and PDA when there are convergent solutions from either end? What are you, stupid?
Very good question, and one that I have battled with for years. I was an original Newton MessagePad user with an old brick cell phone and a Compaq luggable (120V powered only).
Laptop: Perfect for handling my server, major e-mail tasks, long term scheduling, CAD, big spreadsheets and databases, and web design.
PDA: Posting to my blogs, reading e-mails quickly, scheduling tasks, to-do list, and viewing data I've entered on my PC.
Pen: I write down notes for other people. I write thank-you notes that I mail after a discussion or a check is written or I learn something new. I may write a note to put with my business card to give to someone. In meetings, a PDA is attracts too much attention but a Day-Timer doesn't. In court, you can't bring electronics in.
I forgot to mention that I bring my D50 camera with 3 lenses with, everywhere I go. In the first 4 months I had it, it paid for itself (sold news-worthy photos to local papers). I also carry a digital voice recorder (my PDA has a terrible mic).
Two cell phones: easy to figure, a cell phone is best as a phone, everything else it does is lame. I'm awaiting the Nokia N80, though.
Make more sense?