If you are arguing with someone who does not have an adequate understanding than either don't argue with them or point to actual references, independant of your views, to educate them. This way they actually learn, instead of viewing it as their opponent attempting to educate them.
So, first you say that analogies are a useful tool for educating people and then you say they aren't? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
the understanding is pure in nature and not obfuscated by a pretense of using words to make your idea sound more intelligent.
Analogies don't have to be literary masturbation. Are you sure you understand what an analogy is? More below...
I feel you understand arguing, but I feel that your understanding is wrong. I believe I have proven the logical case as to why analogies are flawed. In short, because they do not accurately convey the situation in seriousness nor impact. Now, why don't you try to tell me why you think they are valid?
Rather than try to convince you, I think I'll use an example. Better yet, since I think it's you that has the problem with understanding argument I'll try to include my examples in the explanation. Your view of argument or debate is very narrow. Prepare for a disertation...
There are two types of arguments worth discussing in this context (I'm taking for granted that a debate is a series of arguments). One is to convince other arguing parties to concede your point or steer a situation to your liking, and the other is to convince some audience of your point over your opponents points. An argument can be both of these, and both types have a retorical form.
I would argue that your thesis of not engaging in an argument with somebody who does not have an adequate understanding of the situation is both impractical and invalid. In the real world you will be faced with debates where declining to argue or informing your opponent they aren't educated enough are not options. If you don't believe me, try one of those aproaches next time you have a disagreement with your boss (or teacher... I don't know how old you are.)
Assuming I've convinced you to agree that it is necissary to engage in an argument with uninformed people, let's look at how analogy can be apropriate in the various types of argument, and can in fact be the best way to "accurately convey the situation in seriousness [or] impact" as you would say. The first thing you must realise is that there is more than one way to use an analogy to make it fit the situation. You can come up with a perfect analogy, qualify the analogy, or even add some sarcasm: "A watch is like a clock only smaller", "My solution is like your solution but it will work...". Great tools in a one on one argument.
The second type of argument is like a drama being played out for the benifit of the onlookers, and you may not really care if you influence your opponents any, only that you convince the majority of your audience. An argument can be made that understanding isn't nessicarily required to prosper in such a situation, and if that is true, clever analogies can be a powerful tool even if they are incorrect or not entirely appropriate. The analogy that started this is a perfect example. It was total bullshit, but lots of people totally bought into it if the other replies to my comment are any indication. Does that mean that Mr. Oppenheim is an idiot, or that he's got some clever and effective propaganda up his sleeve?
I hope that's enough because I have to stop and tend to some business now. The examples are in there. If you treat argument as solely an intelectual exercise that some people are not worthy of partaking in, you'll be mighty sorry when things don't go your way. Sure an argument can be a fun and stimulating diversion like this has been, but they are primarily a means to an end, and anything that helps you get the end you're looking for is a valid tool.
Now tell me what that has to do with what I said. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says, it only matters what the law says. The law is on the RIAA's side. (I get the impression you think I'm saying otherwise.) The law treats copyright infringement differently than physical theft, and for good reason. My point is simply that the RIAA clearly doesn't care about the laws that are on their side. They care more about their propaganda. Current copyright law really doesn't benifit them anymore because they are obsolete. They are no longer required for the distribution of music, and they understand that since copyright law is designed to protect creators instead of distributors. If they don't push the 'infringement == physical theft' propaganda they may not show up on congress' radar enough to get a law passed that will keep them in business.
In short: stealing music is illegal, however it appears that the RIAA doesn't care because they have bigger problems, and this propaganda war is a means to a different end.
In a debate or argument, neither party should have to be educated.
Right, and back in the real world this isn't the case. In fact it is quite common for somebody to be arguing an incorrect point because they aren't properly educated. Education is then a valuable tool in the debate arsenal.
Einstein once said that to be able to understand something, you must be able to explain it to anyone. If you cannot explain every aspect of what you are arguing without equating it to a dissimilar situation or object, you do not adequately understand what it is you are arguing.
All knowledge is relative. You cannot explain anything without making reference to something else. This reference does not have to be in the form of an analogy, but this shouldn't invalidate analogy from debate. (I also disagree with Einstein on that subject. The linguistic capabilities required for explanation do not need to be present in order to understand many things. In fact, you don't even have to understand understanding in order to understand in many cases.)
Speaking of irony, didn't say that neither party in a debate should need to be educated? If that were the case then why would you pollute this argument with such useless trivia? Why would you be having this argument with me if you feel I don't understand arguing and need to be educated on the subject? (Did I manage to get some rhetoric in there too? Oops.. I guess I should try to write more at my literacy level next time. At least I left out the sarcasm.)
Actually, you aren't necissarilly breaking the law. A long time ago my grandma gave me a midi editing program, and after using it for a few years my box crashes and the disk the program comes on are damaged, yet lo and behold, I could get the same program off of p2p. Illiegal use? I think not.
I may be picking nits, but while your use of p2p in that situation may not be illegal, the person sharing the file is in violation of their license (and hence is acting illegally) if the software's license restricts redistribution.
If Oppenheim needs an analogy to make his point, he doesn't understand his point clear enough to make it.
I still say you have provided no logical explanation for this point of view. People who use analogies do so because they expect their audience to not understand, not because they don't understand themselves. You even discount your own argument:
Show me a correct analogy, and I'll show you someone who understands their argument.
If you haven't ever seen a correct analogy, you haven't been in enough arguments...
Quit equivocating. If you do something illegal that lowers the value of my property, you're stealing from me.
I think your comment is a perfect example of what serious discussions about filesharing always turn into: calling each other thives or evil corporations... Stop and think for a second, because your strong opinion has blinded you from what we are really talking about. I'm not talking about wether it's right or wrong, I'm talking about the inability to make a rational, correct argument for fear of deviating from the accepted propaganda. There are other threads about whether file sharing is stealing or not, and you comment belongs in one of those, because that's not what we're talking about in this one.
What makes you think that everybody reading this cnet article (or even this slashdot comment) has comprable knowledge to Matt Oppenheim, or even to myself? (I have taken graduate level U.S. copyright law classes, which most people have not, and it's Mr. Oppenheim's job to be knowledgable on this subject.)
Does correcting somebody else's analogy also brand you as stupid under your rule?
What basis do you have making that argument, especially considering that making a valid analogy requires understandng and insight into the topic? (No insight required for incorrect analogies of course)
If you're file sharing, shouldn't that be obivous since you're publicly advertising your illegal activity? Why should they need additional rights to fight that?
First of all, do you honestly think that the RIAA is going to go door-to-door, and start demanding that people provide licenses for every piece of music they own? Are you really *that* stupid?
The BSA is doing it today. Why is it a stretch to think the RIAA will be doing it tomorrow?
Second of all, if a clothing store wanted to, it could go to your house, and say "show us the receipt for the shirt you're wearing or we'll take you to court," and if you didn't show them the receipt, they could file a lawsuit.
If they want to force you to produce a reciept they have to convince a judge to force you to produce it. That probably won't happen.
How are they gaining any rights? Anyone can take anyone to court for anything!
Reading comprehension 101. The quote I was refering to is from an RIAA official who was implying that they needed more rights than they have now to investigate infringement. You have effectively argued my point for me. They have all the rights they need already. Now, stop being a fucking idiot and go annoy somebody else. (Was that up to your rudeness standards?)
This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it.
Your use of the word "fucking" doesn't make your point any more relevant. Why should the RIAA get to demand proof that you've paid them whenever they desire, but the clothing store not be granted the same right? If they catch you sharing files, obviously you're breaking the law and they should go after you. Other than that the only thing they should be allowed to do is to go crying to their mommies. They should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's it.
It seems that Mr. Oppenheim likes to contradict himself. Observe:
He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight.
I also thought this was interesting:
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters."
Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?"
It seems that even when the RIAA is right (people really are breaking the law and infringing the rights offered to their members by copyright) their propaganda is more important to them than their real and legally defensible position.
I know the keyboard you're talking about... My 286 had one, and they were also used on some WY-2xx series dumb terminals. There were also Wyse "Winterm" devices that had a PS/2 keyboard that looks similar. Perhaps someone with experience with both Winterms and WY-2xx terminals can tell you if the keyboards are the same feel? If so, you can pick up a Winterm keyboard for ~$30.
Those keyboards felt great but were really loud...
I still have my Sinclair, and I agree about the keyboard. It was like little bubbles that you depressed. The "L" bubble is worn through on mine, so I can't load programs anymore! Talk about shitty...
Of course the 'killing on the blades' part is proving to be more difficult than they anticipated, but so it goes.
Perhaps they overlooked the fact that blades wear out, but game discs don't. You can't trade razor blades with friends or sell them back to "Razor Stop" and replace them with other used blades unless you like pain.
We won't even get into the fact that Gilette using existing patent law to protect their business model and didn't have to lobby congress for new protections that didn't exist to prevent reverse engineering.
I don't read German, so I suppose it could be, but for many people, "drivers that some guy built" just don't cut it, even if he is associated with ATI in some way.
As "some guy" who writes device drivers for major hardware companies under contract, I resent your sexist remarks. I also defy you to produce anybody who can, with any authority, prove that all the drivers they use are written by "some chick," since that seems to be the only alternative. Drivers don't write themselves you know.
Methanol is very cheap you will be able to buy a bottle of it from a Home Improvement (DIY) shop for 2 bucks and the size bottles they sell I will expect that will be 10-20 or so charges.
Two words: Fat chance.
These are going to take cartridges that you'll have to buy prefilled. The recuring revenue potential of a system like that will be too big a lure for laptop manufacturers to ignore. Expect them to lobby for FAA regulations only allowing the prefilled canisters on airplanes to preemptivly squash any lawsuits from people wanting to refill. I predict ~$5 a charge.
In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive.
There's no reason for them to do this when they could easily compress the helium and then either pull in a heavier gas from the atmosphere to increase their weight, or reduce their displacement.
Re:"Profit" usually support research and developme
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 1
You are not taking into account costs that are tied directly to manufacturing. This includes the costs of doing research and development on products that don't sell very well and lose money for the company. The ability to generate a profit during good years means that companies have an emergency surplus for the bad years. The hardware business is particularly cutthroat, with many competitors and thin margins.
And he shouldn't take that into account. There are already laws to protect companies that have such problems: bankruptcy laws. If you want to have a loss-leader business model, you better have some patents or trade secrets that will keep you in business, because other laws shouldn't help you. Any business plan is a calculated risk, and if yours can't make it without special treatment then you should go out of business.
There's a big difference between the "razors and blades" business model and the "Xbox, games, millions of lobying dollars and the DMCA" business model, and if you can't see it you have to look harder.
You can't even compare that to an Apple system. There's so much that you didn't get or got at a lower quality that the price difference is more than justified. Let's see how the components of your computer fall short compared to the Mac:
- AC97 audio doesn't compare to Apple's sound processor - No gigabit ethernet - No Firewire - No DVD writer - Half the memory - No (Well, minimal) Warranty
There's more you didn't get but that's enough to more than justify Apple's price difference. There's more to a system than the video card an the processor. You can't compare a Power Mac (Apple's high end) to a low end machine.
That was a Dell 4600. The 8300 with the same features is (for some unknown reason) $2,047, so the Mac is actually cheaper. The Dimension XPS is yet more expensive (but doesn't seem any better).
If you want to compare Apple to home built PCs your see a significant price difference, but Dell has higher margins, and higher prices than Apple.
Pentium® 4 Processor at 3GHz w/800MHz front side bus/ HT Technology
512MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
Dell® Quietkey® Keyboard
No Monitor
ATI RADEONâ 9800 Graphics Card with TV-Out and DVI
No Floppy Drive
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Optical USB Mouse
Dell Gigabit Ethernet
56K PCI Data Fax Modem
4x DVD+RW/+R Drive w/CD-RW
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 sound card
3 Yr Ltd Warr plus 3 Yr At-Home
Save $100 with mail-in rebate.
Price: $1,818.00
The price goes up by $140 if you want image and video editing capabilities comprable to what comes with MacOS. It goes up another $70 if you want XP Professional, the system doesn't include Firewire (400 or 800), doesn't have a cool aluminum case, is louder, doesn't support serial ATA, and the DVD drive is slower.
I'd say that the Mac compares quite favorably to the Dell you suggest. The Dell certainly doesn't blow it away.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are arguing with someone who does not have an adequate understanding than either don't argue with them or point to actual references, independant of your views, to educate them. This way they actually learn, instead of viewing it as their opponent attempting to educate them.
So, first you say that analogies are a useful tool for educating people and then you say they aren't? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
the understanding is pure in nature and not obfuscated by a pretense of using words to make your idea sound more intelligent.
Analogies don't have to be literary masturbation. Are you sure you understand what an analogy is? More below...
I feel you understand arguing, but I feel that your understanding is wrong. I believe I have proven the logical case as to why analogies are flawed. In short, because they do not accurately convey the situation in seriousness nor impact. Now, why don't you try to tell me why you think they are valid?
Rather than try to convince you, I think I'll use an example. Better yet, since I think it's you that has the problem with understanding argument I'll try to include my examples in the explanation. Your view of argument or debate is very narrow. Prepare for a disertation...
There are two types of arguments worth discussing in this context (I'm taking for granted that a debate is a series of arguments). One is to convince other arguing parties to concede your point or steer a situation to your liking, and the other is to convince some audience of your point over your opponents points. An argument can be both of these, and both types have a retorical form.
I would argue that your thesis of not engaging in an argument with somebody who does not have an adequate understanding of the situation is both impractical and invalid. In the real world you will be faced with debates where declining to argue or informing your opponent they aren't educated enough are not options. If you don't believe me, try one of those aproaches next time you have a disagreement with your boss (or teacher... I don't know how old you are.)
Assuming I've convinced you to agree that it is necissary to engage in an argument with uninformed people, let's look at how analogy can be apropriate in the various types of argument, and can in fact be the best way to "accurately convey the situation in seriousness [or] impact" as you would say. The first thing you must realise is that there is more than one way to use an analogy to make it fit the situation. You can come up with a perfect analogy, qualify the analogy, or even add some sarcasm: "A watch is like a clock only smaller", "My solution is like your solution but it will work...". Great tools in a one on one argument.
The second type of argument is like a drama being played out for the benifit of the onlookers, and you may not really care if you influence your opponents any, only that you convince the majority of your audience. An argument can be made that understanding isn't nessicarily required to prosper in such a situation, and if that is true, clever analogies can be a powerful tool even if they are incorrect or not entirely appropriate. The analogy that started this is a perfect example. It was total bullshit, but lots of people totally bought into it if the other replies to my comment are any indication. Does that mean that Mr. Oppenheim is an idiot, or that he's got some clever and effective propaganda up his sleeve?
I hope that's enough because I have to stop and tend to some business now. The examples are in there. If you treat argument as solely an intelectual exercise that some people are not worthy of partaking in, you'll be mighty sorry when things don't go your way. Sure an argument can be a fun and stimulating diversion like this has been, but they are primarily a means to an end, and anything that helps you get the end you're looking for is a valid tool.
That's lovely.
Now tell me what that has to do with what I said. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says, it only matters what the law says. The law is on the RIAA's side. (I get the impression you think I'm saying otherwise.) The law treats copyright infringement differently than physical theft, and for good reason. My point is simply that the RIAA clearly doesn't care about the laws that are on their side. They care more about their propaganda. Current copyright law really doesn't benifit them anymore because they are obsolete. They are no longer required for the distribution of music, and they understand that since copyright law is designed to protect creators instead of distributors. If they don't push the 'infringement == physical theft' propaganda they may not show up on congress' radar enough to get a law passed that will keep them in business.
In short: stealing music is illegal, however it appears that the RIAA doesn't care because they have bigger problems, and this propaganda war is a means to a different end.
In a debate or argument, neither party should have to be educated.
Right, and back in the real world this isn't the case. In fact it is quite common for somebody to be arguing an incorrect point because they aren't properly educated. Education is then a valuable tool in the debate arsenal.
Einstein once said that to be able to understand something, you must be able to explain it to anyone. If you cannot explain every aspect of what you are arguing without equating it to a dissimilar situation or object, you do not adequately understand what it is you are arguing.
All knowledge is relative. You cannot explain anything without making reference to something else. This reference does not have to be in the form of an analogy, but this shouldn't invalidate analogy from debate. (I also disagree with Einstein on that subject. The linguistic capabilities required for explanation do not need to be present in order to understand many things. In fact, you don't even have to understand understanding in order to understand in many cases.)
Speaking of irony, didn't say that neither party in a debate should need to be educated? If that were the case then why would you pollute this argument with such useless trivia? Why would you be having this argument with me if you feel I don't understand arguing and need to be educated on the subject? (Did I manage to get some rhetoric in there too? Oops.. I guess I should try to write more at my literacy level next time. At least I left out the sarcasm.)
Forgive me for punctuating properly. Perhaps you would benifit from today's comic over at Penny-Arcade.
Actually, you aren't necissarilly breaking the law. A long time ago my grandma gave me a midi editing program, and after using it for a few years my box crashes and the disk the program comes on are damaged, yet lo and behold, I could get the same program off of p2p. Illiegal use? I think not.
I may be picking nits, but while your use of p2p in that situation may not be illegal, the person sharing the file is in violation of their license (and hence is acting illegally) if the software's license restricts redistribution.
If Oppenheim needs an analogy to make his point, he doesn't understand his point clear enough to make it.
I still say you have provided no logical explanation for this point of view. People who use analogies do so because they expect their audience to not understand, not because they don't understand themselves. You even discount your own argument:
Show me a correct analogy, and I'll show you someone who understands their argument.
If you haven't ever seen a correct analogy, you haven't been in enough arguments...
Quit equivocating. If you do something illegal that lowers the value of my property, you're stealing from me.
I think your comment is a perfect example of what serious discussions about filesharing always turn into: calling each other thives or evil corporations... Stop and think for a second, because your strong opinion has blinded you from what we are really talking about. I'm not talking about wether it's right or wrong, I'm talking about the inability to make a rational, correct argument for fear of deviating from the accepted propaganda. There are other threads about whether file sharing is stealing or not, and you comment belongs in one of those, because that's not what we're talking about in this one.
Three questions:
What makes you think that everybody reading this cnet article (or even this slashdot comment) has comprable knowledge to Matt Oppenheim, or even to myself? (I have taken graduate level U.S. copyright law classes, which most people have not, and it's Mr. Oppenheim's job to be knowledgable on this subject.)
Does correcting somebody else's analogy also brand you as stupid under your rule?
What basis do you have making that argument, especially considering that making a valid analogy requires understandng and insight into the topic? (No insight required for incorrect analogies of course)
Because of the preponderance of "file-sharing?"
If you're file sharing, shouldn't that be obivous since you're publicly advertising your illegal activity? Why should they need additional rights to fight that?
First of all, do you honestly think that the RIAA is going to go door-to-door, and start demanding that people provide licenses for every piece of music they own? Are you really *that* stupid?
The BSA is doing it today. Why is it a stretch to think the RIAA will be doing it tomorrow?
Second of all, if a clothing store wanted to, it could go to your house, and say "show us the receipt for the shirt you're wearing or we'll take you to court," and if you didn't show them the receipt, they could file a lawsuit.
If they want to force you to produce a reciept they have to convince a judge to force you to produce it. That probably won't happen.
How are they gaining any rights? Anyone can take anyone to court for anything!
Reading comprehension 101. The quote I was refering to is from an RIAA official who was implying that they needed more rights than they have now to investigate infringement. You have effectively argued my point for me. They have all the rights they need already. Now, stop being a fucking idiot and go annoy somebody else. (Was that up to your rudeness standards?)
This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it.
Your use of the word "fucking" doesn't make your point any more relevant. Why should the RIAA get to demand proof that you've paid them whenever they desire, but the clothing store not be granted the same right? If they catch you sharing files, obviously you're breaking the law and they should go after you. Other than that the only thing they should be allowed to do is to go crying to their mommies. They should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's it.
Some interesting comments in here...
It seems that Mr. Oppenheim likes to contradict himself. Observe:
He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight.
I also thought this was interesting:
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters."
Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?"
It seems that even when the RIAA is right (people really are breaking the law and infringing the rights offered to their members by copyright) their propaganda is more important to them than their real and legally defensible position.
I know the keyboard you're talking about... My 286 had one, and they were also used on some WY-2xx series dumb terminals. There were also Wyse "Winterm" devices that had a PS/2 keyboard that looks similar. Perhaps someone with experience with both Winterms and WY-2xx terminals can tell you if the keyboards are the same feel? If so, you can pick up a Winterm keyboard for ~$30.
Those keyboards felt great but were really loud...
I still have my Sinclair, and I agree about the keyboard. It was like little bubbles that you depressed. The "L" bubble is worn through on mine, so I can't load programs anymore! Talk about shitty...
Of course the 'killing on the blades' part is proving to be more difficult than they anticipated, but so it goes.
Perhaps they overlooked the fact that blades wear out, but game discs don't. You can't trade razor blades with friends or sell them back to "Razor Stop" and replace them with other used blades unless you like pain.
We won't even get into the fact that Gilette using existing patent law to protect their business model and didn't have to lobby congress for new protections that didn't exist to prevent reverse engineering.
I don't read German, so I suppose it could be, but for many people, "drivers that some guy built" just don't cut it, even if he is associated with ATI in some way.
As "some guy" who writes device drivers for major hardware companies under contract, I resent your sexist remarks. I also defy you to produce anybody who can, with any authority, prove that all the drivers they use are written by "some chick," since that seems to be the only alternative. Drivers don't write themselves you know.
Methanol is very cheap you will be able to buy a bottle of it from a Home Improvement (DIY) shop for 2 bucks and the size bottles they sell I will expect that will be 10-20 or so charges.
Two words: Fat chance.
These are going to take cartridges that you'll have to buy prefilled. The recuring revenue potential of a system like that will be too big a lure for laptop manufacturers to ignore. Expect them to lobby for FAA regulations only allowing the prefilled canisters on airplanes to preemptivly squash any lawsuits from people wanting to refill. I predict ~$5 a charge.
Can somebody tell me what the ending is? I'm too busy writing code to read it.
Oracle -> MySQL is like replacing your Ti80 with an abacus.
For most deployments, using Oracle is like using your Ti80 for simple arithmetic. Even the abacus is overkill.
In order to get back down to the ground, they sometimes have to blow out helium which is VERY expensive.
There's no reason for them to do this when they could easily compress the helium and then either pull in a heavier gas from the atmosphere to increase their weight, or reduce their displacement.
You are not taking into account costs that are tied directly to manufacturing. This includes the costs of doing research and development on products that don't sell very well and lose money for the company. The ability to generate a profit during good years means that companies have an emergency surplus for the bad years. The hardware business is particularly cutthroat, with many competitors and thin margins.
And he shouldn't take that into account. There are already laws to protect companies that have such problems: bankruptcy laws. If you want to have a loss-leader business model, you better have some patents or trade secrets that will keep you in business, because other laws shouldn't help you. Any business plan is a calculated risk, and if yours can't make it without special treatment then you should go out of business.
There's a big difference between the "razors and blades" business model and the "Xbox, games, millions of lobying dollars and the DMCA" business model, and if you can't see it you have to look harder.
Here in Boston, Sprint's coverage drops easily. Verizon easily dominates the coverage in this area.
Which Boston do you live in?
You can't even compare that to an Apple system. There's so much that you didn't get or got at a lower quality that the price difference is more than justified. Let's see how the components of your computer fall short compared to the Mac:
- AC97 audio doesn't compare to Apple's sound processor
- No gigabit ethernet
- No Firewire
- No DVD writer
- Half the memory
- No (Well, minimal) Warranty
There's more you didn't get but that's enough to more than justify Apple's price difference. There's more to a system than the video card an the processor. You can't compare a Power Mac (Apple's high end) to a low end machine.
Replying to myself....
That was a Dell 4600. The 8300 with the same features is (for some unknown reason) $2,047, so the Mac is actually cheaper. The Dimension XPS is yet more expensive (but doesn't seem any better).
If you want to compare Apple to home built PCs your see a significant price difference, but Dell has higher margins, and higher prices than Apple.
Price: $1,818.00
The price goes up by $140 if you want image and video editing capabilities comprable to what comes with MacOS. It goes up another $70 if you want XP Professional, the system doesn't include Firewire (400 or 800), doesn't have a cool aluminum case, is louder, doesn't support serial ATA, and the DVD drive is slower.
I'd say that the Mac compares quite favorably to the Dell you suggest. The Dell certainly doesn't blow it away.