Not everybody can both live where they want to live and have the ideal job. If there aren't any decent jobs available in your area... news flash... you may have to move.
That's right! To hell with your family that lives in the area. If you mother's cancer kills her while you're 2,000 miles away, so what? You'll be living where the good jobs are.
You need a clue. Some people have family ties, kids that they don't want to yank out of school and away from their friends, and other circumstances that make becoming a nomad to chase jobs around the country impossible.
That's just the way it is. Reality bites...
So no one should have a social conscience or work to improve the realities of life? Maybe Jonas Salk should have just said "People get polio. Reality bites" and then moved on...
It is easy to be liberal and compassionate, especially when compassion is being financed with other people money.
Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely that you pay as much in taxes as I do. Unlike so many, I did not conveniently convert to being a conservative Republican the minute that I got into the high tax brackets. I was not out there asking the government to cut my taxes, taking money away from the schools about which you feign such concern.
What's easy is being a conservative when it means that you get paid in the form of a tax cut. Unlike you, I didn't sell my vote to the highest bidder.
Want to stop grade inflation? Then fund the teachers and schools with taxes instead of whining about how you need a "tax break." Give them the resources to teach children. Don't have kids stacked up in mobile homes (AKA "temporary classrooms") just so that you can get a share of G.W. Bush's ill-conceived tax cut.
Of course there are countries when these whackos did get to run things and now these places are licking their wounds.
I suppose you prefer places run by conservatives -- like China, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.
What you just said states your massive liberal bias that is found on the majority of this site.
Slashdot has a "massive liberal bias." The media has a liberal bias. Universities have a liberal bias. It seems like any gathering of intelligent, educated people has a liberal bias. I'll leave figuring out why as an exercise for the reader.
Despite poor sales of their Quake3 linux port, the release of a demo for linux shows the future of commercial gaming on linux platforms is still possible...
I have a couple of friends in the computer game industry and Linux games, as commercial ventures, are usually nightmarish. Providing support is difficult and expensive while compatability issues abound due to the number of distributions and versions of Linux out there. While many in the Slashdot community claim that Linux users are the technical elite, many Linux users are just kids with no understanding of programming or even how to get around in a Unix shell.
Then you get the dark side of the open source mentality -- "I've never written a line of code in my life but I want to download gigabytes of software for free." If half of the people that decry the lack of quality commercial Linux games actually bought bought the games that were offered for sale, there would be a booming market. As it is, companies, bouyed up by e-mail campaigns requesting that they release their game for Linux, actually do release the game and it sits on store shelves gathering dust.
I watched Quake III, in the tin-box for Linux, sit on the shelves of Microcenter for months. It was eventually marked down to $9.99 and had a sticker slapped on it saying that you could download what you need to play it on Windows!
Linux is a viable, thriving market for computer games. Yeah. Right.
Yes. For those people who don't know anything about computers and just want to get on the internet-thing, AOL is the best ISP in the world.
Are you serious? People who don't know anything about computers and the Internet are best served by a bunch of banner ads and a mish-mash of Internet-standard and AOL-proprietary interfaces? Most people buy AOL because they have a herd mentality. It's not easier to use than a normal ISP. It's not a cleaner interface. It's not faster. They just buy it because the ads told them to.
No, if you want a small PC-like device that fits in your pants pocket.
Maybe you wear those MC Hammer pants, but I don't have room for something that's bigger than a Palm handheld in my pockets. And I want one that fits in my shirt pocket, which most PocketPCs do not.
It is better for all the people who decided to buy a PocketPC than a Palm, apparently.
[sarcasm]
It's nice to know that consumers never make the wrong choice. I'm glad that none of them are ever disappointed by the battery life, weight, reliability, usability, etc. I'm happy that people who received PocketPCs as Christmas presents were universally happy with them.
[/sarcasm]
I guess, by your logic, AOL is the Best ISP In The World because they have the most customers.
It is better because it does more and does it faster than Palm can.
My desktop computer can do more and do it faster than a PocketPC. Does that make it "better" than a PocketPC?
If the Palm does everything that I need it to, why would I care that a PocketPC can do stuff I don't need (like play MP3s and jerky, low-res videos)?
It may not be better for you, but it is better for all the people who helped put PocketPC sales above PalmOS sales last year.
Again, you seem to have the mistaken notion that consumers always make the best choice. Remember, consumers bought thousands and thousands of Pet Rocks, Cabbage Patch Kids, and Beanie Babies.
Palm is being killed by a different, better product.
Why is it better for a handheld to weigh more, be larger, have a shorter battery life, and cost more? No wonder you post crap like that as Anonymous Coward.
Honestly I think the reason many of us own Palms is because we can't justify the price of a PocketPC.
Maybe for some, but not for me. I really like the light weight of the Palm combined with its incredible battery life. It does what I need. I find it easy to navigate and, with the newer models, easy to read -- though I'll admit that the original Palm Pilot had a less-than-desirable display. The PocketPCs just don't work as well for me.
Ever heard of Blackberries? Of course professionals need to have instant messaging on their PDAs.
Blackberries are, for the vast majority of users, a time-wasting status symbol rather than a valuable tool. I'm a professional. I don't need a Blackberry. The people I work with are all professionals and I've only seen one of them with a Blackberry -- and he got it because it's a cool toy, not because he needed it to be productive in his job. In fact, if you want to see the least productive use of time in the world, watch some poor schmuck try to compose a message on that Blackberry micro-keyboard that makes most calculator keyboards look expansive.
They've got a 33Mhz 16-bit Motorola Dragonball processor. It can (slowly) serve the most basic mobile data needs (email, instant messaging), play a couple of neat little games, and be a pretty effective organizer, but that's about it.
Professionals don't spent their day doing instant messaging, sending e-mails from their organizers, and playing games. They need devices that can serve as calculators, automate their schedules, store phone numbers, and provide a convenient way to store written information. They don't want to change batteries every two days or be tied to a charger so that they can have an x-hundred-megahertz CPU in a handheld. They need to have the company phone directory in their handheld -- not MP3s from Rancid, the Backstreet Boys, or Everclear.
That's why the Palm continues to have a strong following.
And the funny thing is that they are being killed by a better product.
No, they're being killed by a different product. The Palm OS machines are intended to be inexpensive, practical organizers -- not undersized laptops or $500 status symbols. Palms trade things like MP3 playback and glitzy graphics for battery life, light weight, small size, and low price.
Palm OS devices are incredibly practical to someone who needs a powerful organizer for their work -- which is why medical professionals love them. For some kid that's looking for a fancier version of a Gameboy to impress the other kids, the PocketPC machines may be appealing:
Dudez, im righting this email on my iPaq and listening to a Rancid MP3! iPaqs rule! Palms are seriously gay!
The grown-ups will continue to buy Palm as long as they are available.
The point is form *is* function... for many people. The iMac does offer exceptional "performance", but along a different axis than raw CPU performance. I don't see it in the same category as B&O stereo equipment.
Parallel arguments can be made for B&O stereo equipment:
"It's for people that don't demand that a stereo crank out x-many watts and want a stereo for home use, designed with the consumer in mind."
"With B&O, you are paying for form, functionality, and quality that is hard to come by."
"Yes, B&O have less watts than some mass-market stereos that cost hundreds less, but for many, B&O will be well worth the cost for the way it performs in the home."
The problem with claims like those are that they are so subjective. What works well for you and has an elegant interface, may be frustrating to me and have an interface that I hate. For instance, many of us with more than one finger like two or three-button mice/trackballs with scroll wheels.
Let's examine functionality further. Many people feel that the dearth of software for the iMac is a major hindrance. Many don't feel that revolutionary desklamp technology screen mounting does not make up for a screen that is only 15" in size.
What it really comes down to is that the iMac is a $1300-$1800 disposable computer. When it becomes too underpowered for then-current software, the owner will have no choice but to replace it in total. He'll have to scrap the DVD/cutter drive, the LCD screen, the case, power supply, motherboard, etc. That's wasteful and absurd. I've got a top-notch, modern PC and I'm still using the same floppy drive, monitor, case, internal Zip drive, SCSI controller (for my external DAT tape drive), etc. that I was three years ago. When a component becomes a bit long in the tooth, I can upgrade it without scrapping the entire system.
By the way, what is your Dell made of ?? Mine is made of aluminum covered in that plastic stuff you seem to despise. I've taken both my machines apart and I think that the Apple is constructed to a much higher standard. The Dell can't even be compared to it.
I don't own a Dell. While I appreciate their quality, I'd rather construct my own PCs for performance reasons.
Some of the things that impress me about the Dell machines are the serviceability and intelligent case design. It's a joy to service and upgrade them compared to the multi-screw nightmares made by many manufacturers. A few pushbuttons and levers and everything can be opened up.
But Dells vary greatly by line. Their home PC line is just okay while some of their business PCs are superb. There's a big difference between the Dell PrecisionTM Workstation line and the Dell Dimension line.
No. I drive a 2002 VW Golf TDI which get almost 50mpg and handles well with the Eibach springs. I ride a 1999 Suzuki Bandit 1200 which does 0-60mph in about 3 seconds. A used 1981 Oldsmobile doesn't handle well, accelerate well, or get good economy. Therefore, it doesn't do well in the function category.
Nor would I -- except when it is being used as a status symbol or decoration rather than a telescope.
Yes, it is expensive, but it has some of the most accurate drives and highest-quality optics for the amateur.
Okay, this is a subject that I know well. The Questar 3.5" has too small an aperture to be very valuable for amateur astronomy. The light gathering is woefully inadequate for deep space objects (nebulae, galaxies, etc.). Yet, at 3.5", the maximum effective magnification, according to Dawes' limit, is between 175x and 210x. This is on the low side for planetary observation though I will grant that the smaller secondary obstruction has some contrast advantages.
On top of all of that, it's a Maksutov, an optical design that is visibly and measurably worse than a Schmidt-Cassegrain of the same focal ratio. As a result, the Questar is an F15 system, making it less than ideal for astrophotography.
Finally, the thick meniscus corrector plate of the Maksutov guarantees that it will take a long time to reach thermal equilibrium when taken outside on a cold night.
All of this said, the Questar is a jewel of a telescope. As you pointed out, it's beautifully constructed both optically and mechanically. But I won't be trading my 8" Celestron SCT, or even my 5" Celestron SCT, for a 3.5" Maksutov -- regardless of how well the Maksutov is made.
I think that's the difference between Apples and Dells.
From my observation, Dell makes a more rugged, reliable, and better perfoming machine than does Apple. The iMac is a plastic, colored toy when stacked up against a Dell.
The new iMac is like Bang & Olufsen stereo components. It's a really artistic vision of technology yet, when compared to the competition, it is overpriced for the performance that it offers.
I see the new iMac as being a fashion accessory or a lifestyle statement rather than a serious computer. It will be seen in chic, modern, (pretentious) apartments, sharing space with the aforementioned Bang & Olufsen stereos, wall-hanging plasma display televisions, and expensive, but unused, Questar telescopes.
I'm a function over form kind of guy. I'd rather have a normal enclosure and a motherboard with lots of standard expansion slots so that I can expand my computer to meet my needs. I'd rather spend $300 for a 19" monitor than spend the same amount for a chic but small 15" LCD. I don't care if my PC is unattractive. It's a computer, not a girlfriend or wife.
With cars, if you drive an unsafe car, you make it too easy for other people (or other factors like bad roads, built by the government) to accidentally kill you.
If driving a Lotus Elise makes me "too easy for other people... to accidentally kill", should we also ban bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, and pedestrians from our public roads? Should the elderly and infirm have their driving priviledges taken away because they could be killed in an accident that you or I would walk away from?
Going away from the on-road examples, should we ban quadrapalegics from public buildings because they are too easy to kill them if someone accidentally starts a fire? Should we ban skydiving because the person packing the chutes could too easily kill someone if he makes an error?
Isn't my personal safety a risk that I should evaluate?
It is my belief that the government has these responsibilities to the citizens in matters of public safety:
1. To provide information so that consumers can make informed decisions about personal safety. Good examples of this is the NHTSA crash tests and product labelling laws.
2. To legislate only when the public cannot be adequately informed. This is necessary when you could not reasonably expect the public to be able to understand or evaluate the risks. Example: FDA approval of foods and drugs.
3. To protect me from you and vice-versa. A good example is the bumper height law to provent me from being decapitated by your bumper should there be an accident. Another example is laws that limit the pollution that you and I can spew from our vehicles.
And that's the whole list. Any decisions about my personal safety should be left up to me.
Only so long as you only want to use it on your own private land. Once you take it onto public roads then it becomes an issue for the government, because your choice of vehicle can impinge on other people's lives.
How does it "impinge" on your life if I choose to drive a car without an airbag, 5mph bumpers, or side impact protection? Seriously. I'd like to know. Auto safety legislation is almost invariably designed to protect the car owner, not the other people on the road.
I'll agree that the government should protect you from me and vice-versa. To that end, legislation regarding things like the type and arrangement of lights and the type of tire (e.g., DOT approved) is proper and reasonable. But if you would rather give up occupant safety features for performance, economy, prestige, style, etc., that's your business and your's alone.
There are supposedly 2 million incidents a year in the USA in which a firearm is used in self-defense (John Lott's study, look it up). However, that number seems inflated. It would require 1 in 100 people (not including kids) per year to defend themselfs with a gun. So let's assume it's an order of magnitude off.
Why not assume that it's just a bogus "study" contrived to support a position? Once one assumes that a study could be off by an order of magnitude, it's only reasonable to write off the study as meaningless.
From Time: Other critics raise questions about whether Lott massaged the numbers. One arcane quarrel: for statistical purposes, Lott dropped from his study sample any counties that had no reported murders or assaults for a given year. Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University took Lott's figures and analyzed crime rates only in counties with populations above 100,000. Using this yardstick, right-to-carry laws reduced aggravated assaults 67% in Maine--but increased murders 105% in West Virginia. Still other critics note that in concealed-carry states, only about 2% of people have even bothered to get a permit, and they tend to be white males in suburban counties, hardly the population most at risk. After Philadelphia passed a concealed-carry law in 1995, the number of people with such permits rose by 10,000 in two years. But the murder rate remained as high as it had been for the previous decade.
So John Lott's "study" is hardly above reproach.
And seriously, suicides don't count, so it's only 13K deaths
Why don't they "count." People died and most of those people would not have died if they did not have access to a gun (suicide statistics from other countries without guns bear this out). Why? It's a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than to climb a high structure and jump to one's death. Most people would be hard-pressed to throw themselves in front of a train. The list goes on, but I'm sure you see my point.
As for the post office's irradiation plan. Get a clue. It's not for the five people who died. It's for the millions of people who MIGHT die from mail order viruses if we do nothing.
No, you get a clue. The anthrax-tainted mail was sent weeks ago. There have not been subsequent mailings. It's not part of a new wave of crime. It's an isolated nut-job. If you want to protect against anthrax, worry about it being spread by aerial means, not via the mail.
Irradiating all mail to prevent anthrax is like x-raying all mail to look for explosives because the Unabomber sent some via the mail. It's a gross overreaction.
Still, that it no argument that none of those 30,708 deaths would not have happened witout firearems. In fact, I'd venture a guess most of those would still have happened - with a different weapon.
I'm not saying that none of those deaths would have happened, but most would not have.
Guns make suicide easy and private. Most suicides would not happen if the person had to poison themselves, jump to their death, etc. That's why we have such a high suicide rate in the U.S.
Many of the people that use guns to commit murder would be far too cowardly to try to kill with a knife or their bare hands. Ever heard of a drive-by knifing? Ever hear of some kid showing up at school with poison to try to kill all of his classmates? How about family arguments that end in gunshots? You are, statistically speaking, three times as likely to die in a domestic dispute if there is a gun in the home.
So you're saying that the safety improvements to automobiles are not needed, that they should never have been done (because they WERE done due to people getting killed or maimed). And you're saying that the lives being saved to this very day are not worth it because look at all that extra weight on the car!
Correct. It is not the government's role to protect people from their own decisions. If A consumer demands a safer car, then that consumer should have the option of buying one. But, if I want a Lotus Elise for the performance or a VW Lupo for the fuel economy, it's not the government's role to tell me that they aren't safe enough for me. That's why there are government crash tests; so that consumers can make an informed decision.
How does this crap get modded up anyway?
People who don't know the difference between the words "this" and "that" are not intellectually qualified to pass jugement on what I write.
All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?
Although the self-righteous amoung us have pounced on this statement, it's not out of line. We can't substantially change our way of life every time someone dies.
Look at automobiles. A 1981 VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) weighed about 1,800lbs. A modern Golf weighs in at about 2,800lbs. Most of that weight gain is because of safety regulations requiring everything from stronger bumpers to airbags to bracing in the doors. In another 50 years, will economy cars weigh as much as Chevy Suburbans due to ever-increasing safety regulation?
What if it could be shown that taking people's guns away wuld prevent deaths? In the U.S. in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. And no rational person could possibly claim that self-defense uses of firearms saved anywhere near that many lives. So does that death toll justify repealing the Second Amendment (right to bear arms)?
We are slowly paralyzing ourselves as a country. We need to realize that we can't legislate or regulate death out of existence. People are going to die, sometimes tragically before their time, no matter how many laws, procedures, rules, and regulations we put into place.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everybody can both live where they want to live and have the ideal job. If there aren't any decent jobs available in your area... news flash... you may have to move.
That's right! To hell with your family that lives in the area. If you mother's cancer kills her while you're 2,000 miles away, so what? You'll be living where the good jobs are.
You need a clue. Some people have family ties, kids that they don't want to yank out of school and away from their friends, and other circumstances that make becoming a nomad to chase jobs around the country impossible.
That's just the way it is. Reality bites...
So no one should have a social conscience or work to improve the realities of life? Maybe Jonas Salk should have just said "People get polio. Reality bites" and then moved on...
It is easy to be liberal and compassionate, especially when compassion is being financed with other people money.
Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely that you pay as much in taxes as I do. Unlike so many, I did not conveniently convert to being a conservative Republican the minute that I got into the high tax brackets. I was not out there asking the government to cut my taxes, taking money away from the schools about which you feign such concern.
What's easy is being a conservative when it means that you get paid in the form of a tax cut. Unlike you, I didn't sell my vote to the highest bidder.
Want to stop grade inflation? Then fund the teachers and schools with taxes instead of whining about how you need a "tax break." Give them the resources to teach children. Don't have kids stacked up in mobile homes (AKA "temporary classrooms") just so that you can get a share of G.W. Bush's ill-conceived tax cut.
Of course there are countries when these whackos did get to run things and now these places are licking their wounds.
I suppose you prefer places run by conservatives -- like China, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.
Moderators have modded the on-topic parent post as "Troll" because they disagree with the opinion presented therein.
Thanks. I'm now down to 48 karma points so the moderators can only do so much. I note that another moderator modded it up as "interesting".
What you just said states your massive liberal bias that is found on the majority of this site.
Slashdot has a "massive liberal bias." The media has a liberal bias. Universities have a liberal bias. It seems like any gathering of intelligent, educated people has a liberal bias. I'll leave figuring out why as an exercise for the reader.
Despite poor sales of their Quake3 linux port, the release of a demo for linux shows the future of commercial gaming on linux platforms is still possible...
I have a couple of friends in the computer game industry and Linux games, as commercial ventures, are usually nightmarish. Providing support is difficult and expensive while compatability issues abound due to the number of distributions and versions of Linux out there. While many in the Slashdot community claim that Linux users are the technical elite, many Linux users are just kids with no understanding of programming or even how to get around in a Unix shell.
Then you get the dark side of the open source mentality -- "I've never written a line of code in my life but I want to download gigabytes of software for free." If half of the people that decry the lack of quality commercial Linux games actually bought bought the games that were offered for sale, there would be a booming market. As it is, companies, bouyed up by e-mail campaigns requesting that they release their game for Linux, actually do release the game and it sits on store shelves gathering dust.
I watched Quake III, in the tin-box for Linux, sit on the shelves of Microcenter for months. It was eventually marked down to $9.99 and had a sticker slapped on it saying that you could download what you need to play it on Windows!
Linux is a viable, thriving market for computer games. Yeah. Right.
Yes. For those people who don't know anything about computers and just want to get on the internet-thing, AOL is the best ISP in the world.
Are you serious? People who don't know anything about computers and the Internet are best served by a bunch of banner ads and a mish-mash of Internet-standard and AOL-proprietary interfaces? Most people buy AOL because they have a herd mentality. It's not easier to use than a normal ISP. It's not a cleaner interface. It's not faster. They just buy it because the ads told them to.
No, if you want a small PC-like device that fits in your pants pocket.
Maybe you wear those MC Hammer pants, but I don't have room for something that's bigger than a Palm handheld in my pockets. And I want one that fits in my shirt pocket, which most PocketPCs do not.
I'd never get an e-mail response from my boss if he didn't have a Blackberry.
;-)
Since when is an e-mail response from the boss a productivity enhancing experience?
It is better for all the people who decided to buy a PocketPC than a Palm, apparently.
[sarcasm]
It's nice to know that consumers never make the wrong choice. I'm glad that none of them are ever disappointed by the battery life, weight, reliability, usability, etc. I'm happy that people who received PocketPCs as Christmas presents were universally happy with them.
[/sarcasm]
I guess, by your logic, AOL is the Best ISP In The World because they have the most customers.
It is better because it does more and does it faster than Palm can.
My desktop computer can do more and do it faster than a PocketPC. Does that make it "better" than a PocketPC?
If the Palm does everything that I need it to, why would I care that a PocketPC can do stuff I don't need (like play MP3s and jerky, low-res videos)?
It may not be better for you, but it is better for all the people who helped put PocketPC sales above PalmOS sales last year.
Again, you seem to have the mistaken notion that consumers always make the best choice. Remember, consumers bought thousands and thousands of Pet Rocks, Cabbage Patch Kids, and Beanie Babies.
So, when are you going to sign up for AOL?
Palm is being killed by a different, better product.
Why is it better for a handheld to weigh more, be larger, have a shorter battery life, and cost more? No wonder you post crap like that as Anonymous Coward.
Honestly I think the reason many of us own Palms is because we can't justify the price of a PocketPC.
Maybe for some, but not for me. I really like the light weight of the Palm combined with its incredible battery life. It does what I need. I find it easy to navigate and, with the newer models, easy to read -- though I'll admit that the original Palm Pilot had a less-than-desirable display. The PocketPCs just don't work as well for me.
Ever heard of Blackberries? Of course professionals need to have instant messaging on their PDAs.
Blackberries are, for the vast majority of users, a time-wasting status symbol rather than a valuable tool. I'm a professional. I don't need a Blackberry. The people I work with are all professionals and I've only seen one of them with a Blackberry -- and he got it because it's a cool toy, not because he needed it to be productive in his job. In fact, if you want to see the least productive use of time in the world, watch some poor schmuck try to compose a message on that Blackberry micro-keyboard that makes most calculator keyboards look expansive.
They've got a 33Mhz 16-bit Motorola Dragonball processor. It can (slowly) serve the most basic mobile data needs (email, instant messaging), play a couple of neat little games, and be a pretty effective organizer, but that's about it.
Professionals don't spent their day doing instant messaging, sending e-mails from their organizers, and playing games. They need devices that can serve as calculators, automate their schedules, store phone numbers, and provide a convenient way to store written information. They don't want to change batteries every two days or be tied to a charger so that they can have an x-hundred-megahertz CPU in a handheld. They need to have the company phone directory in their handheld -- not MP3s from Rancid, the Backstreet Boys, or Everclear.
That's why the Palm continues to have a strong following.
And the funny thing is that they are being killed by a better product.
No, they're being killed by a different product. The Palm OS machines are intended to be inexpensive, practical organizers -- not undersized laptops or $500 status symbols. Palms trade things like MP3 playback and glitzy graphics for battery life, light weight, small size, and low price.
Palm OS devices are incredibly practical to someone who needs a powerful organizer for their work -- which is why medical professionals love them. For some kid that's looking for a fancier version of a Gameboy to impress the other kids, the PocketPC machines may be appealing:
Dudez, im righting this email on my iPaq and listening to a Rancid MP3! iPaqs rule! Palms are seriously gay!
The grown-ups will continue to buy Palm as long as they are available.
The point is form *is* function... for many people. The iMac does offer exceptional "performance", but along a different axis than raw CPU performance. I don't see it in the same category as B&O stereo equipment.
Parallel arguments can be made for B&O stereo equipment:
"It's for people that don't demand that a stereo crank out x-many watts and want a stereo for home use, designed with the consumer in mind."
"With B&O, you are paying for form, functionality, and quality that is hard to come by."
"Yes, B&O have less watts than some mass-market stereos that cost hundreds less, but for many, B&O will be well worth the cost for the way it performs in the home."
The problem with claims like those are that they are so subjective. What works well for you and has an elegant interface, may be frustrating to me and have an interface that I hate. For instance, many of us with more than one finger like two or three-button mice/trackballs with scroll wheels.
Let's examine functionality further. Many people feel that the dearth of software for the iMac is a major hindrance. Many don't feel that revolutionary desklamp technology screen mounting does not make up for a screen that is only 15" in size.
What it really comes down to is that the iMac is a $1300-$1800 disposable computer. When it becomes too underpowered for then-current software, the owner will have no choice but to replace it in total. He'll have to scrap the DVD/cutter drive, the LCD screen, the case, power supply, motherboard, etc. That's wasteful and absurd. I've got a top-notch, modern PC and I'm still using the same floppy drive, monitor, case, internal Zip drive, SCSI controller (for my external DAT tape drive), etc. that I was three years ago. When a component becomes a bit long in the tooth, I can upgrade it without scrapping the entire system.
By the way, what is your Dell made of ?? Mine is made of aluminum covered in that plastic stuff you seem to despise. I've taken both my machines apart and I think that the Apple is constructed to a much higher standard. The Dell can't even be compared to it.
I don't own a Dell. While I appreciate their quality, I'd rather construct my own PCs for performance reasons.
Some of the things that impress me about the Dell machines are the serviceability and intelligent case design. It's a joy to service and upgrade them compared to the multi-screw nightmares made by many manufacturers. A few pushbuttons and levers and everything can be opened up.
But Dells vary greatly by line. Their home PC line is just okay while some of their business PCs are superb. There's a big difference between the Dell PrecisionTM Workstation line and the Dell Dimension line.
You drive a used 1981 Oldsmobile, right?
No. I drive a 2002 VW Golf TDI which get almost 50mpg and handles well with the Eibach springs. I ride a 1999 Suzuki Bandit 1200 which does 0-60mph in about 3 seconds. A used 1981 Oldsmobile doesn't handle well, accelerate well, or get good economy. Therefore, it doesn't do well in the function category.
I wouldn't classify Questar as being pretentious
Nor would I -- except when it is being used as a status symbol or decoration rather than a telescope.
Yes, it is expensive, but it has some of the most accurate drives and highest-quality optics for the amateur.
Okay, this is a subject that I know well. The Questar 3.5" has too small an aperture to be very valuable for amateur astronomy. The light gathering is woefully inadequate for deep space objects (nebulae, galaxies, etc.). Yet, at 3.5", the maximum effective magnification, according to Dawes' limit, is between 175x and 210x. This is on the low side for planetary observation though I will grant that the smaller secondary obstruction has some contrast advantages.
On top of all of that, it's a Maksutov, an optical design that is visibly and measurably worse than a Schmidt-Cassegrain of the same focal ratio. As a result, the Questar is an F15 system, making it less than ideal for astrophotography.
Finally, the thick meniscus corrector plate of the Maksutov guarantees that it will take a long time to reach thermal equilibrium when taken outside on a cold night.
All of this said, the Questar is a jewel of a telescope. As you pointed out, it's beautifully constructed both optically and mechanically. But I won't be trading my 8" Celestron SCT, or even my 5" Celestron SCT, for a 3.5" Maksutov -- regardless of how well the Maksutov is made.
I think that's the difference between Apples and Dells.
From my observation, Dell makes a more rugged, reliable, and better perfoming machine than does Apple. The iMac is a plastic, colored toy when stacked up against a Dell.
The new iMac is like Bang & Olufsen stereo components. It's a really artistic vision of technology yet, when compared to the competition, it is overpriced for the performance that it offers.
I see the new iMac as being a fashion accessory or a lifestyle statement rather than a serious computer. It will be seen in chic, modern, (pretentious) apartments, sharing space with the aforementioned Bang & Olufsen stereos, wall-hanging plasma display televisions, and expensive, but unused, Questar telescopes.
I'm a function over form kind of guy. I'd rather have a normal enclosure and a motherboard with lots of standard expansion slots so that I can expand my computer to meet my needs. I'd rather spend $300 for a 19" monitor than spend the same amount for a chic but small 15" LCD. I don't care if my PC is unattractive. It's a computer, not a girlfriend or wife.
With cars, if you drive an unsafe car, you make it too easy for other people (or other factors like bad roads, built by the government) to accidentally kill you.
If driving a Lotus Elise makes me "too easy for other people... to accidentally kill", should we also ban bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, and pedestrians from our public roads? Should the elderly and infirm have their driving priviledges taken away because they could be killed in an accident that you or I would walk away from?
Going away from the on-road examples, should we ban quadrapalegics from public buildings because they are too easy to kill them if someone accidentally starts a fire? Should we ban skydiving because the person packing the chutes could too easily kill someone if he makes an error?
Isn't my personal safety a risk that I should evaluate?
It is my belief that the government has these responsibilities to the citizens in matters of public safety:
1. To provide information so that consumers can make informed decisions about personal safety. Good examples of this is the NHTSA crash tests and product labelling laws.
2. To legislate only when the public cannot be adequately informed. This is necessary when you could not reasonably expect the public to be able to understand or evaluate the risks. Example: FDA approval of foods and drugs.
3. To protect me from you and vice-versa. A good example is the bumper height law to provent me from being decapitated by your bumper should there be an accident. Another example is laws that limit the pollution that you and I can spew from our vehicles.
And that's the whole list. Any decisions about my personal safety should be left up to me.
Only so long as you only want to use it on your own private land. Once you take it onto public roads then it becomes an issue for the government, because your choice of vehicle can impinge on other people's lives.
How does it "impinge" on your life if I choose to drive a car without an airbag, 5mph bumpers, or side impact protection? Seriously. I'd like to know. Auto safety legislation is almost invariably designed to protect the car owner, not the other people on the road.
I'll agree that the government should protect you from me and vice-versa. To that end, legislation regarding things like the type and arrangement of lights and the type of tire (e.g., DOT approved) is proper and reasonable. But if you would rather give up occupant safety features for performance, economy, prestige, style, etc., that's your business and your's alone.
But what if the kid showed up with some plastic instead?
Oh my God! He's got a credit card! Run for your lives before he charges!
There are supposedly 2 million incidents a year in the USA in which a firearm is used in self-defense (John Lott's study, look it up). However, that number seems inflated. It would require 1 in 100 people (not including kids) per year to defend themselfs with a gun. So let's assume it's an order of magnitude off.
Why not assume that it's just a bogus "study" contrived to support a position? Once one assumes that a study could be off by an order of magnitude, it's only reasonable to write off the study as meaningless.
From Time: Other critics raise questions about whether Lott massaged the numbers. One arcane quarrel: for statistical purposes, Lott dropped from his study sample any counties that had no reported murders or assaults for a given year. Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University took Lott's figures and analyzed crime rates only in counties with populations above 100,000. Using this yardstick, right-to-carry laws reduced aggravated assaults 67% in Maine--but increased murders 105% in West Virginia. Still other critics note that in concealed-carry states, only about 2% of people have even bothered to get a permit, and they tend to be white males in suburban counties, hardly the population most at risk. After Philadelphia passed a concealed-carry law in 1995, the number of people with such permits rose by 10,000 in two years. But the murder rate remained as high as it had been for the previous decade.
So John Lott's "study" is hardly above reproach.
And seriously, suicides don't count, so it's only 13K deaths
Why don't they "count." People died and most of those people would not have died if they did not have access to a gun (suicide statistics from other countries without guns bear this out). Why? It's a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than to climb a high structure and jump to one's death. Most people would be hard-pressed to throw themselves in front of a train. The list goes on, but I'm sure you see my point.
As for the post office's irradiation plan. Get a clue. It's not for the five people who died. It's for the millions of people who MIGHT die from mail order viruses if we do nothing.
No, you get a clue. The anthrax-tainted mail was sent weeks ago. There have not been subsequent mailings. It's not part of a new wave of crime. It's an isolated nut-job. If you want to protect against anthrax, worry about it being spread by aerial means, not via the mail.
Irradiating all mail to prevent anthrax is like x-raying all mail to look for explosives because the Unabomber sent some via the mail. It's a gross overreaction.
Still, that it no argument that none of those 30,708 deaths would not have happened witout firearems. In fact, I'd venture a guess most of those would still have happened - with a different weapon.
I'm not saying that none of those deaths would have happened, but most would not have.
Guns make suicide easy and private. Most suicides would not happen if the person had to poison themselves, jump to their death, etc. That's why we have such a high suicide rate in the U.S.
Many of the people that use guns to commit murder would be far too cowardly to try to kill with a knife or their bare hands. Ever heard of a drive-by knifing? Ever hear of some kid showing up at school with poison to try to kill all of his classmates? How about family arguments that end in gunshots? You are, statistically speaking, three times as likely to die in a domestic dispute if there is a gun in the home.
So you're saying that the safety improvements to automobiles are not needed, that they should never have been done (because they WERE done due to people getting killed or maimed). And you're saying that the lives being saved to this very day are not worth it because look at all that extra weight on the car!
Correct. It is not the government's role to protect people from their own decisions. If A consumer demands a safer car, then that consumer should have the option of buying one. But, if I want a Lotus Elise for the performance or a VW Lupo for the fuel economy, it's not the government's role to tell me that they aren't safe enough for me. That's why there are government crash tests; so that consumers can make an informed decision.
How does this crap get modded up anyway?
People who don't know the difference between the words "this" and "that" are not intellectually qualified to pass jugement on what I write.
All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?
Although the self-righteous amoung us have pounced on this statement, it's not out of line. We can't substantially change our way of life every time someone dies.
Look at automobiles. A 1981 VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) weighed about 1,800lbs. A modern Golf weighs in at about 2,800lbs. Most of that weight gain is because of safety regulations requiring everything from stronger bumpers to airbags to bracing in the doors. In another 50 years, will economy cars weigh as much as Chevy Suburbans due to ever-increasing safety regulation?
What if it could be shown that taking people's guns away wuld prevent deaths? In the U.S. in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. And no rational person could possibly claim that self-defense uses of firearms saved anywhere near that many lives. So does that death toll justify repealing the Second Amendment (right to bear arms)?
We are slowly paralyzing ourselves as a country. We need to realize that we can't legislate or regulate death out of existence. People are going to die, sometimes tragically before their time, no matter how many laws, procedures, rules, and regulations we put into place.