1) I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world ignore electric cars I'm merely pointing out that they are, as yet, not very practical for us. 2) Classic chicken and egg paradox. We will build them when demand increases and demand will increase when more of them are built. 3) What happens if I want to take a family road trip? Where am I going to juice up...the Holiday Inn parking lot? This is not just about the work commute. 4) Again, I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world ignore electric cars. In America it is extremely difficult to get new Nuclear plants built because of the regulations in place. I'm a fan of Nuclear, our government not so much. 5) You think Tesla has it right? In four years they have sold 2,350 cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster). The Roadster starts at $109,000. Economy of scale is NEVER going to kick in averaging 800 cars a year. How many of these people that bought Teslas are using them as their sole transportation? I would venture to guess that number is very close to zero. The "gas guzzler", as you call it, is in the garage while the rich guy is taking his Tesla for a ride up the nearest mountain road. It hasn't replaced anything, it just takes up another stall in his garage. Come Monday morning he slides back into the Escalade and drives to work. He might FEEL like he's saving the planet but all he's really done is put another car on our already congested roads.
We have made great strides in improving fuel economy, due in large part to the aggressive mandates the government has put in place with the CAFE standards. We are routinely seeing new cars that get 40+ MPG without looking like a dork-mobile. Turbocharging and multi valve engine configurations are delivering both power and fuel economy like never before.
Although not as popular in America as they are in Europe, diesels are now very clean and very fuel efficient. The problem is that in the USA diesel fuel is more expensive than regular gasoline so it's not as widely adopted.
We have been spoiled with cheap gas, as you point out, but the prices have risen sufficiently that many people in the USA are now looking at fuel economy in a whole new light. Yes, we still like our big cars but to say that we have not made progress simply ignores the facts.
The idea of all electric cars has always seemed so appealing. Zero emissions (well, I'll get to that in a minute), and economical (I'll get to that too). It's development always seems to go in fits and starts. And we always seem to run up against the same issues time and time again...namely:
1) Battery technology, although improved, is still not where it needs to be to make all electric cars a viable alternative for the majority of people. America, unlike much of Europe and many large cities in Asia, is very much spread out geographically. That means long drives for many people and it means cars that can travel a long distance without having to refuel or recharge. 2) Lack of charging stations. Sure, I can plug the car in at home and charge it overnight but what happens after that? I'm then limited to how far I can drive unless I can find a charging station somewhere along the way. If you live in New York of San Francisco you've got a much better chance of finding one than if you live in Montana. 3) Convenience. Plugging a car in on a 110V charge will take most of the night to fully charge. A 220V outlet lessens it but you're still looking at 2-3 hours to fully charge the car. I can fill the gas tank in a few minutes. Electric cars are going to need some sort of trickle charge system (solar roof panels perhaps if you live in a southern state?) to lessen the need for daytime charging. 4) It's not as "clean" as it's proponents would have you believe. Yes, the car itself emits no pollution but the process of making electricity is often a pretty dirty process. 5) Cost. I believe that the Chevy Volt costs around $40,000, give or take. That's a lot of money for an economy car. For 40K I can buy a really nice car that runs on gasoline. For about 20K I can buy an economy car that gets about 40mpg.
So for those reasons, and probably a few others, the electric car remains a niche vehicle. They are mainly being bought by "save the planet" types (fairly well off ones at that). It's a noble cause but for such a small market it's a money loser for car companies unless they can get giant subsidies from the government. When governments spend money on transportation they have a choice - build more roads or invest in electric cars and public transportation. Unfortunately most of the public wants more roads.
I think that Facebook is caught between a rock and a hard place here. If the fake accounts continue to exist (and if Facebook is admitting to 80 mil you can be sure the real number is much higher than that) then advertisers will continue to abandon the platform. But if Facebook continues to come out with policies like this then USERS will abandon the platform.
This is why I don't use Facebook. You start out posting a few innocent quotes and photos. Then maybe you add a questionable comment or two. Maybe a drunk college photo. Next thing you know it goes mainstream and HR drones start trolling profiles of prospective hires. Now you're got some explaining to do to someone you don't even know that probably has no business trolling your profile in the first place. But you've sold your soul to Facebook and now you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube. Those photos and comments live in infamy. All in the name of advertising dollars. Who reads those stupid ads anyway?
More idiotic forms of "collaboration". As if business isn't paralyzed enough already with meetings, committees, focus groups...you name it. It's a miracle that anything gets done.
That's a good point. There should be some way that you can show proof of ownership of the old copy of Bladerunner and get the DVD at some sort of upgrade price that is less than the full cost. I never really fully embraced the Blu-ray format either. I have a few of them that I've bought on sale but the idea of paying $30 for a Blu-ray disk...well, that's just not going to happen. The player I have has got upscaling and a regular DVD looks and sounds pretty darn good to me. Sure, the Blu-ray version can be better (but is not always) but to me it's not worth the extra cost. Now a days I mainly just rent movies from Redbox for $1 and bring it back the next day. For the few movies that I might want to watch again I'll buy the disk but those are few and far between. Even for music, more and more I'm going to internet radio. I don't really feel the need to buy and collect music like I once did. Entertainment is becoming a disposable commodity to me.
The article doesn't mention it but I think it's a key question. Part of the appeal of the MP3 format is that the files are small and can be transferred quickly from PC to your music device. If Pono files are 10x as large as an MP3 file then that means you can only get 1/10 of your current music library on your iPod. Sure, storage is cheap for disk drives but portable devices not so much and iPod/iPhone does not allow for expandable storage.
So the obvious solution is cloud storage but that comes with it's own set of pitfalls. Personally, I'm not willing to throw my entire music collection up "in the cloud". If you're a storage host then you have to increase your storage and bandwidth usage many times more than if you were hosting MP3 files.
Then there is the question of cost. How much will a Pono file cost per song? I'd be willing to bet that it's a lot more than 99 cents a song. There are audiophiles out there that will be happy to pay for the sound quality but I wonder how viable it is for the masses? If you're just listening to the music on cheap bud headphones you're not likely to have a tremendous difference. Now if you're listening to it on a high end home stereo that's a different story. I could see it working well for listening to music in your car if you've got a really good stereo and can plug in a big USB stick with about 64GB of storage and fill it up with high quality Pono songs.
So to me it's going to come down to file size and cost. If both of those are not outrageous then it might well work.
You know, these athletes...so called role models...should be ashamed to put their names on items like this. They know full well that many of their "fans" can't afford them. Heck, many of them came from "the projects" themselves and know first hand. I'll give Shaq O'Neil credit on this...his sneakers cost $20-$40. All it does is create envy among the kids that can't afford them and remind them, once again, that in the eyes of society they (and/or their parents) are failures because they can't afford the $270 sneakers. It's a terrible lesson to be teaching kids. Is it any wonder we have so much wealth envy in America?
I'm pretty sure that what this guy said was stupid, inappropriate, etc. but does it really warrant him being arrested and held on $1M bail? Did he have a prior criminal record? The article makes no mention of it so I will assume that he does not. Ok, so they found some guns in his house but does that mean that he was intending to shoot people or was he going duck hunting?
And what exactly is a "terrorist threat" anyhow? These days it seems like it's whatever the government wants it to mean. I've got a feeling that if this guy really wanted to go kill some kids he would have just done it without posting it on ESPN's website first.
Basically I think it's an overreaction on ESPN's part and on the part of the police. This reminds me a little bit of the incident that happened when an ESPN writer wrote an article about Jeremy Lin, the NY Knicks basketball player and used the phrase "chink in the armor" somewhere in the story. They fired the guy over it. I think a simple apology, which he did make by the way, should have sufficed. Ever since then I get my sports news elsewhere.
Wow, that's a lot of miles! I agree with both of your assertions by the way. So what's the alternative for you if you're not using the scanners? Do you have to go through the pat down or have them open your luggage?
The whole thing is idiotic...I just want to get through there as quickly as possible and get on with my business.
You've got a good point there. If someone is really determined to bomb something there is very little that can be done to stop it. Just because someone has not created a crime YET does not mean they are not capable of creating one NOW.
Truthfully, I think the whole scenario is a charade. In the eyes of TSA it's safer. I do believe that it's faster and more convenient though. As long as I'm subjected to it I'd rather it be over quicker than not.
The TSA has this program now called Fly By. It's a voluntary program that has been rolled out to a few airports (lucky my hometown airport is one of them). If you join up - and remember it's voluntary - the TSA will do a background check on you. If all goes well then the next time you go to the airport you get whisked over to a special line at security. You don't have to take your shoes off, you don't have to take your belt off, you don't have to take out your toiletry bag. You just put your stuff on the belt and walk through the x-ray machine. Easy, peesy. Now, I still can't bring through a bottle of water and I'm still subject to the regulations that other passengers are but still...this is a Godsend for frequent flyers and a model for how airport security should be done. It's fast and convenient and still provides a measure of safety.
I've been critical of the TSA in the past but this time they got it right.
However, back to the article at hand. Don't you think it might make sense to try these new things out in the field before awarding an IDIQ contract? I haven't read the contract but it sounds suspiciously like some of the other government contracts in that the supplier gets paid no matter what. If something goes wrong then you have to sign another contract, and pay more money, to get it fixed.
I've worked with many government agencies over the years as a contractor, and many years ago, as an employee. The big problem, as I see it, is not so much the people that work there it's the procurement system. The rules and the hoops you have to jump through to get anything done is just appalling. Often, the rules prevent you from making the best purchasing decision. No private company could survive under the same set of rules. That - as much as anything else - is what is contributing to the massive waste in government today.
I'm well aware that there are other carriers but there is this small matter of a contract that I'd have to pay to get out of. Perhaps it wasn't clear in my post but I lay the blame for this not on Apple but on AT&T.
I would be willing to bet that Libre Office, or something similar in the open source market, would more than meet the needs of 90% of all home users. And probably a very large percentage of business users as well. I remember a time, not that long ago, when Internet Explorer had an enormous share of the browser market and many pundits were calling the browser war over. Eventually people found out that not only could other browsers work just fine, in some cases they were better than IE. The same thing could happen with Office software. MS could be putting a nail in their own coffin if they come out with this subscription model. Many people will start looking at alternatives - and find that there are free alternatives that are pretty darn good.
AT&T is going to gouge the consumer for every cent they can. The irony, or course, is that Apple trumpets the fact that you can now make Facetime calls over a 3G/4G connection instead of WiFi. But the owner of the pipes (AT&T) is going to restrict how much of it you can use.
I agree with much of what you say but we have seen technically superior products fail in the marketplace before (ex. Beta vs. VHS). What MS really needs to do, in my view, is find a way to woo developers to the platform. Just having great tools like VS is not going to do it. They're going to have to convince developers that it's a viable platform that they can make money on. Otherwise, why bother? Without Apps the phone is worthless no matter how good the hardware.
From the consumer side, MS has to convince iPhone and Android users that WP8 has something that the others don't. That's going to be tough. I think they only way they can do it is on price. Price the phones and the apps less than the other guys. MS will take a loss in the short term but might be able to make it up on the back end. They'll have to pull a page from their XBox playbook.
I guess the real question is...is there room for a 3th major player in the mobile OS space? Ok, 4th if you include RIM. Personally I think no. WP8 has a lot of promise and it's probably going to be really good but did MS wait too long?
For me one of the big upgrades with this phone is the Maps application. Getting turn by turn directions is one of the main reasons that I switched to an Android phone. Google maps is fantastic for that and I wasn't about to pay Apple or AT&T a fee every month for something that comes free with the Android phone. Now that the new iPhone comes with this feature all that remains to be seen is how well it works. Being able to do Facetime over 4G is nice but it only works with other iPhones...well, that and I can see that eating up a lot of your monthly data stipend. Faster processor (A6) should make it a bit snappier. There appear to be some improvements with the camera optics so that might translate into better photos although, honestly, the photos I have seen from the 4S phone are really good already. Apparently the new headphones are a nice improvement over the old ones.
Now for the bad part.... 1) You still can't add storage via MicroSD. This has been discussed on other threads here and it's still one of my pet peeves with the iPhone. 2) You still have to use iTunes to get anything on or off the phone. 3) It appears that the battery is still not user serviceable. That means another trip to the Genius Bar for something as simple as replacing a battery. 4) I'm not sure I like the idea of the new connector. Ok, it's got the reversible (idiot proof) hook up but now all of your previous ones are obsolete. If you want a second cable be prepared to pay through the iNose for it. Apparently they needed the space so the connector is smaller now. I wonder if it charges any faster or is it just newer and smaller?
I know why Apple is doing this I'm just not good with it. I like having more control of my phone. Having said all that, it looks like a nice upgrade for the iFans out there.
A lot of people know how to code. What sets you apart is being able to work with your client and understanding what it is they want. It sounds simple but a lot of things can go wrong if you don't capture the requirements accurately. Focus on architecting a solution before you begin coding. Draw it out if it helps you but get something down on paper first.
Work on your people skills - a lot. If you want to be successful in this business you're going to have to learn how to work with other people, even ones you don't like very much. A lot of the techs I work with don't like management people very much. They distrust them. They feel that managers don't understand technology and have no business supervising you. While all of that is open to debate the fact of the matter is that they need to get things done. When you get your stuff done it makes them look good. When you make them look good they will stay out of your way and let you do what you do well. Everyone is happy.
When you work on a project for a client don't settle for "good enough". Go the extra mile and give them a bit more than what they asked for. That's how you get repeat business. If you do that enough then instead of you looking for work, work will look for you. It's surprising how much work you can get on referral and reputation.
"It's not 100%" - Agreed. " For those who DO stay, which?" - Good question. My guess would be the people that have the most invested in it in terms of friends, photos, posts, etc. "A small subset say interesting things. A large subset consume them." - Right again "If facebook charges money, Tumblr will get a massive influx of users." - Unsubstantiated claim. Some will stay, some will use a similar social media tool, some will just give up on it all together. I don't think anyone really knows what would happen. I suspect that many of them would go to Google+.
You're right - it would be a huge gamble. The only way it could work is by offering premium services. I don't doubt that Facebook makes money from advertising I just question how effective that advertising is from the advertisers standpoint. Personally I ignore most of the ads I see online. Perhaps others react differently.
Certainly not. And for the record I don't use Facebook. I wouldn't pay $0.05 a month for it. But I know a lot of people that use it every day and they well might be willing to pay. Who knows? I just thing it's an interesting conversation. This is what everyone seems to be trying to figure out - you start up some free service and get lots of people using it but how do you actually make money on it?
Sure, someone else could come along with a competing free service but I think you're underestimating the power of momentum. Take Google+ for example. Technically it's a very good site. I like their approach to privacy and the elegance of the circles. But compared to Facebook they have very little traction. I would be willing to bet that many of the people with Google+ accounts also have Facebook accounts. Plus, it's not that easy to get all your content off Facebook once you have invested a lot of time putting it there.
I'm not suggesting I have all the answers here by the way. I'm just throwing that $1 a month thing out there to stir up some debate, and it looks like it has. Of course Zuckerberg has thought of this and he has rejected it with a lot better view of company financials than I have. Clearly they believe in the advertising model but I have my doubts. What they do have going for them is momentum. In software it's a powerful thing. Just ask Microsoft about that. Once people get used to using a certain thing there is some reluctance to change.
Think about that. All those facebook addicts out there. I bet that most of them would be willing to pay $1 a month to use it. That's about $800,000,000 a MONTH in revenue. Even if only half of them sign up that's still $400,000,000. If you pay the dollar you get an add free version and maybe a little more control on how your data is used and shared. People pay to use Dropbox why not facebook?
The best chance Linux had to make real inroads on the desktop was 5-8 years ago. The XP/Vista era. XP, before SP3, was a horrible mess. It was a magnet for viruses. Vista had a lot of promises but all it really delivered was a new GUI. The driver support was terrible. OSX was in it's early years and not as stable as it is now.
So what did the Linux camps do? What they always do...bicker and argue and fork to yet another distribution. I like Linux and I use it often but I'm willing to fiddle with it, unlike the average user. If you have the right combination of hardware then Linux works great. If you don't then you'll either spend lots of time trying to fix the problem (typically video, sound or wireless) or simply give up on it and go back to Windows.
For the record here is what I think Linux could do to expand their market:
1) The groups need to come to an agreement on what the default GUI is. Sure, it's cool to have so many choices but the average person will get confused. 2) Allow for more administration using GUI rather than CLI. I know, I know, the CLI is more powerful. But guess what? The average person doesn't care. They want an easy to use GUI. 3) Come preloaded with a few nice themes. Let's face it, many of the Linux distributions are pretty bland out of the box. Yes, you can jazz it up with themes but they are not all that straight forward to install for people that are used to Windows or Mac. Aunt Bessy does not want to deal with tar files, trust me on that. 4) Don't put Linus in charge of the desktop. That guy is about as hard core geek as they come and I'm sure he could care less what the desktop looks like. He is all about function over form. Well...to the average person form is just as important as function. They want something that looks cool and works right. Witness the success of Windows 7 and Mac OSX. Both of them are polished, beautiful GUI's that look cool and work great.
Now I have to say that Linux has come a long way in terms of driver support. Installation is far easier than it once was - easier that Windows actually.
At the end of the day, none of this really matters though. The war is over. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the desktop market. Apple has, what, 7-8% of the desktop market? It might grow a bit but they seem more interested in selling iThingies than desktop computers. Linux has a few percent spread over umpteen distributions with a passionate, albeit small, following.
Linux on the desktop is for the hobbyist, the person that likes to tinker, the person that likes to have complete control of their PC, the person that doesn't necessarily follow the crowd. And you know what...there's nothing wrong with that.
Slashdot Mirror
1) I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world ignore electric cars I'm merely pointing out that they are, as yet, not very practical for us.
2) Classic chicken and egg paradox. We will build them when demand increases and demand will increase when more of them are built.
3) What happens if I want to take a family road trip? Where am I going to juice up...the Holiday Inn parking lot? This is not just about the work commute.
4) Again, I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world ignore electric cars. In America it is extremely difficult to get new Nuclear plants built because of the regulations in place. I'm a fan of Nuclear, our government not so much.
5) You think Tesla has it right? In four years they have sold 2,350 cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster). The Roadster starts at $109,000. Economy of scale is NEVER going to kick in averaging 800 cars a year. How many of these people that bought Teslas are using them as their sole transportation? I would venture to guess that number is very close to zero. The "gas guzzler", as you call it, is in the garage while the rich guy is taking his Tesla for a ride up the nearest mountain road. It hasn't replaced anything, it just takes up another stall in his garage. Come Monday morning he slides back into the Escalade and drives to work. He might FEEL like he's saving the planet but all he's really done is put another car on our already congested roads.
We have made great strides in improving fuel economy, due in large part to the aggressive mandates the government has put in place with the CAFE standards. We are routinely seeing new cars that get 40+ MPG without looking like a dork-mobile. Turbocharging and multi valve engine configurations are delivering both power and fuel economy like never before.
Although not as popular in America as they are in Europe, diesels are now very clean and very fuel efficient. The problem is that in the USA diesel fuel is more expensive than regular gasoline so it's not as widely adopted.
We have been spoiled with cheap gas, as you point out, but the prices have risen sufficiently that many people in the USA are now looking at fuel economy in a whole new light. Yes, we still like our big cars but to say that we have not made progress simply ignores the facts.
The idea of all electric cars has always seemed so appealing. Zero emissions (well, I'll get to that in a minute), and economical (I'll get to that too). It's development always seems to go in fits and starts. And we always seem to run up against the same issues time and time again...namely:
1) Battery technology, although improved, is still not where it needs to be to make all electric cars a viable alternative for the majority of people. America, unlike much of Europe and many large cities in Asia, is very much spread out geographically. That means long drives for many people and it means cars that can travel a long distance without having to refuel or recharge.
2) Lack of charging stations. Sure, I can plug the car in at home and charge it overnight but what happens after that? I'm then limited to how far I can drive unless I can find a charging station somewhere along the way. If you live in New York of San Francisco you've got a much better chance of finding one than if you live in Montana.
3) Convenience. Plugging a car in on a 110V charge will take most of the night to fully charge. A 220V outlet lessens it but you're still looking at 2-3 hours to fully charge the car. I can fill the gas tank in a few minutes. Electric cars are going to need some sort of trickle charge system (solar roof panels perhaps if you live in a southern state?) to lessen the need for daytime charging.
4) It's not as "clean" as it's proponents would have you believe. Yes, the car itself emits no pollution but the process of making electricity is often a pretty dirty process.
5) Cost. I believe that the Chevy Volt costs around $40,000, give or take. That's a lot of money for an economy car. For 40K I can buy a really nice car that runs on gasoline. For about 20K I can buy an economy car that gets about 40mpg.
So for those reasons, and probably a few others, the electric car remains a niche vehicle. They are mainly being bought by "save the planet" types (fairly well off ones at that). It's a noble cause but for such a small market it's a money loser for car companies unless they can get giant subsidies from the government. When governments spend money on transportation they have a choice - build more roads or invest in electric cars and public transportation. Unfortunately most of the public wants more roads.
I think that Facebook is caught between a rock and a hard place here. If the fake accounts continue to exist (and if Facebook is admitting to 80 mil you can be sure the real number is much higher than that) then advertisers will continue to abandon the platform. But if Facebook continues to come out with policies like this then USERS will abandon the platform.
This is why I don't use Facebook. You start out posting a few innocent quotes and photos. Then maybe you add a questionable comment or two. Maybe a drunk college photo. Next thing you know it goes mainstream and HR drones start trolling profiles of prospective hires. Now you're got some explaining to do to someone you don't even know that probably has no business trolling your profile in the first place. But you've sold your soul to Facebook and now you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube. Those photos and comments live in infamy. All in the name of advertising dollars. Who reads those stupid ads anyway?
More idiotic forms of "collaboration". As if business isn't paralyzed enough already with meetings, committees, focus groups...you name it. It's a miracle that anything gets done.
That's a good point. There should be some way that you can show proof of ownership of the old copy of Bladerunner and get the DVD at some sort of upgrade price that is less than the full cost. I never really fully embraced the Blu-ray format either. I have a few of them that I've bought on sale but the idea of paying $30 for a Blu-ray disk...well, that's just not going to happen. The player I have has got upscaling and a regular DVD looks and sounds pretty darn good to me. Sure, the Blu-ray version can be better (but is not always) but to me it's not worth the extra cost. Now a days I mainly just rent movies from Redbox for $1 and bring it back the next day. For the few movies that I might want to watch again I'll buy the disk but those are few and far between. Even for music, more and more I'm going to internet radio. I don't really feel the need to buy and collect music like I once did. Entertainment is becoming a disposable commodity to me.
The article doesn't mention it but I think it's a key question. Part of the appeal of the MP3 format is that the files are small and can be transferred quickly from PC to your music device. If Pono files are 10x as large as an MP3 file then that means you can only get 1/10 of your current music library on your iPod. Sure, storage is cheap for disk drives but portable devices not so much and iPod/iPhone does not allow for expandable storage.
So the obvious solution is cloud storage but that comes with it's own set of pitfalls. Personally, I'm not willing to throw my entire music collection up "in the cloud". If you're a storage host then you have to increase your storage and bandwidth usage many times more than if you were hosting MP3 files.
Then there is the question of cost. How much will a Pono file cost per song? I'd be willing to bet that it's a lot more than 99 cents a song. There are audiophiles out there that will be happy to pay for the sound quality but I wonder how viable it is for the masses? If you're just listening to the music on cheap bud headphones you're not likely to have a tremendous difference. Now if you're listening to it on a high end home stereo that's a different story. I could see it working well for listening to music in your car if you've got a really good stereo and can plug in a big USB stick with about 64GB of storage and fill it up with high quality Pono songs.
So to me it's going to come down to file size and cost. If both of those are not outrageous then it might well work.
You know, these athletes...so called role models...should be ashamed to put their names on items like this. They know full well that many of their "fans" can't afford them. Heck, many of them came from "the projects" themselves and know first hand. I'll give Shaq O'Neil credit on this...his sneakers cost $20-$40. All it does is create envy among the kids that can't afford them and remind them, once again, that in the eyes of society they (and/or their parents) are failures because they can't afford the $270 sneakers. It's a terrible lesson to be teaching kids. Is it any wonder we have so much wealth envy in America?
I'm pretty sure that what this guy said was stupid, inappropriate, etc. but does it really warrant him being arrested and held on $1M bail? Did he have a prior criminal record? The article makes no mention of it so I will assume that he does not. Ok, so they found some guns in his house but does that mean that he was intending to shoot people or was he going duck hunting?
And what exactly is a "terrorist threat" anyhow? These days it seems like it's whatever the government wants it to mean. I've got a feeling that if this guy really wanted to go kill some kids he would have just done it without posting it on ESPN's website first.
Basically I think it's an overreaction on ESPN's part and on the part of the police. This reminds me a little bit of the incident that happened when an ESPN writer wrote an article about Jeremy Lin, the NY Knicks basketball player and used the phrase "chink in the armor" somewhere in the story. They fired the guy over it. I think a simple apology, which he did make by the way, should have sufficed. Ever since then I get my sports news elsewhere.
Wow, that's a lot of miles! I agree with both of your assertions by the way. So what's the alternative for you if you're not using the scanners? Do you have to go through the pat down or have them open your luggage?
The whole thing is idiotic...I just want to get through there as quickly as possible and get on with my business.
You've got a good point there. If someone is really determined to bomb something there is very little that can be done to stop it. Just because someone has not created a crime YET does not mean they are not capable of creating one NOW.
Truthfully, I think the whole scenario is a charade. In the eyes of TSA it's safer. I do believe that it's faster and more convenient though. As long as I'm subjected to it I'd rather it be over quicker than not.
I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying.
No worries, Macs...it's all good :-)
The TSA has this program now called Fly By. It's a voluntary program that has been rolled out to a few airports (lucky my hometown airport is one of them). If you join up - and remember it's voluntary - the TSA will do a background check on you. If all goes well then the next time you go to the airport you get whisked over to a special line at security. You don't have to take your shoes off, you don't have to take your belt off, you don't have to take out your toiletry bag. You just put your stuff on the belt and walk through the x-ray machine. Easy, peesy. Now, I still can't bring through a bottle of water and I'm still subject to the regulations that other passengers are but still...this is a Godsend for frequent flyers and a model for how airport security should be done. It's fast and convenient and still provides a measure of safety.
I've been critical of the TSA in the past but this time they got it right.
However, back to the article at hand. Don't you think it might make sense to try these new things out in the field before awarding an IDIQ contract? I haven't read the contract but it sounds suspiciously like some of the other government contracts in that the supplier gets paid no matter what. If something goes wrong then you have to sign another contract, and pay more money, to get it fixed.
I've worked with many government agencies over the years as a contractor, and many years ago, as an employee. The big problem, as I see it, is not so much the people that work there it's the procurement system. The rules and the hoops you have to jump through to get anything done is just appalling. Often, the rules prevent you from making the best purchasing decision. No private company could survive under the same set of rules. That - as much as anything else - is what is contributing to the massive waste in government today.
I'm well aware that there are other carriers but there is this small matter of a contract that I'd have to pay to get out of. Perhaps it wasn't clear in my post but I lay the blame for this not on Apple but on AT&T.
I would be willing to bet that Libre Office, or something similar in the open source market, would more than meet the needs of 90% of all home users. And probably a very large percentage of business users as well. I remember a time, not that long ago, when Internet Explorer had an enormous share of the browser market and many pundits were calling the browser war over. Eventually people found out that not only could other browsers work just fine, in some cases they were better than IE. The same thing could happen with Office software. MS could be putting a nail in their own coffin if they come out with this subscription model. Many people will start looking at alternatives - and find that there are free alternatives that are pretty darn good.
AT&T is going to gouge the consumer for every cent they can. The irony, or course, is that Apple trumpets the fact that you can now make Facetime calls over a 3G/4G connection instead of WiFi. But the owner of the pipes (AT&T) is going to restrict how much of it you can use.
I agree with much of what you say but we have seen technically superior products fail in the marketplace before (ex. Beta vs. VHS). What MS really needs to do, in my view, is find a way to woo developers to the platform. Just having great tools like VS is not going to do it. They're going to have to convince developers that it's a viable platform that they can make money on. Otherwise, why bother? Without Apps the phone is worthless no matter how good the hardware.
From the consumer side, MS has to convince iPhone and Android users that WP8 has something that the others don't. That's going to be tough. I think they only way they can do it is on price. Price the phones and the apps less than the other guys. MS will take a loss in the short term but might be able to make it up on the back end. They'll have to pull a page from their XBox playbook.
I guess the real question is...is there room for a 3th major player in the mobile OS space? Ok, 4th if you include RIM. Personally I think no. WP8 has a lot of promise and it's probably going to be really good but did MS wait too long?
For me one of the big upgrades with this phone is the Maps application. Getting turn by turn directions is one of the main reasons that I switched to an Android phone. Google maps is fantastic for that and I wasn't about to pay Apple or AT&T a fee every month for something that comes free with the Android phone. Now that the new iPhone comes with this feature all that remains to be seen is how well it works. Being able to do Facetime over 4G is nice but it only works with other iPhones...well, that and I can see that eating up a lot of your monthly data stipend. Faster processor (A6) should make it a bit snappier. There appear to be some improvements with the camera optics so that might translate into better photos although, honestly, the photos I have seen from the 4S phone are really good already. Apparently the new headphones are a nice improvement over the old ones.
Now for the bad part....
1) You still can't add storage via MicroSD. This has been discussed on other threads here and it's still one of my pet peeves with the iPhone.
2) You still have to use iTunes to get anything on or off the phone.
3) It appears that the battery is still not user serviceable. That means another trip to the Genius Bar for something as simple as replacing a battery.
4) I'm not sure I like the idea of the new connector. Ok, it's got the reversible (idiot proof) hook up but now all of your previous ones are obsolete. If you want a second cable be prepared to pay through the iNose for it. Apparently they needed the space so the connector is smaller now. I wonder if it charges any faster or is it just newer and smaller?
I know why Apple is doing this I'm just not good with it. I like having more control of my phone. Having said all that, it looks like a nice upgrade for the iFans out there.
A lot of people know how to code. What sets you apart is being able to work with your client and understanding what it is they want. It sounds simple but a lot of things can go wrong if you don't capture the requirements accurately. Focus on architecting a solution before you begin coding. Draw it out if it helps you but get something down on paper first.
Work on your people skills - a lot. If you want to be successful in this business you're going to have to learn how to work with other people, even ones you don't like very much. A lot of the techs I work with don't like management people very much. They distrust them. They feel that managers don't understand technology and have no business supervising you. While all of that is open to debate the fact of the matter is that they need to get things done. When you get your stuff done it makes them look good. When you make them look good they will stay out of your way and let you do what you do well. Everyone is happy.
When you work on a project for a client don't settle for "good enough". Go the extra mile and give them a bit more than what they asked for. That's how you get repeat business. If you do that enough then instead of you looking for work, work will look for you. It's surprising how much work you can get on referral and reputation.
"It's not 100%" - Agreed.
" For those who DO stay, which?" - Good question. My guess would be the people that have the most invested in it in terms of friends, photos, posts, etc.
"A small subset say interesting things. A large subset consume them." - Right again
"If facebook charges money, Tumblr will get a massive influx of users." - Unsubstantiated claim. Some will stay, some will use a similar social media tool, some will just give up on it all together. I don't think anyone really knows what would happen. I suspect that many of them would go to Google+.
You're right - it would be a huge gamble. The only way it could work is by offering premium services. I don't doubt that Facebook makes money from advertising I just question how effective that advertising is from the advertisers standpoint. Personally I ignore most of the ads I see online. Perhaps others react differently.
Certainly not. And for the record I don't use Facebook. I wouldn't pay $0.05 a month for it. But I know a lot of people that use it every day and they well might be willing to pay. Who knows? I just thing it's an interesting conversation. This is what everyone seems to be trying to figure out - you start up some free service and get lots of people using it but how do you actually make money on it?
Sure, someone else could come along with a competing free service but I think you're underestimating the power of momentum. Take Google+ for example. Technically it's a very good site. I like their approach to privacy and the elegance of the circles. But compared to Facebook they have very little traction. I would be willing to bet that many of the people with Google+ accounts also have Facebook accounts. Plus, it's not that easy to get all your content off Facebook once you have invested a lot of time putting it there.
I'm not suggesting I have all the answers here by the way. I'm just throwing that $1 a month thing out there to stir up some debate, and it looks like it has. Of course Zuckerberg has thought of this and he has rejected it with a lot better view of company financials than I have. Clearly they believe in the advertising model but I have my doubts. What they do have going for them is momentum. In software it's a powerful thing. Just ask Microsoft about that. Once people get used to using a certain thing there is some reluctance to change.
Think about that. All those facebook addicts out there. I bet that most of them would be willing to pay $1 a month to use it. That's about $800,000,000 a MONTH in revenue. Even if only half of them sign up that's still $400,000,000. If you pay the dollar you get an add free version and maybe a little more control on how your data is used and shared. People pay to use Dropbox why not facebook?
The best chance Linux had to make real inroads on the desktop was 5-8 years ago. The XP/Vista era. XP, before SP3, was a horrible mess. It was a magnet for viruses. Vista had a lot of promises but all it really delivered was a new GUI. The driver support was terrible. OSX was in it's early years and not as stable as it is now.
So what did the Linux camps do? What they always do...bicker and argue and fork to yet another distribution. I like Linux and I use it often but I'm willing to fiddle with it, unlike the average user. If you have the right combination of hardware then Linux works great. If you don't then you'll either spend lots of time trying to fix the problem (typically video, sound or wireless) or simply give up on it and go back to Windows.
For the record here is what I think Linux could do to expand their market:
1) The groups need to come to an agreement on what the default GUI is. Sure, it's cool to have so many choices but the average person will get confused.
2) Allow for more administration using GUI rather than CLI. I know, I know, the CLI is more powerful. But guess what? The average person doesn't care. They want an easy to use GUI.
3) Come preloaded with a few nice themes. Let's face it, many of the Linux distributions are pretty bland out of the box. Yes, you can jazz it up with themes but they are not all that straight forward to install for people that are used to Windows or Mac. Aunt Bessy does not want to deal with tar files, trust me on that.
4) Don't put Linus in charge of the desktop. That guy is about as hard core geek as they come and I'm sure he could care less what the desktop looks like. He is all about function over form. Well...to the average person form is just as important as function. They want something that looks cool and works right. Witness the success of Windows 7 and Mac OSX. Both of them are polished, beautiful GUI's that look cool and work great.
Now I have to say that Linux has come a long way in terms of driver support. Installation is far easier than it once was - easier that Windows actually.
At the end of the day, none of this really matters though. The war is over. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the desktop market. Apple has, what, 7-8% of the desktop market? It might grow a bit but they seem more interested in selling iThingies than desktop computers. Linux has a few percent spread over umpteen distributions with a passionate, albeit small, following.
Linux on the desktop is for the hobbyist, the person that likes to tinker, the person that likes to have complete control of their PC, the person that doesn't necessarily follow the crowd. And you know what...there's nothing wrong with that.