First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day.
Second offense, give her in detention, confiscate the phone and require the parents to pick it up in person if they want it back.
Subsequent offenses, repeat step two. The parents will get sick of this pretty quickly, and she will find herself without a phone.
It's not that hard.
You don't teach, do you?
If you did; you'd include:
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day. and get irate calls form parents saying "How dare you do this to my little darling?
"Guessing" that the student did something to warrant an arrest when we have the complaint in front of us (and making no mention of such behavior) is downright bizarre.
Bizarre, but quite common. Most people, when presented with some sort of outrageous action by authorities, will rationalize some explanation where the authorities were correct, and refuse to be swayed from it. That's one way authorities get away with as much as they do.
No more common than someone reporting one side of the story to bolster their case while making the otehr side look bad.
They felt the need to involve the police because they had no way to remove this pupil otherwise. School personnel have been stripped of their powers of apprehension. You can't detain a school pupil any more -- they have to leave class of their own accord.
I agree: the police should not have been involved. But that means all those lawsuits against school personnel "assaulting" pupils are going to have to disappear. And that kinda requires judges that have the balls to dismiss trivial cases. And that would require appointed judges rather than elected dribbling nutcases. Do you think that will change any time soon?
Chances are the "school safety officer" was a real cop (they are in our district) and called a female officer to do the search rather than do it himself. Chances are there is more to the story than "texting without permission," as teachers in our district simply take phones away and write students up if they use their phone in class. My guess is the student acted in a manner that drove the teacher to make an example out of her; most teacher I know are satisfied if the student simply stops but get upset when they decide to continue after being warned.
Customers will mess you around big time. They'll get you to spend a lot of time preparing an assessment and quote, get you to travel halfway around the country to have a 45 minute meeting with you which is fair enough. However they'll then take your proposal, show it to another company who spend some time figuring out how they'd provide a similar service and travel up for a meeting. The customer would then say "can you do this £500 cheaper?". If they say yes they go back to the first company to see if they'll go lower.
You can argue this is just being sensible but in truth, you're using up a lot of other people's time and eventually they'll have next to no profit margin but can't give up the contract because so much time has been invested already.
You're falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy -unless the additional time you put in results in a decent chance you'll get the work don't do it. What you've already expended is irrelevant to what you must do going forward to get the work. If the payoff isn't there then it makes no sense to keep investing time and money. We deal with that a lot; and simply cut our losses and move on if it appears the customer isn't serious or is trying to get us to drop our rates. If you let yourself get caught in a race to the bottom you devalue your work and find it tough to raise your rates back in the future.
Our approach is you came to use because of our reputation; if you want our experience and capabilities you'll pay for them. We say that in a nice way, and most of our customers understand and respect our position; and we understand their financial constraints and try to work out a solution that satisfies both sides and gives then a quality product.
Indeed, Sherry Sontag's Blind Man's Bluff tells a lot of interesting stories about Russian-American submarine escapades during the Cold War. Sometimes our Navies seemed less like proud defenders of the motherland and more like dumbass high school kids playing chicken.
IAS, and while we listen on passive it is possible for you not to hear another boat in the water. We have patrol areas and transit lanes set aside to avoid going bump in the night, but shit happens.
The irony of your comment comes from the fact that I learned about this topic when reading a National Geographic several years ago. They could tell where they were in the 'landfill record' by trashed newspapers and reading the expiration labels on discarded wrappers.
Yup. I was only sort of joking. Not only will landfills provide future generations with a rather robust way to study us; but at some point may be "mined" for resources as well; like China currently does with electronic waste.
Not only that, but the biodegradability of such a substance is over-played as well. Take a drive down to the local landfill, dig down quite a bit and you will find that many biodegradable substances that have been there for 20+ years have not really biodegraded at all. This is caused by the fact that the biodegradability of a substance is often dependent on the oxygen available to organisms to breakdown the substance. Thus, if you pack the trash too tightly, you create an anaerobic environment where organisms are less efficient at breaking things down.
What we really need is a better method of disposal, not necessarily creating new kinds of substances.
Think of the future archeologists. If we find a better way to hasten biodegradation, how will they discover we existed on a diet of Twinkies and Coke while reading People magazine?
Given the closure of major electronic/computer retailers that used to provide the venue where customers could see MS products in action MS probably wants to ensure it keeps a presence in front of consumers.
So they're going to compete directly against retailers for Microsoft business? That sounds like a surefire method for ticking off the retailers who are selling your product.
Especially since Microsoft has not been known for good vendor relations.
You assume they will compete; but an alternate view is MS will use their stores more as a marketing tool than a traditional retail outlet
Through a combination of training, special events and demos they can maintain their market position; which helps them and other retailers.
As for competition, they'd probably sell at MSRP; limiting the impact of their stores on retailers.
What's the point though? Their software, Zunes, Xbox(360)s are already sold by dozens upon dozens of other retailers. This whole venture just seems pointless.
My guess is to provide a showcase, that they control, for their products. They can do events, conduct training, etc, much like Apple but won't need to use their store to sell product as much as Apple does.
Given the closure of major electronic/computer retailers that used to provide the venue where customers could see MS products in action MS probably wants to ensure it keeps a presence in front of consumers.
In addition, the closure of stores gives the remaining ones more clout and this gives MS a counter to that.
Finally, retail space is pretty cheap right now - if this works MS can get some good locations on the cheap; if it fails they just fold shop and write it off.
It must be another example of "Microsoft Innovation"
I mean no other member of the computer industry has EVER tried opening brick and mortar retail spaces... oh, wait
While I see the ; you really point out one of MS strengths:
It is a very good fast follower. MS lets others innovate and build a market; then moves when it feels the market is big enough to be worth the investment. In essence, they let other companies do the R&D and market development, then move in to grab the cash. In some cases they buy a company, in others go it alone but it really has worked for them
Ladies and gentlemen! A full-contact legal battle for the ages!
In this corner, we have the Author's Guild, with the full weight of American copyright law behind them.
And in this corner, we've got the National Federation for the Blind, swinging a big stick: the Americans with Disabilities Act!
Gentlemen... FIGHT!
I'm not sure how the ADA applies here - nothing as far as I can see requires manufacturers to sell items for personal that comply with the ADA. It's a good idea and the right thing to try to do for a number of reasons, not all altruistic, but arguing that the law should require it is a bit much.
While much of/. is focused on the end user's rights in purchased material; that argument ignores any contractual agreements between Amazon and the Writer's Guild or its members. It's quite possible that they licensed the electronic distribution rights for digital print copies, which does not include the right to have the Kindle "read aloud" the text. As such, adding that feature is something subject to further contract negotiations.
To put it in context of the Sony decision, I can buy a CD rip an MP3, but the radio stations can't put an MP3 on their website up for me to download; they could buy the right to do that if they wanted but that's a separate negotiation that has nothing to do with my ability to rip a copy.
Oh, there's actually a much better ways to do things. Windows 2000 had its NIST certification withdrawn due to insecurities (you don't have to say those were fixed and it was revalidated).
Yea, and when an MS ISV points out it's been revalidated, your credibility just went to zero. Clients would naturally think "What else didn't he tell me?" or worse.
Of course, methinks they will all of a sudden develop a keener interest in enforcing laws protecting it. Just like other countries as they began to develop their own IP.
Even as Microsoft celebrates its 10,000th patent, angry shareholders are starting to speak out against what they say is the squandering of billions of dollars on pointless R&D projects.
Investors know that sometimes things won't pay out. These are the whiny little 10%-return-no-risk assholes who sue when a CEO doesn't start layoffs ASAP to pump up the stock price.
Here's news for you: sometimes weird investments pay off in radically unforeseeable ways. If you're the kind of jackass who dismissed the idea because we already had vacuum tubes, then you're the same kind who thinks modern R&D is a waste of money.
As much as I dislove Microsoft, I'm glad they're doing this stuff. Apparently they understand the importance even if a few short term profit-takers are too stupid to see it.
Not only that, but 10k worth of patents provide a lot of ammunition when patent fights start.
"Let's see, you say we infringe on your patent of x. Hmmm. Here's about a hundred of ours you are in violation of or negate your patent. That's five minutes of digging. Shall I continue or shall we settle?"
It also gives them the ability to cover and protect any company they chose to partner with, for teh same reason.
And this is how Linux will win. Not with a bang but a whimper. Embedded appliances, dedicated purpose applications, and multi-platform compatibility.
Firefox, Thunderbird, and (hopefully) soon KDE.
MS users who don't know any better, will win this for us.
Geeks like us have already dominated the server-side of the Linux equation, now fools will win the desktop for us.
Given the differences between the two markets (server and desktop) I wouldn't write off MS so quickly.
A different scenario - Intel uses it's Atom as the pathway to a combo setup - develop the Atom to run a low power mode and switch to another processor as needed. Intel's advantage is that they can build the bridge into the design - and work with MS to adapt Windows to use the design.
Do not underestimate Wintel's ability to take on challengers and adopt good ideas to their own ends.
If your university is like any I've been involved with; it's the faculty that runs the show. If they want something, it happens, if not, forget about it.
To those/.'s that'll start with the "what about the students?" argument; that's no different than the "think about the children" ones made outside of academia.
In short, come up with solutions that will help the powers that run the university and get their support. Without that you're dead in the water.
Except that Intel and AMD hold vital patents to the set of technologies that are part of the x86 architeture.
You realize patents only last 20 years, right? Some of those "vital" x86 components must have expired or be pretty close.
Except that it's quite possble that subsequent patents built upon the earlier ones so that even if the original has expired later ones will still make it difficult to duplicate the technology.
More likely is nVidia looking at their graphic controller patents and using them to get a cross license deal.
That's debatable, but the article (or at least the summary, since no one reads the articles) claims that MS will have to "give up its revenue stream" in the OS (meaning giving it away for free) in order to protect the revenue stream from their other apps. This is a ridiculous assertion given the current climate in the software business in general, and in the OS market in particular.
That is one of the authors points - that MS needs to maintain it its hold on the OS in order to sell more applications; and as low cost PCs such as netbooks takehold the price of teh OS must move to zero in order to stay competitive.
While I agree with the premise that MS will need to offer a low cost netbook version of Windows I don't agree that means they'll need to open source their OS. The author believes MS must give developers more control over the OS (ala Linux); but then goes on to say the OS will be less important than the applications to end users (DUH).
MS will need to extend their applications base to more OS if they take hold, and offer a "it all works the same" approach across multiple OS' and web based applications. That does not require an open source OS.
Win7 appears to continue MS' greater segmentation of the market with a netbook to high end version set.
In fact, if they really made it open source under a GPL license, then developers could extend it into the high end as well, and kill MS' ability to sell a high end OS (aka Apple). One could make teh same argument that Apple needs to open source MacOS for all the same reasons and be equally as wrong.
In addition, MS would have to contend with different builds and implementations of the OS to ensure their applications ran well and try to resolve incompatibilities between them; further complicating application development.
It's like saying "Well his Nissan Maxima has leather seats and Bose stereo, mine doesn't - that's an artificial decision"...response "So is the price tag".
I get your point, but my point is that they're taking out functionality that was already there and then charging less for it. So to rephrase your analogy as I see the situation, it would be if Nissan built all Maximas with leather seats and Bose stereos, but then at the dealership they stripped off the leather and replaced it with canvas (or whatever), and put in a crappy stereo using the excuse that only audiophiles really need nice stereos.
I don't mind paying extra to add extra features, but it seems silly to put in a artificial road block to make it seem like I'm getting more with the Home Premium Edition.
It's called market segmentation - something companies have done for a long time.
For example:
Intel did it with processors - remember when some the 486sx was a DX with the floating point processor disabled?
Shippers often ship a next day and 2 day package to the local distribution point at the same time, but often deliver the 2 day only after it sits a day.
To your car analogy, cars sometimes will ship with features disabled and a key connector left out (even though the rest of the wiring is in place) such as for a cellphone interface.
This allows them to sell at various price points and get more total sales. One customer might pay 10$ for an item and be willing to not have certain features, but not 15$ while another will pay 15$ if certain features are included. this way, they get the 10$ and 15$ sale for a total of $25. If they left all the features in they'd still get the $10 from the first buyer but only 10$, instead of 15$ from the second since the 10$ version now contains the features they want as well. As a result, the seller loses $5.
It's often cheaper to leave in features and merely disable them than design and build a separate version.
The thing is that if netbooks got down to $100, MS's profit margin would have to be essentially zero. A world where users can freely choose Windows versus Linux, and where MS makes zero profit even on the users who choose Windows, is not a good world in which to be MS.
You make several assumptions that i think may not be valid:
1) That MS will be unable to charge for an OS as the netbook price approaches $100. If people show a preference for a netbook with Windows MS will still be able to charge for since it helps create demand for the product; costs will have to be driven out of hardware to lower the price point. While MS may not get what they get for full blown Windows they can still charge. I think this is a viable scenario that allows MS to limit the inroads of free OS's into the mainstream and make a fe bucks at the same time.
2) Manufacturers will migrate to Linux as a mainstream OS to lower price. I think they may consider BSD because they can retain control over any changes without having to release source code, ala Apple. This allows them to ensure compatibility to lower support costs and differentiate their product from other in the marketplace.
As long as netbooks are viewed as less-capable or lite versions of real notebooks that strategy will work. Hardware manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping that distinction as well in order to protect their higher margin laptops.
Dell has a vested interest in maintaining that distinction. Asus doesn't. Asus has been drifting closer and closer to the mainstream notebook market.
Considering ASUS offers a range of net and note books they have an interest in being able to maintain price points as well.
While school contacts with the space station are routinely made through the Amateur Radio on the International Space Station program, many of those contacts are made using a traditional ham radio.
Well, hams contacted Skylab when Owen Garriott was onboard (he's a ham) and many hams build there own radios. So while it's a neat project for college students and they deserve a round of applause for doing it, it's not like people haven't built their own radios to contact astronauts in space.
Slashdot Mirror
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day. Second offense, give her in detention, confiscate the phone and require the parents to pick it up in person if they want it back. Subsequent offenses, repeat step two. The parents will get sick of this pretty quickly, and she will find herself without a phone.
It's not that hard.
You don't teach, do you?
If you did; you'd include:
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day. and get irate calls form parents saying "How dare you do this to my little darling?
Bizarre, but quite common. Most people, when presented with some sort of outrageous action by authorities, will rationalize some explanation where the authorities were correct, and refuse to be swayed from it. That's one way authorities get away with as much as they do.
No more common than someone reporting one side of the story to bolster their case while making the otehr side look bad.
They felt the need to involve the police because they had no way to remove this pupil otherwise. School personnel have been stripped of their powers of apprehension. You can't detain a school pupil any more -- they have to leave class of their own accord.
I agree: the police should not have been involved. But that means all those lawsuits against school personnel "assaulting" pupils are going to have to disappear. And that kinda requires judges that have the balls to dismiss trivial cases. And that would require appointed judges rather than elected dribbling nutcases. Do you think that will change any time soon?
Chances are the "school safety officer" was a real cop (they are in our district) and called a female officer to do the search rather than do it himself. Chances are there is more to the story than "texting without permission," as teachers in our district simply take phones away and write students up if they use their phone in class. My guess is the student acted in a manner that drove the teacher to make an example out of her; most teacher I know are satisfied if the student simply stops but get upset when they decide to continue after being warned.
Customers will mess you around big time. They'll get you to spend a lot of time preparing an assessment and quote, get you to travel halfway around the country to have a 45 minute meeting with you which is fair enough. However they'll then take your proposal, show it to another company who spend some time figuring out how they'd provide a similar service and travel up for a meeting. The customer would then say "can you do this £500 cheaper?". If they say yes they go back to the first company to see if they'll go lower.
You can argue this is just being sensible but in truth, you're using up a lot of other people's time and eventually they'll have next to no profit margin but can't give up the contract because so much time has been invested already.
You're falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy -unless the additional time you put in results in a decent chance you'll get the work don't do it. What you've already expended is irrelevant to what you must do going forward to get the work. If the payoff isn't there then it makes no sense to keep investing time and money. We deal with that a lot; and simply cut our losses and move on if it appears the customer isn't serious or is trying to get us to drop our rates. If you let yourself get caught in a race to the bottom you devalue your work and find it tough to raise your rates back in the future.
Our approach is you came to use because of our reputation; if you want our experience and capabilities you'll pay for them. We say that in a nice way, and most of our customers understand and respect our position; and we understand their financial constraints and try to work out a solution that satisfies both sides and gives then a quality product.
What other questionable practices (and potential solutions) have others had to work with?
As the customer, the solution is very simple:
"If you want me to sign the contract you need to remove these terms..."
As a consultant, we get that sometimes; and then we have to decide if we want the work or not.
A contract negotiation is just that, a negotiation.
Indeed, Sherry Sontag's Blind Man's Bluff tells a lot of interesting stories about Russian-American submarine escapades during the Cold War. Sometimes our Navies seemed less like proud defenders of the motherland and more like dumbass high school kids playing chicken.
Yea, but it was fun and you got paid for it.
IAS, and while we listen on passive it is possible for you not to hear another boat in the water. We have patrol areas and transit lanes set aside to avoid going bump in the night, but shit happens.
The irony of your comment comes from the fact that I learned about this topic when reading a National Geographic several years ago. They could tell where they were in the 'landfill record' by trashed newspapers and reading the expiration labels on discarded wrappers.
Yup. I was only sort of joking. Not only will landfills provide future generations with a rather robust way to study us; but at some point may be "mined" for resources as well; like China currently does with electronic waste.
Not only that, but the biodegradability of such a substance is over-played as well. Take a drive down to the local landfill, dig down quite a bit and you will find that many biodegradable substances that have been there for 20+ years have not really biodegraded at all. This is caused by the fact that the biodegradability of a substance is often dependent on the oxygen available to organisms to breakdown the substance. Thus, if you pack the trash too tightly, you create an anaerobic environment where organisms are less efficient at breaking things down.
What we really need is a better method of disposal, not necessarily creating new kinds of substances.
Think of the future archeologists. If we find a better way to hasten biodegradation, how will they discover we existed on a diet of Twinkies and Coke while reading People magazine?
Given the closure of major electronic/computer retailers that used to provide the venue where customers could see MS products in action MS probably wants to ensure it keeps a presence in front of consumers. So they're going to compete directly against retailers for Microsoft business? That sounds like a surefire method for ticking off the retailers who are selling your product. Especially since Microsoft has not been known for good vendor relations.
You assume they will compete; but an alternate view is MS will use their stores more as a marketing tool than a traditional retail outlet
Through a combination of training, special events and demos they can maintain their market position; which helps them and other retailers.
As for competition, they'd probably sell at MSRP; limiting the impact of their stores on retailers.
What's the point though? Their software, Zunes, Xbox(360)s are already sold by dozens upon dozens of other retailers. This whole venture just seems pointless.
My guess is to provide a showcase, that they control, for their products. They can do events, conduct training, etc, much like Apple but won't need to use their store to sell product as much as Apple does.
Given the closure of major electronic/computer retailers that used to provide the venue where customers could see MS products in action MS probably wants to ensure it keeps a presence in front of consumers.
In addition, the closure of stores gives the remaining ones more clout and this gives MS a counter to that.
Finally, retail space is pretty cheap right now - if this works MS can get some good locations on the cheap; if it fails they just fold shop and write it off.
It must be another example of "Microsoft Innovation" I mean no other member of the computer industry has EVER tried opening brick and mortar retail spaces... oh, wait
While I see the ; you really point out one of MS strengths:
It is a very good fast follower. MS lets others innovate and build a market; then moves when it feels the market is big enough to be worth the investment. In essence, they let other companies do the R&D and market development, then move in to grab the cash. In some cases they buy a company, in others go it alone but it really has worked for them
Ladies and gentlemen! A full-contact legal battle for the ages!
In this corner, we have the Author's Guild, with the full weight of American copyright law behind them.
And in this corner, we've got the National Federation for the Blind, swinging a big stick: the Americans with Disabilities Act!
Gentlemen ... FIGHT!
I'm not sure how the ADA applies here - nothing as far as I can see requires manufacturers to sell items for personal that comply with the ADA. It's a good idea and the right thing to try to do for a number of reasons, not all altruistic, but arguing that the law should require it is a bit much.
While much of /. is focused on the end user's rights in purchased material; that argument ignores any contractual agreements between Amazon and the Writer's Guild or its members. It's quite possible that they licensed the electronic distribution rights for digital print copies, which does not include the right to have the Kindle "read aloud" the text. As such, adding that feature is something subject to further contract negotiations.
To put it in context of the Sony decision, I can buy a CD rip an MP3, but the radio stations can't put an MP3 on their website up for me to download; they could buy the right to do that if they wanted but that's a separate negotiation that has nothing to do with my ability to rip a copy.
Oh, there's actually a much better ways to do things. Windows 2000 had its NIST certification withdrawn due to insecurities (you don't have to say those were fixed and it was revalidated).
Yea, and when an MS ISV points out it's been revalidated, your credibility just went to zero. Clients would naturally think "What else didn't he tell me?" or worse.
Of course, methinks they will all of a sudden develop a keener interest in enforcing laws protecting it. Just like other countries as they began to develop their own IP.
Even as Microsoft celebrates its 10,000th patent, angry shareholders are starting to speak out against what they say is the squandering of billions of dollars on pointless R&D projects.
Investors know that sometimes things won't pay out. These are the whiny little 10%-return-no-risk assholes who sue when a CEO doesn't start layoffs ASAP to pump up the stock price.
Here's news for you: sometimes weird investments pay off in radically unforeseeable ways. If you're the kind of jackass who dismissed the idea because we already had vacuum tubes, then you're the same kind who thinks modern R&D is a waste of money.
As much as I dislove Microsoft, I'm glad they're doing this stuff. Apparently they understand the importance even if a few short term profit-takers are too stupid to see it.
Not only that, but 10k worth of patents provide a lot of ammunition when patent fights start.
"Let's see, you say we infringe on your patent of x. Hmmm. Here's about a hundred of ours you are in violation of or negate your patent. That's five minutes of digging. Shall I continue or shall we settle?"
It also gives them the ability to cover and protect any company they chose to partner with, for teh same reason.
And this is how Linux will win. Not with a bang but a whimper. Embedded appliances, dedicated purpose applications, and multi-platform compatibility.
Firefox, Thunderbird, and (hopefully) soon KDE.
MS users who don't know any better, will win this for us.
Geeks like us have already dominated the server-side of the Linux equation, now fools will win the desktop for us.
Given the differences between the two markets (server and desktop) I wouldn't write off MS so quickly.
A different scenario - Intel uses it's Atom as the pathway to a combo setup - develop the Atom to run a low power mode and switch to another processor as needed. Intel's advantage is that they can build the bridge into the design - and work with MS to adapt Windows to use the design.
Do not underestimate Wintel's ability to take on challengers and adopt good ideas to their own ends.
http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/asimov_catalogue.html has a list
If your university is like any I've been involved with; it's the faculty that runs the show. If they want something, it happens, if not, forget about it.
To those /.'s that'll start with the "what about the students?" argument; that's no different than the "think about the children" ones made outside of academia.
In short, come up with solutions that will help the powers that run the university and get their support. Without that you're dead in the water.
Except that Intel and AMD hold vital patents to the set of technologies that are part of the x86 architeture.
You realize patents only last 20 years, right? Some of those "vital" x86 components must have expired or be pretty close.
Except that it's quite possble that subsequent patents built upon the earlier ones so that even if the original has expired later ones will still make it difficult to duplicate the technology.
More likely is nVidia looking at their graphic controller patents and using them to get a cross license deal.
That's debatable, but the article (or at least the summary, since no one reads the articles) claims that MS will have to "give up its revenue stream" in the OS (meaning giving it away for free) in order to protect the revenue stream from their other apps. This is a ridiculous assertion given the current climate in the software business in general, and in the OS market in particular.
That is one of the authors points - that MS needs to maintain it its hold on the OS in order to sell more applications; and as low cost PCs such as netbooks takehold the price of teh OS must move to zero in order to stay competitive.
While I agree with the premise that MS will need to offer a low cost netbook version of Windows I don't agree that means they'll need to open source their OS. The author believes MS must give developers more control over the OS (ala Linux); but then goes on to say the OS will be less important than the applications to end users (DUH).
MS will need to extend their applications base to more OS if they take hold, and offer a "it all works the same" approach across multiple OS' and web based applications. That does not require an open source OS.
Win7 appears to continue MS' greater segmentation of the market with a netbook to high end version set.
In fact, if they really made it open source under a GPL license, then developers could extend it into the high end as well, and kill MS' ability to sell a high end OS (aka Apple). One could make teh same argument that Apple needs to open source MacOS for all the same reasons and be equally as wrong.
In addition, MS would have to contend with different builds and implementations of the OS to ensure their applications ran well and try to resolve incompatibilities between them; further complicating application development.
It's like saying "Well his Nissan Maxima has leather seats and Bose stereo, mine doesn't - that's an artificial decision"...response "So is the price tag".
I get your point, but my point is that they're taking out functionality that was already there and then charging less for it. So to rephrase your analogy as I see the situation, it would be if Nissan built all Maximas with leather seats and Bose stereos, but then at the dealership they stripped off the leather and replaced it with canvas (or whatever), and put in a crappy stereo using the excuse that only audiophiles really need nice stereos.
I don't mind paying extra to add extra features, but it seems silly to put in a artificial road block to make it seem like I'm getting more with the Home Premium Edition.
It's called market segmentation - something companies have done for a long time.
For example:
Intel did it with processors - remember when some the 486sx was a DX with the floating point processor disabled?
Shippers often ship a next day and 2 day package to the local distribution point at the same time, but often deliver the 2 day only after it sits a day.
To your car analogy, cars sometimes will ship with features disabled and a key connector left out (even though the rest of the wiring is in place) such as for a cellphone interface.
This allows them to sell at various price points and get more total sales. One customer might pay 10$ for an item and be willing to not have certain features, but not 15$ while another will pay 15$ if certain features are included. this way, they get the 10$ and 15$ sale for a total of $25. If they left all the features in they'd still get the $10 from the first buyer but only 10$, instead of 15$ from the second since the 10$ version now contains the features they want as well. As a result, the seller loses $5.
It's often cheaper to leave in features and merely disable them than design and build a separate version.
The thing is that if netbooks got down to $100, MS's profit margin would have to be essentially zero. A world where users can freely choose Windows versus Linux, and where MS makes zero profit even on the users who choose Windows, is not a good world in which to be MS.
You make several assumptions that i think may not be valid:
1) That MS will be unable to charge for an OS as the netbook price approaches $100. If people show a preference for a netbook with Windows MS will still be able to charge for since it helps create demand for the product; costs will have to be driven out of hardware to lower the price point. While MS may not get what they get for full blown Windows they can still charge. I think this is a viable scenario that allows MS to limit the inroads of free OS's into the mainstream and make a fe bucks at the same time.
2) Manufacturers will migrate to Linux as a mainstream OS to lower price. I think they may consider BSD because they can retain control over any changes without having to release source code, ala Apple. This allows them to ensure compatibility to lower support costs and differentiate their product from other in the marketplace.
Dell has a vested interest in maintaining that distinction. Asus doesn't. Asus has been drifting closer and closer to the mainstream notebook market.
Considering ASUS offers a range of net and note books they have an interest in being able to maintain price points as well.
While school contacts with the space station are routinely made through the Amateur Radio on the International Space Station program, many of those contacts are made using a traditional ham radio.
Well, hams contacted Skylab when Owen Garriott was onboard (he's a ham) and many hams build there own radios. So while it's a neat project for college students and they deserve a round of applause for doing it, it's not like people haven't built their own radios to contact astronauts in space.