For crappy battery life, I can cite the last two "desktop substitutes" I used at my old job - the most recent of them being a Gateway 9100 (I think that was the model number). The Gateway used a 650 MHz Pentium 3, with a 15.4" screen, and I could use it for about an hour and a half before the charge started tailing off into never-never land.
And the thing had all sorts of trouble hibernating as well. I had an older Dell Inspiron (P2-based) before that, and it was good for about two hours.
All my Powerbooks have had good battery life, with my current 15" AlBook having the best overall life of any laptop I can recall owning (see my comment higher in the thread). I also have a Dell Inspiron 600m at my office that I use when I need to take a Wintel box into the field, and it's close to 4 hours (not quite as good as the AlBook, but better than any other Wintel notebook I've had).
My AlBook is basically my office desktop - I plug it in when I get to my office, and attach the USB hub so I can sync my iPod dock and Palm, and use the Logitech wireless desktop that I rely on. The arrangement works pretty well.
I have a new 1.5 GHz 15" PowerBook. It gets a consistent 4+ hours of life in "regular" use - that doesn't mean watching a DVD, but it does mean writing documents, surfing the net, checking my e-mail, and so on. It also gets that kind of life with both Bluetooth and AirPort Extreme live and kicking.
For power conservation, I let the processor cycle down as needed, and I spin down the HD after 5 minutes. I also have the brightness dialed back to about 70% when on battery - that's usually good enough for me. But that's all the steps i need to get over 4 hours. If I were a little more aggressive, I might be able to break 5.
Part of the difference I think is the newer PPC 7457 processors - I believe they're pretty light on the power consumption (I don't have the actual specs handy).
Microsoft is still growing. They're hiring more workers here in the US. According to this article, they're also hiring people in India (and other places as well, I'd assume). They've given programming jobs to the companies in India.
But they're still hiring programmers here, as well. So what's the problem? Should Microsoft hire only US workers? Should they only be allowed to grow here?
What I don't see here is Microsoft getting rid of their US workforce to hire in India. And (according to Microsoft's statements) most of the core work, and all the "IP development" is based here. And Microsoft is hiring more US workers as well.
In summary, this really doesn't appear to be a Big Deal. Now, 3Com dumping their product operation to pretty much outsource all their product development to Huawei? That's significant. But 3Com is just a shell of it's former self, so nobody really paid attention to that. When Linux starts being spread around the world, then I'll worry about globali...
(What? You say Linux isn't a US company? It's a global project already? Developed by volunteers? Oops...)
It's not like Real is locked out from the iPod anyway. They could easily make their songs iPod-compatible. No problem at all.
All they'd have to do is sell them as unprotected MP3 or AAC files. No more interoperability concern.
What Real is trying to do instead is co-opt Apple's "unique" DRM system so they can have their cake and eat it, too. Like it or not, Apple is perfectly entitled to have an issue with that, and we'll see if some judge agrees or not eventually.
As for me, I routinely strip the DRM from all the songs I buy from iTMS (I've been using the new Java-based Hymn derivative that lets you nuke atoms). But then I stick to the intent of the DRM requirements by not sharing what I buy with others.
Yes and no - any dealership can generally service whatever that manufacturer offers (Ford dealers fix Lincolns, and so on), but if you have a dealer who's service you prefer, it's always easier if you buy one of the brands they sell. That's part of why I got the Venture - I really like the local Chevy dealer's service department and I used to take my Olds to them.
So service quality is key, I think - and the brand just goes along with it. I think bigger dealers tend to have more clout, though.
So if the Nike dealer is much higher-volume than the Ralph Lauren dealer (even selling the same product), the Nike dealer is likely to have better service options. But look at the difference between Lexus/Toyota, Acura/Honda, and Infiniti/Nissan. Same basic cars, fixable at either dealership, generally much higher service standards at the lower volume but higher-end dealerships.
The other reason Buick had to wait for their GMT360 is that the Rainier was previously selling as the Olds Bravada until Olds got the knife this year (by the way, the original GMT360 triplets came out as '02 vehicles in the winter of '01).
(I had one of them for about two years before swapping it for a minivan)
As far as I can tell, the only change they made between the Bravada and Rainier was the new front grille. It looks otherwise identical, and unlike the Chevy/GMC version (but like the Bravada), isn't available in an extended 7-seat version.
It was kind of similar in a way with the minivan platform. First it came out in the value (Chevy Venture), sport (Pontiac Montana), and luxury (Olds Silhouette) versions. Basic minivans.
Then, to appeal to a crossover market, they reworked the platform into the Pontiac Aztek - the idea being to grab a younger "adventure" demographic. Then Buick got their version (the Rendezvous), which was positioned as an SUV (to try and lower the age of Buick buyers below 65), when it was really a minivan in SUV clothing.
In general, though, GM products are a perfect example of how branding is the only significant differentiator between products. Each GM domestic division is targeted to a specific market segment (Saturn - cheap imports, Chevy - mainstream value cars/trucks, Pontiac - sport/performance, Buick - middle-class "luxury", Cadillac - upper-class luxury, GMC - truck specialty/professional), and their ownership (both outright and partial of other companies like Isuzu, Subaru, Saab, Daewoo, etc.) let them rebadge and reposition a basic model easily between brands. Saab, for instance, has added a "Saabified" version of the Subaru Impreza WRX to their lineup. And they'll have a version of the GMT360 platform this fall as well. Isuzu now sells a GMT360 of their own, the Chevy Aveo is a Daewoo that's been adapted to the domestic market, and so on.
I may be a bit of an exception in my car shopping - I usually buy GM vehicles of one form or another, but I'm not brand-loyal like many are. When I bought my minivan, I looked for the best combo of price/features between the three (Chevy/Pontiac/Olds), and decided on the Chevy partly because it matched those specs best and partly because that was the local dealership I felt most comfortable with. When I replaced my old Blazer with a Bravada two years prior to that (the minivan was a reaction to having kids), I went with the Olds because the prices being offered were way better than either Chevy or GMC were doing for their equivalent versions.
Gateway's going to do the same thing now that they own E-Machines, and HP's been using the Compaq brand for cheaper "consumer" stuff. Apple used to sell versions of their Power Macs (and Quadras before) as Performas - same product with a different model nuber for a different sales channel.
I had my LASIK surgery over 5 years ago - January of '99 at the New England Eye Center (part of Tufts Med). At the time, it cost me $4k ($2k per), with $3000 coming out of my FSA at work (I could draw the money early, then pay it tax-free all year). Real-world cost after the tax benefit was about $3k.
Anyhow, my surgery was performed by Dr. Helen Wu, who was one of the early whizzes with this surgery. My vision prior to the procedure was 20/200 in both eyes (myopia) - afterwards it was corrected to slightly better than 20/20 in both eyes. My weaker eye is slightly astigmatic, but it's not noticeable to me.
At the time I had the surgery done, SOP was to do one eye the first day, then test further, adjust if needed, and do the dominant eye two weeks later. Which is why my dominant eye has no troubles at all.
As for the surgery itself, prep time was about ten minutes, with the surgery itself lasting under a minute. The clamp they use is very Clockwork Orange in nature - worth a chuckle at least. There is no pain and no discomfort, and your eye will feel like it has a hair in it for a little while afterwards. Some people have night vision problems afterwards, but I did not.
My summary opinion: The best $3k I ever spent. My goal was low-key - I just wanted to be able to function without having to wear glasses all the time, and I was able to eliminate them entirely. It is likely that I will need reading glasses in the distant future - somewhat more likely than it might have been without the surgery. I think that trade-off is well worthwhile.
If you do it, don't go to "Harry's House of Discount Eye Surgery". Go to a reputable institution, preferably affiliated with a major medical institution in your area. Despite the automation involved in contemporary LASIK, I think it's best to leave one's eyesight in the hands of the best available professional.
Re:Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much?
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
OK - I'll go after this troll.
Speaking for myself, I like TMBG because they're interesting. Their music is well-produced and crafted, their song lyrics can range from nonsensical to literate, and they sing about topics ranging from nightlights (Birdhouse in Your Soul) to obscure presidents (James K. Polk). Interesting music that is well done will catch my interest, regardless of the genre.
They also usually produce catchy hooks regardless of the material, treat their fans with respect, and put on a tremendously entertaining live show as well. TMBS are fans of technology (Dial-a-Song, their wax cylinder recording for the Edison Museum), like Slashdotters are, and they used to tour with just backing tapes for a rhythm section. The musicians they've worked with on records have been a virtual "who's who" of the "alternative" genre, so their skills are obviously appreciated by their peers.
And finally, they've managed to keep at it for about 20 years now, making a decent living in the music biz without becoming the type of band/people we all rant about here online. I've met them both on a couple of non-concert occasions over the years, and a good friend of mine actually was a classmate of theirs in high school. I also worked a little bit with a band (Mark Cutler & Useful Things - I did the design and CD booklet for their first album as a favor to another friend who produced their record) back in the late '90s whose drummer had played with John Linnell in another band (The Mundanes) before TMBG. Nobody (including me) who I've ever seen to meet either of them have had a bad word to say about them - even the ones who aren't nuts about their music. From all accounts (not just the few I mentioned), they're a couple of good guys who make music for a living.
So that's at least part of why I like TMBG - my cousin first put me on to them back in '86 or so, and I've been buying their albums, going to the occasional concert, and downloading their live shows ever since.
That's the obvious mod - enough juice to put a serious hole in something would be a really cool mod to make. We're talking "Tool Time"-caliber power.
Of course, it's not terribly practical, but if practicality was the point then you wouldn't be playing games like laser tag in the first place, anyway.
So just amp the suckers up and go for some serious pain. Or at least give DARPA some ideas. Bwah-ha-ha!
Secondly, and more importantly, here on Earth I have a family, the ability to enjoy the outdoors unencumbered by a survival suit, weather, seasons, and all the nice things that accompany a home. The only things I have here that I don't like are bills. But when you pay them, they seem to go away for a few weeks (go figure).
Giving that up to live in space, likely performing drudge work for whoever financed the trip is not my lifestyle of choice.
However, given favorable odds of survival and assuming I could either afford the trip or do the same drudgework to earn my keep, I would absolutely sign on for a short period of a month or less. To go to space is one of the few great experiences left I could imagine wanting to do. I'd just only like to do it if I can come back.
What Microsoft may be failing to realize is that the difference between PS1 and PS2 was huge. Keeping a backwards mode let users consolidate on one console in the interim - but PS2's visuals and sound were so much better it would likely drive much of the installed base to migrate to PS2 games.
Will Xbox 2 be that much better than Xbox? I doubt it. Unless the quality of games for the new platform absolutely blows away the earlier games, there'll be little incentive for people to abandon their existing games and migrate. Few people will keep two consoles from the same vendor on-hand, so that means the installed base stays on Xbox 1 for the foreseeable future.
Sony's made their share of idiot moves, but they did the PS2 transition the right way. Though relatively few people may use the backwards compatibility features once they buy it, having it is a nice safety net that lets console buyers feel they don't have to toss all their $50 games if they don't want to.
Of course, once they have that warm and fuzzy feeling, they immediately will chuck their old games to buy all the swank new ones.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad.
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1
Here in my home we've got 4 Macs (I've got a TiBook 667 and an iMac 17" 1.25, my wife has an iMac 17" 800, and my toddler has an old iMac DV 450). Neither of mine even have the Classic environment installed. My wife's iMac still has Classic, but she has no Classic apps. Only my son's iMac still actually uses Classic, and that's just because the cruft that is Jumpstart Toddler is a Classic app (that needs 640x480, 256 color resolution to run, no less).
The last Classic application that I ran deliberately was MT Newswatcher - when a Carbonized version of that hit the street I left it behind and haven't looked back since. I still support it for my customers who run it, because MacOS 9.2 and earlier is like riding a bike - you never forget how. But my customers are all starting to either migrate or plan for migration at this point.
Whether folks like it or not, Classic as a boot environment is dead. And if they really feel like they have to have Classic booting capability (instead of just running the environment within OS X), then send me an e-mail - I'll happily sell them my TiBook.
Because that sleek new bad boy AlBook 15" that I've got my eye on? It don't boot Classic, and I don't mind.
Nice speedbump - the new top-end dually is particularly nice. It's a pity that they couldn't get to the promised 3 GHz within the timeframe they planned, but a top end of 2x2.5 GHz with a bus speed of 1.25 GHz and PCI-X is still a pretty good box.
This should give a much-needed kick in the pants to Apple's Pro sales for a while. It'll be interesting to see what (and if) they show for hardware at WWDC, since we already had the G5 today and AirPort Express on Monday, with iTMS Europe next week.
If I had to guess, I'd say we'll get a G5 iMac now (maybe at 1.8 GHz), but I'm not too sure. It could turn out to be a software-only WWDC.
He treats Linux as if it emerged, fully formed back in 1991. It wasn't. What Linux was back then was a crude monolithic kernel that was "inspired" by Minix (though implemented in a much less elegant fashion), was based on public information about Unix interfaces and structures, and was nothing more than the germ of an OS.
The reason Linux overcame that to become a viable OS is simple - unlike all the other Unixes that existed at the time, it was Free (GPL) software, Linus actively solicited input and help, and the underlying GNU system was reaching a corresponding level of maturity sufficient to let Linux be the kernel to complete it.
Essentially, that first draft of Linux was crud, but thanks to some foresight on Linus' part and a lot of good timing coincidences it became the mighty penguin we see today. Had the Hurd been ready back then, this might have happened differently. If Tanenbaum had changed his Minix license to encourage development with it, Minix might be the OS we all use today.
But Linus was in the right place at the right time with enough of a kernel to capture developer interest. And the rest is history, however much Mr. Brown would like to change it to suit his political goals.
I live in a small-ish town on the North Shore (north of Boston), and for a long time my old AirPort was the only base station in the area.
Over the last year or so, though, 3 others have popped up in range of my house. They all broadcast SSID, and only one of them is secured with WEP.
And here in the huge office complex I have my office in, there's 2 more unsecured broadcasting AP's just within easy access of my little office suite. Walking around the place with my iPaq turns up lots more of them, too.
The problem was never whether there was a viable business model in the idea of delivering groceries to homes. The problem was that it's a low-margin business, and it doesn't lend itself to the massive "economy of scale" theory behind most of the dot-com era companies.
Think about it for a second. Chances are that there's more than one grocery store in your town. Here, in my town of about 40,000 people, we have two Stop & Shop stores (both on the borders), a Shaw's, a Market Basket, both Wal-Mart and Target (selling a decent amount of groceries), and a smaller local store run by a guy who has four stores in the area. Plus a number of smaller specialty and convenience markets, and a couple more supermarkets right outside town - including a Trader Joe's.
My point is that all these stores have enormoous fixed costs. It's expensive to run a grocery store - for personnel you have deli staff, bakers, cashiers, baggers, management, stockers, butchers, etc. Depending on the store size, that's 10-30 people per shift. You also have high real estate costs, because your store needs to be in a nice, desirable shopping area, high advertising costs (though manufacturer co-op dollars help), and perishable merchandise that has to be disposed of if it doesn't sell. Not to mention high electrical costs, lots of water consumed, and high trash costs.
Now, take the same or better merchandise, stock it in a warehouse that's much cheaper to maintain, and pay delivery drivers instead of cashiers and baggers. You save on some of the fixed costs but make up some of that on the electronic infrastructure.
Altogether, it's a potentially viable business model that can work at least as well as the brick & mortar version. The catch is that the giant brick & mortar chains didn't spring fully formed from a venture capital infusion. They grew over time to become the giants - generally with one or two stores that did well enough to fuel expansion over a generation. Try and build big from the start, and you've got big costs. You don't have time to wait for the customers to find you. Start small, service a few markets well, and you won't run out of cash before the shoppers come. That kind of growth isn't good enough for either the VC market or Wall Street.
But it's good enough to build a company if done right.
They should care at least about the basics - don't click on attachments, use a firewall/antivirus, don't install everything they can download for free or everything shiny, learn to disable services they don't need, or even update their systems regularly, etc. They care about security, but it's just too hard because nobody taught them, or too lazy, or they don't know where to start. They should care about security because half of it relies on them to keep their computers safe. The vendor can only do so much, but in MS' case "so much" is lame. This increases the users' responsibility to keep their systems secure; thus, this increases cost despite MS' propaganda.
Ask them if they care about security for their car, and you'll notice they don't leave keys in the car with windows down and/or unlocked doors.
Seeing how you're benefiting from all this, it's obvious you want users to keep security on 0 priority.
Amen, except for the last sentence (I pasted your whole message because it's otherwise an AC/0). I am benefiting from this, but I try and instill a security consciousness in my customers. I want them to be happy and not need me too much - and I'd rather they pay me to help make their computers more productive than pay me to squish worms.
The simple fact is this: people like the readers of this thread Get It when it comes to securing their desktop. Another person in this thread said that best practices dictate starting up the new XP box, then turning on ICF before plugging in the chosen network connection. Great idea, but people like us already know that. The "average user" doesn't, and until they call me or someone like me they don't get that information by default. Nor are they even aware they should learn it. If Dell (or other vendors) pre-configured their new systems like that people would use ICF, but they don't so they don't.
You use the car metaphor for security. If securing a Windows PC was as simple as locking a car is, people would secure their PC's. But it's a lot easier for a car salesman to show them how the remote keyfob works when a car is delivered than it is to teach someone how to use ICF, a NAT box, and Windows Update to get an XP system off the ground safely. If I sold hardware that'd be part of the checklist - but I only sell services so they call me after the fact.
I want security to be a priority, actually - it's just that I can't force the issue. I can and do preach the security gospel to my customers, but they pretty much ignore it as geek ranting until they get burned. It's amazing what a worm hit will do to change people's attitudes...
They buy it, plug it in, expect it to work and to be sufficiently secure. When it misbehaves, they write it off as "something they screwed up" because "computers are hard to use".
That contradiction is what creates a market for freelance IT folks like me. Once they realize they're screwed, they call someone. Then, hopefully we get their house in order and set it up so they're properly protected. The business model there is that hopefully the happy, safe user will call for occasional maintenance and help with other tasks.
Well, I'm making a living right now because of that, so in a way I'm glad it's actually true. If you plug a Windows box directly into a high-speed Internet connection without updating everything first, the probability that you will be ownz0r3d rapidly approaches 1.
If no firewall/NAT router is present, then it's absolutely inevitable that you'll get nailed on a Windows box. If the Windows box is pre-configured with a software firewall that's enabled, and fully updated, your odds of survival are good.
I spent much of yesterday cleaning up things for a single client who had bought a new Dell a few months ago and put it directly on a SDSL connection. It was literally riddled with nasty stuff. She had called me when it started the Sasser-driven shutdown process - until that happened she had written off the computer's misbehavior as normal.
And I have a lot of users in similar situations. Basically, most computer users buy it and expect it to work. They don't know about or care about security, and frankly shouldn't have to.
But I can't complain, because Windows helps put food on my table. When they finally get it right, it'll be time for a new career!
There's one relevant difference that I can think of, but it's comparably minor.
There are 6 legal ways that I can think of to watch a movie. You can go to a theater (one-time usage license via your ticket), watch it on pay TV (either regular premium cable or PPV), hope it gets to free TV, rent/borrow it from a video store or library, borrow it from a friend, or you can buy it - and all but the over-the-air methods incur some sort of copy protection. Short of recording an analog copy of the film if/when it makes it to cable or network TV, there is currently no legal way to obtain a non-protected copy. Both videocassettes and DVDs are copy-protected.
With music, there is an alternative. Anyone who buys the music as a physical CD is capable of ripping the CD to create a perfect digital copy. Or they can choose to compress it using a codec for efficiency's sake, with slight degradation. Buying the file from an online store is a choice, and if you want unrestricted media you have the alternative of buying the disc itself rather than the AAC files from the iTMS. You don't have that alternative with movies.
That's the only good reason I can think of to support Apple in this, and it's a little shaky. But Apple's given you a choice - if you don't like the choice then go back to buying music on disc and rip it yourself. It doesn't take long.
That said, I downloaded Playfair, and I've decrypted all my iTMS purchases. I also have stayed within the letter of Apple's restrictions on distribution - I haven't given them to anyone else, and I'm not using them on more than the permitted 3 computers + iPod. I do like that I no longer have to worry about authorized computers anymore, though - and that can be handy at the rate that machines tend to circulate around my little world.
Jesus would probably drive an Excursion. Or, if the roads were good enough, a big 15-passenger van. That way the disciples could all have carpooled with him.
But, given that "roads" in that rea were pretty much what today's people consider to be "off-road", the Excursion (or maybe a Suburban) would be a better bet.
Slashdot Mirror
For crappy battery life, I can cite the last two "desktop substitutes" I used at my old job - the most recent of them being a Gateway 9100 (I think that was the model number). The Gateway used a 650 MHz Pentium 3, with a 15.4" screen, and I could use it for about an hour and a half before the charge started tailing off into never-never land.
And the thing had all sorts of trouble hibernating as well. I had an older Dell Inspiron (P2-based) before that, and it was good for about two hours.
All my Powerbooks have had good battery life, with my current 15" AlBook having the best overall life of any laptop I can recall owning (see my comment higher in the thread). I also have a Dell Inspiron 600m at my office that I use when I need to take a Wintel box into the field, and it's close to 4 hours (not quite as good as the AlBook, but better than any other Wintel notebook I've had).
My AlBook is basically my office desktop - I plug it in when I get to my office, and attach the USB hub so I can sync my iPod dock and Palm, and use the Logitech wireless desktop that I rely on. The arrangement works pretty well.
I have a new 1.5 GHz 15" PowerBook. It gets a consistent 4+ hours of life in "regular" use - that doesn't mean watching a DVD, but it does mean writing documents, surfing the net, checking my e-mail, and so on. It also gets that kind of life with both Bluetooth and AirPort Extreme live and kicking.
For power conservation, I let the processor cycle down as needed, and I spin down the HD after 5 minutes. I also have the brightness dialed back to about 70% when on battery - that's usually good enough for me. But that's all the steps i need to get over 4 hours. If I were a little more aggressive, I might be able to break 5.
Part of the difference I think is the newer PPC 7457 processors - I believe they're pretty light on the power consumption (I don't have the actual specs handy).
Microsoft is still growing. They're hiring more workers here in the US. According to this article, they're also hiring people in India (and other places as well, I'd assume). They've given programming jobs to the companies in India.
But they're still hiring programmers here, as well. So what's the problem? Should Microsoft hire only US workers? Should they only be allowed to grow here?
What I don't see here is Microsoft getting rid of their US workforce to hire in India. And (according to Microsoft's statements) most of the core work, and all the "IP development" is based here. And Microsoft is hiring more US workers as well.
In summary, this really doesn't appear to be a Big Deal. Now, 3Com dumping their product operation to pretty much outsource all their product development to Huawei? That's significant. But 3Com is just a shell of it's former self, so nobody really paid attention to that. When Linux starts being spread around the world, then I'll worry about globali...
(What? You say Linux isn't a US company? It's a global project already? Developed by volunteers? Oops...)
Um, never mind that last point!
It's not like Real is locked out from the iPod anyway. They could easily make their songs iPod-compatible. No problem at all.
All they'd have to do is sell them as unprotected MP3 or AAC files. No more interoperability concern.
What Real is trying to do instead is co-opt Apple's "unique" DRM system so they can have their cake and eat it, too. Like it or not, Apple is perfectly entitled to have an issue with that, and we'll see if some judge agrees or not eventually.
As for me, I routinely strip the DRM from all the songs I buy from iTMS (I've been using the new Java-based Hymn derivative that lets you nuke atoms). But then I stick to the intent of the DRM requirements by not sharing what I buy with others.
- When the display resolution is as good as paper.
- When the contrast of a display in all lighted conditions is as good as paper (current displays are better in total darkness).
- When battery life is not an issue at all - 24 or more hours on a charge, and less than 30 minutes to recharge.
- When you don't have to worry about breaking an eBook by dropping it or sitting on it.
- When replacement cost isn't an issue for your eBook reader.
- When using an eBook is as easy as grabbing a dead tree book off the bookshelf.
- When an eBook can be folded up or rolled up and stuffed in a pocket - like a paperback or magazine.
- When the pricing of eBook content reflects the significantly lower production and distribution costs involved.
And to sum it up with a simple, one-sentence rule:
eBooks will dominate the market as soon as a typical user doesn't hesitate to swat a fly with the eBook instead of the paper version.
That will indicate that eBook readers have finally met most of (if not all of) the criteria I set above.
Yes and no - any dealership can generally service whatever that manufacturer offers (Ford dealers fix Lincolns, and so on), but if you have a dealer who's service you prefer, it's always easier if you buy one of the brands they sell. That's part of why I got the Venture - I really like the local Chevy dealer's service department and I used to take my Olds to them.
So service quality is key, I think - and the brand just goes along with it. I think bigger dealers tend to have more clout, though.
So if the Nike dealer is much higher-volume than the Ralph Lauren dealer (even selling the same product), the Nike dealer is likely to have better service options. But look at the difference between Lexus/Toyota, Acura/Honda, and Infiniti/Nissan. Same basic cars, fixable at either dealership, generally much higher service standards at the lower volume but higher-end dealerships.
The other reason Buick had to wait for their GMT360 is that the Rainier was previously selling as the Olds Bravada until Olds got the knife this year (by the way, the original GMT360 triplets came out as '02 vehicles in the winter of '01).
(I had one of them for about two years before swapping it for a minivan)
As far as I can tell, the only change they made between the Bravada and Rainier was the new front grille. It looks otherwise identical, and unlike the Chevy/GMC version (but like the Bravada), isn't available in an extended 7-seat version.
It was kind of similar in a way with the minivan platform. First it came out in the value (Chevy Venture), sport (Pontiac Montana), and luxury (Olds Silhouette) versions. Basic minivans.
Then, to appeal to a crossover market, they reworked the platform into the Pontiac Aztek - the idea being to grab a younger "adventure" demographic. Then Buick got their version (the Rendezvous), which was positioned as an SUV (to try and lower the age of Buick buyers below 65), when it was really a minivan in SUV clothing.
In general, though, GM products are a perfect example of how branding is the only significant differentiator between products. Each GM domestic division is targeted to a specific market segment (Saturn - cheap imports, Chevy - mainstream value cars/trucks, Pontiac - sport/performance, Buick - middle-class "luxury", Cadillac - upper-class luxury, GMC - truck specialty/professional), and their ownership (both outright and partial of other companies like Isuzu, Subaru, Saab, Daewoo, etc.) let them rebadge and reposition a basic model easily between brands. Saab, for instance, has added a "Saabified" version of the Subaru Impreza WRX to their lineup. And they'll have a version of the GMT360 platform this fall as well. Isuzu now sells a GMT360 of their own, the Chevy Aveo is a Daewoo that's been adapted to the domestic market, and so on.
I may be a bit of an exception in my car shopping - I usually buy GM vehicles of one form or another, but I'm not brand-loyal like many are. When I bought my minivan, I looked for the best combo of price/features between the three (Chevy/Pontiac/Olds), and decided on the Chevy partly because it matched those specs best and partly because that was the local dealership I felt most comfortable with. When I replaced my old Blazer with a Bravada two years prior to that (the minivan was a reaction to having kids), I went with the Olds because the prices being offered were way better than either Chevy or GMC were doing for their equivalent versions.
Gateway's going to do the same thing now that they own E-Machines, and HP's been using the Compaq brand for cheaper "consumer" stuff. Apple used to sell versions of their Power Macs (and Quadras before) as Performas - same product with a different model nuber for a different sales channel.
It happens everywhere, really.
I had my LASIK surgery over 5 years ago - January of '99 at the New England Eye Center (part of Tufts Med). At the time, it cost me $4k ($2k per), with $3000 coming out of my FSA at work (I could draw the money early, then pay it tax-free all year). Real-world cost after the tax benefit was about $3k.
Anyhow, my surgery was performed by Dr. Helen Wu, who was one of the early whizzes with this surgery. My vision prior to the procedure was 20/200 in both eyes (myopia) - afterwards it was corrected to slightly better than 20/20 in both eyes. My weaker eye is slightly astigmatic, but it's not noticeable to me.
At the time I had the surgery done, SOP was to do one eye the first day, then test further, adjust if needed, and do the dominant eye two weeks later. Which is why my dominant eye has no troubles at all.
As for the surgery itself, prep time was about ten minutes, with the surgery itself lasting under a minute. The clamp they use is very Clockwork Orange in nature - worth a chuckle at least. There is no pain and no discomfort, and your eye will feel like it has a hair in it for a little while afterwards. Some people have night vision problems afterwards, but I did not.
My summary opinion: The best $3k I ever spent. My goal was low-key - I just wanted to be able to function without having to wear glasses all the time, and I was able to eliminate them entirely. It is likely that I will need reading glasses in the distant future - somewhat more likely than it might have been without the surgery. I think that trade-off is well worthwhile.
If you do it, don't go to "Harry's House of Discount Eye Surgery". Go to a reputable institution, preferably affiliated with a major medical institution in your area. Despite the automation involved in contemporary LASIK, I think it's best to leave one's eyesight in the hands of the best available professional.
OK - I'll go after this troll.
Speaking for myself, I like TMBG because they're interesting. Their music is well-produced and crafted, their song lyrics can range from nonsensical to literate, and they sing about topics ranging from nightlights (Birdhouse in Your Soul) to obscure presidents (James K. Polk). Interesting music that is well done will catch my interest, regardless of the genre.
They also usually produce catchy hooks regardless of the material, treat their fans with respect, and put on a tremendously entertaining live show as well. TMBS are fans of technology (Dial-a-Song, their wax cylinder recording for the Edison Museum), like Slashdotters are, and they used to tour with just backing tapes for a rhythm section. The musicians they've worked with on records have been a virtual "who's who" of the "alternative" genre, so their skills are obviously appreciated by their peers.
And finally, they've managed to keep at it for about 20 years now, making a decent living in the music biz without becoming the type of band/people we all rant about here online. I've met them both on a couple of non-concert occasions over the years, and a good friend of mine actually was a classmate of theirs in high school. I also worked a little bit with a band (Mark Cutler & Useful Things - I did the design and CD booklet for their first album as a favor to another friend who produced their record) back in the late '90s whose drummer had played with John Linnell in another band (The Mundanes) before TMBG. Nobody (including me) who I've ever seen to meet either of them have had a bad word to say about them - even the ones who aren't nuts about their music. From all accounts (not just the few I mentioned), they're a couple of good guys who make music for a living.
So that's at least part of why I like TMBG - my cousin first put me on to them back in '86 or so, and I've been buying their albums, going to the occasional concert, and downloading their live shows ever since.
That's the obvious mod - enough juice to put a serious hole in something would be a really cool mod to make. We're talking "Tool Time"-caliber power.
Of course, it's not terribly practical, but if practicality was the point then you wouldn't be playing games like laser tag in the first place, anyway.
So just amp the suckers up and go for some serious pain. Or at least give DARPA some ideas. Bwah-ha-ha!
FIrst off, I kinda like it here.
Secondly, and more importantly, here on Earth I have a family, the ability to enjoy the outdoors unencumbered by a survival suit, weather, seasons, and all the nice things that accompany a home. The only things I have here that I don't like are bills. But when you pay them, they seem to go away for a few weeks (go figure).
Giving that up to live in space, likely performing drudge work for whoever financed the trip is not my lifestyle of choice.
However, given favorable odds of survival and assuming I could either afford the trip or do the same drudgework to earn my keep, I would absolutely sign on for a short period of a month or less. To go to space is one of the few great experiences left I could imagine wanting to do. I'd just only like to do it if I can come back.
What Microsoft may be failing to realize is that the difference between PS1 and PS2 was huge. Keeping a backwards mode let users consolidate on one console in the interim - but PS2's visuals and sound were so much better it would likely drive much of the installed base to migrate to PS2 games.
Will Xbox 2 be that much better than Xbox? I doubt it. Unless the quality of games for the new platform absolutely blows away the earlier games, there'll be little incentive for people to abandon their existing games and migrate. Few people will keep two consoles from the same vendor on-hand, so that means the installed base stays on Xbox 1 for the foreseeable future.
Sony's made their share of idiot moves, but they did the PS2 transition the right way. Though relatively few people may use the backwards compatibility features once they buy it, having it is a nice safety net that lets console buyers feel they don't have to toss all their $50 games if they don't want to.
Of course, once they have that warm and fuzzy feeling, they immediately will chuck their old games to buy all the swank new ones.
Here in my home we've got 4 Macs (I've got a TiBook 667 and an iMac 17" 1.25, my wife has an iMac 17" 800, and my toddler has an old iMac DV 450). Neither of mine even have the Classic environment installed. My wife's iMac still has Classic, but she has no Classic apps. Only my son's iMac still actually uses Classic, and that's just because the cruft that is Jumpstart Toddler is a Classic app (that needs 640x480, 256 color resolution to run, no less).
The last Classic application that I ran deliberately was MT Newswatcher - when a Carbonized version of that hit the street I left it behind and haven't looked back since. I still support it for my customers who run it, because MacOS 9.2 and earlier is like riding a bike - you never forget how. But my customers are all starting to either migrate or plan for migration at this point.
Whether folks like it or not, Classic as a boot environment is dead. And if they really feel like they have to have Classic booting capability (instead of just running the environment within OS X), then send me an e-mail - I'll happily sell them my TiBook.
Because that sleek new bad boy AlBook 15" that I've got my eye on? It don't boot Classic, and I don't mind.
Nice speedbump - the new top-end dually is particularly nice. It's a pity that they couldn't get to the promised 3 GHz within the timeframe they planned, but a top end of 2x2.5 GHz with a bus speed of 1.25 GHz and PCI-X is still a pretty good box.
This should give a much-needed kick in the pants to Apple's Pro sales for a while. It'll be interesting to see what (and if) they show for hardware at WWDC, since we already had the G5 today and AirPort Express on Monday, with iTMS Europe next week.
If I had to guess, I'd say we'll get a G5 iMac now (maybe at 1.8 GHz), but I'm not too sure. It could turn out to be a software-only WWDC.
He treats Linux as if it emerged, fully formed back in 1991. It wasn't. What Linux was back then was a crude monolithic kernel that was "inspired" by Minix (though implemented in a much less elegant fashion), was based on public information about Unix interfaces and structures, and was nothing more than the germ of an OS.
The reason Linux overcame that to become a viable OS is simple - unlike all the other Unixes that existed at the time, it was Free (GPL) software, Linus actively solicited input and help, and the underlying GNU system was reaching a corresponding level of maturity sufficient to let Linux be the kernel to complete it.
Essentially, that first draft of Linux was crud, but thanks to some foresight on Linus' part and a lot of good timing coincidences it became the mighty penguin we see today. Had the Hurd been ready back then, this might have happened differently. If Tanenbaum had changed his Minix license to encourage development with it, Minix might be the OS we all use today.
But Linus was in the right place at the right time with enough of a kernel to capture developer interest. And the rest is history, however much Mr. Brown would like to change it to suit his political goals.
I live in a small-ish town on the North Shore (north of Boston), and for a long time my old AirPort was the only base station in the area.
Over the last year or so, though, 3 others have popped up in range of my house. They all broadcast SSID, and only one of them is secured with WEP.
And here in the huge office complex I have my office in, there's 2 more unsecured broadcasting AP's just within easy access of my little office suite. Walking around the place with my iPaq turns up lots more of them, too.
The problem was never whether there was a viable business model in the idea of delivering groceries to homes. The problem was that it's a low-margin business, and it doesn't lend itself to the massive "economy of scale" theory behind most of the dot-com era companies.
Think about it for a second. Chances are that there's more than one grocery store in your town. Here, in my town of about 40,000 people, we have two Stop & Shop stores (both on the borders), a Shaw's, a Market Basket, both Wal-Mart and Target (selling a decent amount of groceries), and a smaller local store run by a guy who has four stores in the area. Plus a number of smaller specialty and convenience markets, and a couple more supermarkets right outside town - including a Trader Joe's.
My point is that all these stores have enormoous fixed costs. It's expensive to run a grocery store - for personnel you have deli staff, bakers, cashiers, baggers, management, stockers, butchers, etc. Depending on the store size, that's 10-30 people per shift. You also have high real estate costs, because your store needs to be in a nice, desirable shopping area, high advertising costs (though manufacturer co-op dollars help), and perishable merchandise that has to be disposed of if it doesn't sell. Not to mention high electrical costs, lots of water consumed, and high trash costs.
Now, take the same or better merchandise, stock it in a warehouse that's much cheaper to maintain, and pay delivery drivers instead of cashiers and baggers. You save on some of the fixed costs but make up some of that on the electronic infrastructure.
Altogether, it's a potentially viable business model that can work at least as well as the brick & mortar version. The catch is that the giant brick & mortar chains didn't spring fully formed from a venture capital infusion. They grew over time to become the giants - generally with one or two stores that did well enough to fuel expansion over a generation. Try and build big from the start, and you've got big costs. You don't have time to wait for the customers to find you. Start small, service a few markets well, and you won't run out of cash before the shoppers come. That kind of growth isn't good enough for either the VC market or Wall Street.
But it's good enough to build a company if done right.
Why not use SCO employees instead? Nobody'd be as attached to Darl as they might get to a lab rat. And some lawyers have redeeming values.
Not many, but some...
Anyhow, I doubt there's anyone at SCO who rates above rats on the cuddly scale.
Thousands of Enterprise fans will, after celebrating, move back into their parents' basements to plot their next letter campaign.
But first, a celebratory all-night Magic: The Gathering game! Bring on the dancing girls! (oh, wait...)
Amen, except for the last sentence (I pasted your whole message because it's otherwise an AC/0). I am benefiting from this, but I try and instill a security consciousness in my customers. I want them to be happy and not need me too much - and I'd rather they pay me to help make their computers more productive than pay me to squish worms.
The simple fact is this: people like the readers of this thread Get It when it comes to securing their desktop. Another person in this thread said that best practices dictate starting up the new XP box, then turning on ICF before plugging in the chosen network connection. Great idea, but people like us already know that. The "average user" doesn't, and until they call me or someone like me they don't get that information by default. Nor are they even aware they should learn it. If Dell (or other vendors) pre-configured their new systems like that people would use ICF, but they don't so they don't.
You use the car metaphor for security. If securing a Windows PC was as simple as locking a car is, people would secure their PC's. But it's a lot easier for a car salesman to show them how the remote keyfob works when a car is delivered than it is to teach someone how to use ICF, a NAT box, and Windows Update to get an XP system off the ground safely. If I sold hardware that'd be part of the checklist - but I only sell services so they call me after the fact.
I want security to be a priority, actually - it's just that I can't force the issue. I can and do preach the security gospel to my customers, but they pretty much ignore it as geek ranting until they get burned. It's amazing what a worm hit will do to change people's attitudes...
That's the point ;-)
They buy it, plug it in, expect it to work and to be sufficiently secure. When it misbehaves, they write it off as "something they screwed up" because "computers are hard to use".
That contradiction is what creates a market for freelance IT folks like me. Once they realize they're screwed, they call someone. Then, hopefully we get their house in order and set it up so they're properly protected. The business model there is that hopefully the happy, safe user will call for occasional maintenance and help with other tasks.
Well, I'm making a living right now because of that, so in a way I'm glad it's actually true. If you plug a Windows box directly into a high-speed Internet connection without updating everything first, the probability that you will be ownz0r3d rapidly approaches 1.
If no firewall/NAT router is present, then it's absolutely inevitable that you'll get nailed on a Windows box. If the Windows box is pre-configured with a software firewall that's enabled, and fully updated, your odds of survival are good.
I spent much of yesterday cleaning up things for a single client who had bought a new Dell a few months ago and put it directly on a SDSL connection. It was literally riddled with nasty stuff. She had called me when it started the Sasser-driven shutdown process - until that happened she had written off the computer's misbehavior as normal.
And I have a lot of users in similar situations. Basically, most computer users buy it and expect it to work. They don't know about or care about security, and frankly shouldn't have to.
But I can't complain, because Windows helps put food on my table. When they finally get it right, it'll be time for a new career!
There's one relevant difference that I can think of, but it's comparably minor.
There are 6 legal ways that I can think of to watch a movie. You can go to a theater (one-time usage license via your ticket), watch it on pay TV (either regular premium cable or PPV), hope it gets to free TV, rent/borrow it from a video store or library, borrow it from a friend, or you can buy it - and all but the over-the-air methods incur some sort of copy protection. Short of recording an analog copy of the film if/when it makes it to cable or network TV, there is currently no legal way to obtain a non-protected copy. Both videocassettes and DVDs are copy-protected.
With music, there is an alternative. Anyone who buys the music as a physical CD is capable of ripping the CD to create a perfect digital copy. Or they can choose to compress it using a codec for efficiency's sake, with slight degradation. Buying the file from an online store is a choice, and if you want unrestricted media you have the alternative of buying the disc itself rather than the AAC files from the iTMS. You don't have that alternative with movies.
That's the only good reason I can think of to support Apple in this, and it's a little shaky. But Apple's given you a choice - if you don't like the choice then go back to buying music on disc and rip it yourself. It doesn't take long.
That said, I downloaded Playfair, and I've decrypted all my iTMS purchases. I also have stayed within the letter of Apple's restrictions on distribution - I haven't given them to anyone else, and I'm not using them on more than the permitted 3 computers + iPod. I do like that I no longer have to worry about authorized computers anymore, though - and that can be handy at the rate that machines tend to circulate around my little world.
Jesus would probably drive an Excursion. Or, if the roads were good enough, a big 15-passenger van. That way the disciples could all have carpooled with him.
But, given that "roads" in that rea were pretty much what today's people consider to be "off-road", the Excursion (or maybe a Suburban) would be a better bet.
Because the server was Slashdotted so quickly. Anyone get this mirrored in the 30 seconds it stayed online?