The problem here is that the scarcity on girls like that is far from artificial.
You might be right, but it still doesn't mean that you'll want to marry one of them. Do you think life with a woman who refuses to see the problems with conflict diamonds is going to be much better than singlehood?
95% of regular users will never think beyond their desktop pic and screen saver but [...] just don't lock the rest of us down.
How much extra are these 5% (I'm being generous to just use your numbers; it might be much smaller than 1%) of users willing to pay for the extra code Microsoft has to write and test? I don't like Microsoft at all, but it makes perfect business sense to ignore this 5% who probably would rather use Linux anyway.
You would rather they raise taxes and take more of your money just so they can give it back to you in the form of better benefits? You should realize that bureacracies always give you back less than what you put in, so you'd be better off keeping the money you would have paid in higher taxes.
Depends on the program. For example, if there
was a government program to provide us all with
free food, then it's certainly better to just
not tax me for it. That way, I can choose what
I want to eat and how much I want to eat.
However, there are programs that can only be
successful if we all put money into. The
full and real cost of a college education,
for example, is something beyond the abilities
of most 18 year olds (and even most of their
parents). Harvard, which probably still gets
some forms of public money, would costs perhaps
$40K a year. The various
scholarships and state resident tuition rates
that enable these scholars to go to school at
all is our way of chipping in, because that's
the only way any normal person can go to
college.
The people who stayed on (or came back) to study for a Ph.D. will more than likely be able
to get the technical director/architect/core technology development positions.
I think you mean "more likely", which I would
agree with, not "more than likely". Even in a good economy, merely having
a PhD isn't even nearly a guarantee to a job,
much less a high level leadership position.
Anyway, I'm merely pointing out the folly in
expecting that a "raw" PhD degree with zero
industry experience will get you an important
mentoring or leadership position. There are simply not
that many of these positions, and people who
hold those jobs aren't in a hurry to go
anywhere else.
I should point out that smaller
companies also tend to care less about advanced
degrees. They deal with narrow niche
technologies that are not often interesting
to the academe, and the real experts of that
domain either already work for them, or work
for one of a few direct competitors.
Development and Production (public) environments, in my experience, are best when kept on the same platform.
Not always. Developing on a different platform
may mean:
Increased efficiency due to productivity tools not available on the target platform. This
is particularly evident if your target platform
is less powerful, and you can afford a much
better development computer.
More bugs exposed due to subtle differences
between platforms. Many of these are portability
issues, but some will turn out to be bonafide
bugs in your code.
As you mentioned, there are costs associated with
this practice. My point is that the decision is
not without benefits.
I cannot see getting a doctorate as precluding you from implementation (or a job for that matter), but instead adding the responsibilities of research, development and mentoring lower level employees through implementation.
It doesn't preclude you from anything, but it
does mean that your classmate who joined the
industry after his BS degree now has a 3-5
year head start on you in terms of real world
experience. Real world experience refers to
things like SCM best practices, coding to
company standards, dealing with management,
dealing with customers, and of course
deep domain-specific technical knowledge.
No it isn't new. The motherboard, cpu and memory certainly are, but the rest of it - keyboard, mouse, PSU, case, monitor, gfx card, harddrive, modem - are not.
First, let's take the monitor and hard drive
out of the equation. You can just as easily
re-use an old monitor and an old hard drive on
a PowerMac. Once
you do that, the value of your re-use is much
lower. The keyboard and mouse probably combine
for $50, the PSU and case for another $50, and
the modem perhaps $20 if your new motherboard
doesn't already come with one. If a 2-year old
(or older) graphics card is sufficient for your
needs, I expect that a viable replacement would
be worth $40, tops.
IOW, you saved about $160. I see it as a far
more significant contribution to the environment
(and I'm not being sarcastic) than to your
bottom line.
The same is not at all true for the Mac. You can forget off the shelf for starters.
The first thing I did when I got my
PowerMac G4 was to add some PC 133 RAM, put
in an old hard drive, and hook up two old
monitors. So it's probably more accurate to
say "the same is not all true for the
Mac". In fact, the most expensive items are
reusable.
Now, if you can resell your old Mac for $450*,
we can add the $350 that you were willing to
spend on a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM,
you have $800 towards a new Mac. Yes, it'll
still cost you more, but it's not the insane
percentage that many here like to quote.
You're also getting a new computer (likely
a bigger and faster hard drive, better video
card, new I/O ports), under warranty, with a
new version of the OS.
I'm not denying that Mac upgrade options
are less abundant than PCs. I'm just arguing
about the degree you appear to think it's at.
* A 400 MHz G4 has 12 bids for $355 on eBay.
A 466 MHz G4 has 7 bids for $595.
Re:Wow, this is totally wrong
on
G5s Start Shipping
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The same is not true at all in PC land because even if you have a machine which is genuinely so obsolete that it couldn't run XP for example, you could still swap parts out of it until it could. A case in point would be a Gateway 450 that I own - I replaced the motherboard, stuck in a faster Athlon and more memory and it's as good as new
Of course it's good as new. It is new.
New motherboard, new CPU, which presumably meant new RAM. You might be reusing your old video
card (wonder if you can find XP drivers?), hard
disk (even more disproportionately slow compared
to your new CPU), and LAN card. Note, however,
that an 80 GB hard disk costs under $100, and
along with the cards you might have saved $150
or $200.
I agree that a Mac cannot be upgraded as a PC
can be. However, thanks to a vibrant used
Mac market, you can sell it to offset the costs
of a new one. Check on eBay, and you'll find an
Indigo iMac (350 MHz G3, 64 MB RAM, 7 GB hard
disk, running OS 9) going for $300+ with dozens
of bids.
So the question is, can you really save much
more than $300 worth of parts from a 2 year
old PC?
I know that non-technical managers simply don't care how their systems work. [...] That's why they have tech guys working for them. But they need to invest the time, effort and resources into an ongoing technical systems maintenance program.
We don't really know how this company works, so
this sort of judgement is probably premature.
For one, the techies in that company have to
actually understand security. That is, if a
manager who received the warning email took it
up with his technical person, who dismissed the
threat, then the mistake is hiring the wrong
idiot, not ignoring the threat. Secondly, the
techies have to fight for what they think is
right. Good security, like any process, costs
money and requires advocates arguing for its
necessity inside any budget-conscious
organization. That is, the failure may be a
techie's failure to communicate the need
properly to management.
Now, I'm not saying I know what really
happened at all, just that techies have corresponding responsibilities, too, and
that we don't know what really happened.
You might, from the fact that I quoted a line
that said exactly that, conclude that I know
that. I'm adding factors to the original TCO
equation, not denying the factors that have
already been mentioned.
Let's put a box together. The $799 eMac has
an 800 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB hard
disk, 32 MB video card, ethernet, firewire,
modem, etc. A $599 Dell Dimension 2400 has
a 2.2 GHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 80 GB hard
disk, on-board video, and apparently no
ethernet or firewire ports. The most
important point here is that whether these
two are equivalent computers depends on what
you use it for. It should be clear that for
a certain range of purposes, we can assume the
two are equivalent.
Further assume that the eMac will be used for
3 years, and the Dell for 2 years. Finally,
assume that the eMac will resell for $400,
while the Dell will resell for $200.
Doing the math, the Dell costs 55 cents a
day over its life with you, while the eMac
costs 37 cents. Therefore, the TCO of the
eMac is actually less.
Now, note all the assumptions I made. The
truth of the conclusion is dependent on the
truth of the assumptions. Check the numbers
out for yourself, because I just made up the
usage years and resale value for this example.
They are a HELL of a lot more expensive to buy (something on the order of 30% of an x86 based solution) and since, as you pointed out, upgrading them often == buy a new one, that brings the TCO up too.
You ignore two factors that also go into TCO.
One, how long can you use each box? Hardware
quality aside, at what age would you retire a
PC compared to a Mac? Two, for how much can
you sell the old box?
I can't answer the first question for you,
because that has to do with usage patterns.
Many people do claim that a Mac stays usable
longer than PCs.
The answer to the second question is clearer,
though. Macs are worth a lot of money in the
resale market, while PCs aren't. Browsing
on eBay, I see a 400 MHz iMac receiving 18
bids at $325 right now. On the PC side, a
1 GHz Pentium III is at $102. Now, I'm
not saying these two are equivalent computers.
I'm saying you should factor that difference
into the TCO.
Self Interest is human nature. Are you REALLY going campaign for a product that will possibly help you meet your own economic demise [...] especially if they clientel (sp?) are easily swayed and lack knowledge.
You're right. Which is why we have a separate
concept called "professionalism". That is, a
professional thinks in terms of cost and
benefits to the client, and gives their best
advice. Within ability, you expect your doctor
to cure you, even though it's better for her
if you keep coming back. You expect your
civil engineer to build a proper bridge, even
though a lousy one will really do wonders for
his investment in the funeral business.
It's important to understand human nature.
However, it's also not an excuse, although I
don't personally believe that there is any
real conspiracy in this case.
Could you have a impromptu cellular network be put up, perhaps in the Niagara-Mohawk area if power goes out again and the cell-phone tower generators run out of fuel?
It's not terribly practical.
Such a device would have to do more than
eavesdrop and relay. It has to
continually broadcast to let cell phones
know it exists. This will likely consume
a lot more power than the military device.
Such a device would almost by definition
only be used in emergencies, where phone
usage is expected to peak. The current
design monitors battlefield communications,
which is likely to be a lot less traffic.
It will, in essence, be slashdotted while
running on battery.
Such a device would have to connect to the
real phone network. Normal cell sites have
buried cables to transmit, while this device
would probably have to use satellite. The
inherent satellite hop delays will wreak
havoc on cellular protocols*. Talking to
the satellite, of course, also requires more
power than talking to cell phones.
Cell towers are towers for a reason: the
height is crucial to achieve coverage (of
perhaps 2 miles radius). Such a device could
not easily get line-of-sight to a lot of
potential users if it was simply airdropped.
Absent appropriate terrain (like a hill
without trees), they have to be installed
manually on towers unless you want to
contemplate technology for these devices to
hoist themselves up a hundred feet or so.
Now, all of that to replace a guy driving a
truck with a few cans of diesel? (Seriously,
many emergency response plans include setting
up satellite-based communications.)
* The easiest problem to understand is that
satellite delays mess up cellular protocol
timeouts, which are designed to communicate
at light speed over a couple of miles. Put
simply, you can't make a satellite phone out
of a cell phone by simply boosting its
transmission signal.
Most people that make any significant contributions to their field do so before
they're 30.
I'm aware of the statistical basis for your
assertion, but I'd just like to point out that
our society has a rather warped sense of
what "significant contributions" constitute.
Linus Torvalds started work on Linux at a
young age, and he's world famous for it. It
will probably be the most "significant"
contribution in his life. He is likely to
do many more interesting things with his life,
but they will probably be less "significant"
by the standards we use. Similarly, Steve
Wozniak is remembered for the Apple computer,
Dennis Ritchie for C, and so on. This kind
of oversimplification is bad enough for the
non-technical crowd, but it's downright
saddening to see it here.
Many "little people" make very significant
contributions to society for the entire
duration of their careers. Even the famous
people continue to work past 30, and continue
to contribute useful things to society.
Moreover, many of the "significant
contributions" you refer to are discoveries
whose time had come. If not Edison, then
somebody else would've invented the lightbulb
shortly after. If not Einstein or Darwin,
then someone else. They deserve credit for
being there first (and for often enduring the
inevitable criticisms), but I wish there was
a more balanced credit given to all the
little people whose silent work made the
"significant contributions" all but inevitable.
I thought it was about freedom? That is, you
might think nothing of Stallman or Torvalds
and their respective political views, but you
are free to download and use their software.
The GPL is valid, whether or not you agree
with them on various things.
SCO is attempting to destroy that community.
Nice soundbite, but just like those that come
out of politicians, it's utterly meaningless.
Is the "community" so fragile it can be
destroyed by a single little has-been company?
Or is free software, as you say, really about
the people writing and using them, more than
it is about the principle of software freedom?
I'm not defending SCO. I'm merely not afraid
of them.
Yes, it would probably be considered punitive, but as an author I am under no requirement to permanently support every stupid operating system for my software.
That would fall right into the FUD regarding
the long term reliability of free software. "Even
though you can still download the source and
apply private patches, authors will pull the
plug on your platform just because they don't
like what your company is doing." Since any
sane manager would assume that his or her
company would one day do something unpopular,
it's clearly better for them to just pay for
software.
IOW, to take your "punitive" logic a step
further, Apache web servers should check a
whitelist of domains we like, and stop
running if a company falls into disfavor
with us. How can OpenOffice.org support a
closed file format from an Evil company, and
perpetuate its influence?
Pull this sort of
crap, and you may do more damage to the
reputation of free software in general than
SCO ever could. If you are a free software
author, I urge you in the strongest way
possible to separate your politics from your
software.
If I go and buy a share or two of SCOX from one of the many rats fleeing their sinking ship, could I claim that my Linux installs would then be non-infringing
No. If you buy 1% of SCO, and you owe SCO $100
in royalties, you're entitled (eventually) to
1% of your (and everybody else's) payment. If
SCO only ever collects $100 from you, then you
get $1 back if SCO goes bankrupt, assuming they
didn't spend it on executive benefits.
What you're suggesting is akin to asking if you
can buy a share in Microsoft and get Windows for
free.
one of the most obivous scams that has
happened on wall street since enron and
martha..
Martha Stewart is not accused to have scammed
anybody. She allegedly traded on insider
information, for around $40,000 in profit.
This, even if proven true, is still
nothing compared to Enron and MCI
WorldCom, so you really shouldn't mention them
in the same breath.
As for Enron, they are certainly deplorable,
but how "obvious" was it really? Did
you see it coming?
The recall statutes have been on the books for most of the century. Ever since then the term of the Governor has been either 4 years, or until enough people get pissed off to boot him out, whichever comes first.
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking
you to retract your incorrect statement that the
only people opposed to you are doing so because
they fear losing power. Can you understand the
difference? Similarly:
Great- then Davis should [...]
Try also to understand that some people may
dislike the recall simply on principle, not
as it applies to Davis or any other candidate.
Point is, I for one believe that if a person
wins an election, the populace should live
with that choice for the duration of the term
unless something truly catastrophic can be
personally attributed to the candidate. That
is, poor economy, bad breath, or general
stupidity don't count. This is because recalls
are terribly disruptive.
I hope it's clear that my single counterexample
already disproves your assertion that everybody
opposed to the recall has some vested
interest in Davis. I just don't think he
should be bothered just because people disagree
with his policies.
We don't elect dictators in America, so there isn't really a divine mandate the Governor Davis rule over us for another 4 years.
I'm not talking about a heavenly mandate. I'm
talking about efficient government. Elections
are expensive exercises, because the incumbent
has to divert attention to the re-election,
and an actual change of office would disrupt
various little things. These effects are
minimized by not having elections too close
together (nor too far apart, lest the incumbent
get lazy.)
Also, you are working on the assumption that having the government do more is actually a good thing. Many of those who want Davis recalled believe the opposite.
I'm not talking about doing things. I'm talking
about attention. You can pay a lot of attention
to a problem or crisis, and choose to do nothing.
However, not having time to pay attention to the
problem will virtually guarantee that you do the
wrong thing.
The only people that are upset by this process are people like Davis that think that they are losing power.
Untrue. I'm irritated by the process because
the original vote has an expiry date of four
years, and Davis got that vote. A recall is,
if not expensive, then at least highly
disruptive to the job of governing. Even if
Davis survives, for a few months his top
priority would inevitably shift to the fight
to stay in office. If he doesn't survive,
then a transition period to a new government
will be similarly costly, especially in terms
of opportunities. A recall, if you will
pardon the expression, is a big blunt
instrument that should be reserved for the
direst of consequences. Put another way, the
new governor has to be so good that he or she
can offset all of these additional tangible
or intangible costs. In this case, a new
Republican governor would likely face a rather
hostile Democratic legislature. How much is
likely to get done?
So don't paint everybody with the same brush.
the people don't want him in office anymore- thats why the recall statutes were put on the books in the first place!
No, it's not. The way to do that is to vote
him out on the next election. The incumbent
should get the benefit of the doubt under
the great majority of circumstances during
the elected term. Besides, voters (and most
particularly the losing party from the last
election) need to learn to live with the
consequences of their choices. Life's like
that.
I live in Taiwan, and I've got quite a few buddies from HK, too. I don't not know ANY young adults who are "hunt and peck" typists here.
First you need to calm down and understand a
few things about statistics. There are more
potential computer users in China or
Taiwan than "young adults". If, and
note the "if" because this is a hypothetical
example, we notice that Chinese speakers
over 30 are adopting email more slowly than
English speakers over 30, then we should ask
why. We need to ask this question because we
need to understand what is preventing them
from using a new tool. Naturally, we are
talking about folks who can afford computers.
Don't know any "hunt and peck" typists? How
fast does your mother type? How about your
father? How about the parents of each of
your friends? How about your grandparents?
Do you understand the population that I'm
counting now? I'm saying they should
be using email, but aren't (or aren't as
often as they might) partly because text
entry is so tedious for them. I know
they can afford computers because you and
your friends can. (And please try to resist
telling me how fast your mom can type. What
I'm really asking is how fast people of her
age group and background can type, in
general.)
What you did, probably unconsciously, was
exclude the people who do not make much use
of the computer. This results in a skewed
sample, and the conclusion is a fallacy. This
is like concluding that Linux is easy to use,
because no Linux user has ever asked you for
help, ignoring the masses that were too scared
to even try installing Linux. You need to
consider the people left out.
Look also at the myriads of input methods.
Why are people expending so much effort into
improving it, if it's already good (easy to
learn, efficient) enough?
I'm really sick of arrogant Americans who always make assumptions
Speaking of stupid assumptions, what made you
think I'm American?
we do type faster than the foriegner in our office.
And of course that one foreigner represents
the average population of English or western
typists? That's the second lesson: anecdotal
evidence is worthless.
I'm referring to a meaningful collective of
usually two Chinese characters. I'm not
well versed in the various pinyin conventions.
The word "dictionary" is usually translated
to "zi4 dien3" or "tze2 dien3". I'm referring
to the first character of the latter
translation.
Chinese does not have useless words like "a, the, and"
These words have the benefit of being very common,
and even mediocre typists can enter them quickly.
Chinese doesn't waste space by always writing a subject in every sentence
I'm really not going to do a point-by-point on
which language is more compact. For example,
a Chinese poem might take an entire paragraph
of English to write. On the other hand, a
Chinese paragraph with uncommon characters is
harder to type, while uncommon English words
are only slightly more difficult to type than
common English words.
The point, in case you missed it, is that the
majority of Chinese typists are much slower
than the majority of English typists. That
fact does and will continue to have an
effect on technology adoption, because it
constitutes a barrier to entry.
I can type faster in Chinese than English
Wonderful, but I hope you understand why
anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.
what the hell does it matter what your typing speed is as long as it isn't peck and find?
The problem is that Chinese text entry for the
dominant majority of users is peck and find.
Only specially trained professionals manage
impressive speeds. This means, for example,
that adoption of email is likely to be slower
than in a civilization accustomed to typing.
you obviously haven't seen a professional
typist type. They DO type 200+ characters per
minute. Definitely faster than English.
It's pretty silly to compare the typing speed
of two very dissimilar languages. A Chinese
character is not exactly equivalent to an
English word. Generally speaking, the Chinese
analogue to the English word is the "tze2",
usually composed of two Chinese characters.
If we are to compare the speed of entering an
English paragraph and its Chinese translation,
English will probably win out. The average
English word is (as far as typists are
concerned) 5 keystrokes, and the keyboard is
optimized for English. Note, for example,
that the biggest key is the space bar, which
is entirely unused in Chinese texts.
The truth about Chinese typing is that most
casual users are very slow. Professional
can achieve good speeds, but that is a highly
specialized skill. In English speaking
countries, typing 20-40 wpm is typical.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be right, but it still doesn't mean that you'll want to marry one of them. Do you think life with a woman who refuses to see the problems with conflict diamonds is going to be much better than singlehood?
How much extra are these 5% (I'm being generous to just use your numbers; it might be much smaller than 1%) of users willing to pay for the extra code Microsoft has to write and test? I don't like Microsoft at all, but it makes perfect business sense to ignore this 5% who probably would rather use Linux anyway.
Depends on the program. For example, if there was a government program to provide us all with free food, then it's certainly better to just not tax me for it. That way, I can choose what I want to eat and how much I want to eat. However, there are programs that can only be successful if we all put money into. The full and real cost of a college education, for example, is something beyond the abilities of most 18 year olds (and even most of their parents). Harvard, which probably still gets some forms of public money, would costs perhaps $40K a year. The various scholarships and state resident tuition rates that enable these scholars to go to school at all is our way of chipping in, because that's the only way any normal person can go to college.
I think you mean "more likely", which I would agree with, not "more than likely". Even in a good economy, merely having a PhD isn't even nearly a guarantee to a job, much less a high level leadership position.
Anyway, I'm merely pointing out the folly in expecting that a "raw" PhD degree with zero industry experience will get you an important mentoring or leadership position. There are simply not that many of these positions, and people who hold those jobs aren't in a hurry to go anywhere else.
I should point out that smaller companies also tend to care less about advanced degrees. They deal with narrow niche technologies that are not often interesting to the academe, and the real experts of that domain either already work for them, or work for one of a few direct competitors.
Not always. Developing on a different platform may mean:
- Increased efficiency due to productivity tools not available on the target platform. This
is particularly evident if your target platform
is less powerful, and you can afford a much
better development computer.
- More bugs exposed due to subtle differences
between platforms. Many of these are portability
issues, but some will turn out to be bonafide
bugs in your code.
As you mentioned, there are costs associated with this practice. My point is that the decision is not without benefits.It doesn't preclude you from anything, but it does mean that your classmate who joined the industry after his BS degree now has a 3-5 year head start on you in terms of real world experience. Real world experience refers to things like SCM best practices, coding to company standards, dealing with management, dealing with customers, and of course deep domain-specific technical knowledge.
Don't expect to be hired to mentor this guy.
First, let's take the monitor and hard drive out of the equation. You can just as easily re-use an old monitor and an old hard drive on a PowerMac. Once you do that, the value of your re-use is much lower. The keyboard and mouse probably combine for $50, the PSU and case for another $50, and the modem perhaps $20 if your new motherboard doesn't already come with one. If a 2-year old (or older) graphics card is sufficient for your needs, I expect that a viable replacement would be worth $40, tops.
IOW, you saved about $160. I see it as a far more significant contribution to the environment (and I'm not being sarcastic) than to your bottom line.
The same is not at all true for the Mac. You can forget off the shelf for starters.
The first thing I did when I got my PowerMac G4 was to add some PC 133 RAM, put in an old hard drive, and hook up two old monitors. So it's probably more accurate to say "the same is not all true for the Mac". In fact, the most expensive items are reusable.
Now, if you can resell your old Mac for $450*, we can add the $350 that you were willing to spend on a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM, you have $800 towards a new Mac. Yes, it'll still cost you more, but it's not the insane percentage that many here like to quote. You're also getting a new computer (likely a bigger and faster hard drive, better video card, new I/O ports), under warranty, with a new version of the OS.
I'm not denying that Mac upgrade options are less abundant than PCs. I'm just arguing about the degree you appear to think it's at.
* A 400 MHz G4 has 12 bids for $355 on eBay. A 466 MHz G4 has 7 bids for $595.
Of course it's good as new. It is new.
New motherboard, new CPU, which presumably meant new RAM. You might be reusing your old video card (wonder if you can find XP drivers?), hard disk (even more disproportionately slow compared to your new CPU), and LAN card. Note, however, that an 80 GB hard disk costs under $100, and along with the cards you might have saved $150 or $200.
I agree that a Mac cannot be upgraded as a PC can be. However, thanks to a vibrant used Mac market, you can sell it to offset the costs of a new one. Check on eBay, and you'll find an Indigo iMac (350 MHz G3, 64 MB RAM, 7 GB hard disk, running OS 9) going for $300+ with dozens of bids.
So the question is, can you really save much more than $300 worth of parts from a 2 year old PC?
We don't really know how this company works, so this sort of judgement is probably premature. For one, the techies in that company have to actually understand security. That is, if a manager who received the warning email took it up with his technical person, who dismissed the threat, then the mistake is hiring the wrong idiot, not ignoring the threat. Secondly, the techies have to fight for what they think is right. Good security, like any process, costs money and requires advocates arguing for its necessity inside any budget-conscious organization. That is, the failure may be a techie's failure to communicate the need properly to management.
Now, I'm not saying I know what really happened at all, just that techies have corresponding responsibilities, too, and that we don't know what really happened.
You might, from the fact that I quoted a line that said exactly that, conclude that I know that. I'm adding factors to the original TCO equation, not denying the factors that have already been mentioned.
Let's put a box together. The $799 eMac has an 800 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB hard disk, 32 MB video card, ethernet, firewire, modem, etc. A $599 Dell Dimension 2400 has a 2.2 GHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 80 GB hard disk, on-board video, and apparently no ethernet or firewire ports. The most important point here is that whether these two are equivalent computers depends on what you use it for. It should be clear that for a certain range of purposes, we can assume the two are equivalent.
Further assume that the eMac will be used for 3 years, and the Dell for 2 years. Finally, assume that the eMac will resell for $400, while the Dell will resell for $200. Doing the math, the Dell costs 55 cents a day over its life with you, while the eMac costs 37 cents. Therefore, the TCO of the eMac is actually less.
Now, note all the assumptions I made. The truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of the assumptions. Check the numbers out for yourself, because I just made up the usage years and resale value for this example.
You ignore two factors that also go into TCO. One, how long can you use each box? Hardware quality aside, at what age would you retire a PC compared to a Mac? Two, for how much can you sell the old box?
I can't answer the first question for you, because that has to do with usage patterns. Many people do claim that a Mac stays usable longer than PCs.
The answer to the second question is clearer, though. Macs are worth a lot of money in the resale market, while PCs aren't. Browsing on eBay, I see a 400 MHz iMac receiving 18 bids at $325 right now. On the PC side, a 1 GHz Pentium III is at $102. Now, I'm not saying these two are equivalent computers. I'm saying you should factor that difference into the TCO.
You're right. Which is why we have a separate concept called "professionalism". That is, a professional thinks in terms of cost and benefits to the client, and gives their best advice. Within ability, you expect your doctor to cure you, even though it's better for her if you keep coming back. You expect your civil engineer to build a proper bridge, even though a lousy one will really do wonders for his investment in the funeral business.
It's important to understand human nature. However, it's also not an excuse, although I don't personally believe that there is any real conspiracy in this case.
It's not terribly practical.
Such a device would have to do more than eavesdrop and relay. It has to continually broadcast to let cell phones know it exists. This will likely consume a lot more power than the military device.
Such a device would almost by definition only be used in emergencies, where phone usage is expected to peak. The current design monitors battlefield communications, which is likely to be a lot less traffic. It will, in essence, be slashdotted while running on battery.
Such a device would have to connect to the real phone network. Normal cell sites have buried cables to transmit, while this device would probably have to use satellite. The inherent satellite hop delays will wreak havoc on cellular protocols*. Talking to the satellite, of course, also requires more power than talking to cell phones.
Cell towers are towers for a reason: the height is crucial to achieve coverage (of perhaps 2 miles radius). Such a device could not easily get line-of-sight to a lot of potential users if it was simply airdropped. Absent appropriate terrain (like a hill without trees), they have to be installed manually on towers unless you want to contemplate technology for these devices to hoist themselves up a hundred feet or so.
Now, all of that to replace a guy driving a truck with a few cans of diesel? (Seriously, many emergency response plans include setting up satellite-based communications.)
* The easiest problem to understand is that satellite delays mess up cellular protocol timeouts, which are designed to communicate at light speed over a couple of miles. Put simply, you can't make a satellite phone out of a cell phone by simply boosting its transmission signal.
Dangerous does not imply "bad" or "evil", so I don't see how you're disagreeing at all.
I'm aware of the statistical basis for your assertion, but I'd just like to point out that our society has a rather warped sense of what "significant contributions" constitute.
Linus Torvalds started work on Linux at a young age, and he's world famous for it. It will probably be the most "significant" contribution in his life. He is likely to do many more interesting things with his life, but they will probably be less "significant" by the standards we use. Similarly, Steve Wozniak is remembered for the Apple computer, Dennis Ritchie for C, and so on. This kind of oversimplification is bad enough for the non-technical crowd, but it's downright saddening to see it here.
Many "little people" make very significant contributions to society for the entire duration of their careers. Even the famous people continue to work past 30, and continue to contribute useful things to society. Moreover, many of the "significant contributions" you refer to are discoveries whose time had come. If not Edison, then somebody else would've invented the lightbulb shortly after. If not Einstein or Darwin, then someone else. They deserve credit for being there first (and for often enduring the inevitable criticisms), but I wish there was a more balanced credit given to all the little people whose silent work made the "significant contributions" all but inevitable.
I thought it was about freedom? That is, you might think nothing of Stallman or Torvalds and their respective political views, but you are free to download and use their software. The GPL is valid, whether or not you agree with them on various things.
SCO is attempting to destroy that community.
Nice soundbite, but just like those that come out of politicians, it's utterly meaningless. Is the "community" so fragile it can be destroyed by a single little has-been company? Or is free software, as you say, really about the people writing and using them, more than it is about the principle of software freedom?
I'm not defending SCO. I'm merely not afraid of them.
Yes, it would probably be considered punitive, but as an author I am under no requirement to permanently support every stupid operating system for my software.
That would fall right into the FUD regarding the long term reliability of free software. "Even though you can still download the source and apply private patches, authors will pull the plug on your platform just because they don't like what your company is doing." Since any sane manager would assume that his or her company would one day do something unpopular, it's clearly better for them to just pay for software.
IOW, to take your "punitive" logic a step further, Apache web servers should check a whitelist of domains we like, and stop running if a company falls into disfavor with us. How can OpenOffice.org support a closed file format from an Evil company, and perpetuate its influence?
Pull this sort of crap, and you may do more damage to the reputation of free software in general than SCO ever could. If you are a free software author, I urge you in the strongest way possible to separate your politics from your software.
No. If you buy 1% of SCO, and you owe SCO $100 in royalties, you're entitled (eventually) to 1% of your (and everybody else's) payment. If SCO only ever collects $100 from you, then you get $1 back if SCO goes bankrupt, assuming they didn't spend it on executive benefits.
What you're suggesting is akin to asking if you can buy a share in Microsoft and get Windows for free.
Martha Stewart is not accused to have scammed anybody. She allegedly traded on insider information, for around $40,000 in profit. This, even if proven true, is still nothing compared to Enron and MCI WorldCom, so you really shouldn't mention them in the same breath.
As for Enron, they are certainly deplorable, but how "obvious" was it really? Did you see it coming?
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to retract your incorrect statement that the only people opposed to you are doing so because they fear losing power. Can you understand the difference? Similarly:
Great- then Davis should [...]
Try also to understand that some people may dislike the recall simply on principle, not as it applies to Davis or any other candidate. Point is, I for one believe that if a person wins an election, the populace should live with that choice for the duration of the term unless something truly catastrophic can be personally attributed to the candidate. That is, poor economy, bad breath, or general stupidity don't count. This is because recalls are terribly disruptive.
I hope it's clear that my single counterexample already disproves your assertion that everybody opposed to the recall has some vested interest in Davis. I just don't think he should be bothered just because people disagree with his policies.
I'm not talking about a heavenly mandate. I'm talking about efficient government. Elections are expensive exercises, because the incumbent has to divert attention to the re-election, and an actual change of office would disrupt various little things. These effects are minimized by not having elections too close together (nor too far apart, lest the incumbent get lazy.)
Also, you are working on the assumption that having the government do more is actually a good thing. Many of those who want Davis recalled believe the opposite.
I'm not talking about doing things. I'm talking about attention. You can pay a lot of attention to a problem or crisis, and choose to do nothing. However, not having time to pay attention to the problem will virtually guarantee that you do the wrong thing.
Untrue. I'm irritated by the process because the original vote has an expiry date of four years, and Davis got that vote. A recall is, if not expensive, then at least highly disruptive to the job of governing. Even if Davis survives, for a few months his top priority would inevitably shift to the fight to stay in office. If he doesn't survive, then a transition period to a new government will be similarly costly, especially in terms of opportunities. A recall, if you will pardon the expression, is a big blunt instrument that should be reserved for the direst of consequences. Put another way, the new governor has to be so good that he or she can offset all of these additional tangible or intangible costs. In this case, a new Republican governor would likely face a rather hostile Democratic legislature. How much is likely to get done?
So don't paint everybody with the same brush.
the people don't want him in office anymore- thats why the recall statutes were put on the books in the first place!
No, it's not. The way to do that is to vote him out on the next election. The incumbent should get the benefit of the doubt under the great majority of circumstances during the elected term. Besides, voters (and most particularly the losing party from the last election) need to learn to live with the consequences of their choices. Life's like that.
First you need to calm down and understand a few things about statistics. There are more potential computer users in China or Taiwan than "young adults". If, and note the "if" because this is a hypothetical example, we notice that Chinese speakers over 30 are adopting email more slowly than English speakers over 30, then we should ask why. We need to ask this question because we need to understand what is preventing them from using a new tool. Naturally, we are talking about folks who can afford computers.
Don't know any "hunt and peck" typists? How fast does your mother type? How about your father? How about the parents of each of your friends? How about your grandparents? Do you understand the population that I'm counting now? I'm saying they should be using email, but aren't (or aren't as often as they might) partly because text entry is so tedious for them. I know they can afford computers because you and your friends can. (And please try to resist telling me how fast your mom can type. What I'm really asking is how fast people of her age group and background can type, in general.)
What you did, probably unconsciously, was exclude the people who do not make much use of the computer. This results in a skewed sample, and the conclusion is a fallacy. This is like concluding that Linux is easy to use, because no Linux user has ever asked you for help, ignoring the masses that were too scared to even try installing Linux. You need to consider the people left out.
Look also at the myriads of input methods. Why are people expending so much effort into improving it, if it's already good (easy to learn, efficient) enough?
I'm really sick of arrogant Americans who always make assumptions
Speaking of stupid assumptions, what made you think I'm American?
we do type faster than the foriegner in our office.
And of course that one foreigner represents the average population of English or western typists? That's the second lesson: anecdotal evidence is worthless.
I'm referring to a meaningful collective of usually two Chinese characters. I'm not well versed in the various pinyin conventions. The word "dictionary" is usually translated to "zi4 dien3" or "tze2 dien3". I'm referring to the first character of the latter translation.
Chinese does not have useless words like "a, the, and"
These words have the benefit of being very common, and even mediocre typists can enter them quickly.
Chinese doesn't waste space by always writing a subject in every sentence
I'm really not going to do a point-by-point on which language is more compact. For example, a Chinese poem might take an entire paragraph of English to write. On the other hand, a Chinese paragraph with uncommon characters is harder to type, while uncommon English words are only slightly more difficult to type than common English words.
The point, in case you missed it, is that the majority of Chinese typists are much slower than the majority of English typists. That fact does and will continue to have an effect on technology adoption, because it constitutes a barrier to entry.
I can type faster in Chinese than English
Wonderful, but I hope you understand why anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.
The problem is that Chinese text entry for the dominant majority of users is peck and find. Only specially trained professionals manage impressive speeds. This means, for example, that adoption of email is likely to be slower than in a civilization accustomed to typing.
It's pretty silly to compare the typing speed of two very dissimilar languages. A Chinese character is not exactly equivalent to an English word. Generally speaking, the Chinese analogue to the English word is the "tze2", usually composed of two Chinese characters. If we are to compare the speed of entering an English paragraph and its Chinese translation, English will probably win out. The average English word is (as far as typists are concerned) 5 keystrokes, and the keyboard is optimized for English. Note, for example, that the biggest key is the space bar, which is entirely unused in Chinese texts.
The truth about Chinese typing is that most casual users are very slow. Professional can achieve good speeds, but that is a highly specialized skill. In English speaking countries, typing 20-40 wpm is typical.