They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts.
I really don't have the trunk space to be hauling around a child just to get my car started.
Dell's customers want to take their computer out of the box, match each colored plug to the respective colored receptacle on the back, turn it on, and have it work. They do not want to buy and figure out how to use decryption keys.
Windows version: none. Are you saying they don't track which machines went out with Windows 95 or Vista Pro?
Hrm, looking at my original post, no it does not appear I said that. I said that offering an additional option of operating system costs money that is probably not worth the increased business from having the option.
I cited having to add an item to the assembly process as an example, but it was just one example.
You mention that Dell already tracks what OS shipped on each computer. So what? The increased costs are not just in remembering what OS was on the computer when you sold it.
Increased costs also come from other areas. There's a cost in giving a user a choice they may not understand - confusion may cost you sales, and it may cost you more money on customer service inquiry. Most people know that 512 MB is better than 256 MB. Most users do not know what the difference is between Windows and Linux.
Most importantly, when you customize a Dell, there are *NO* options you can select that will result in you getting a computer you can't turn on and use. You can't select NO hard drive. You can't select NO memory. And they're not going to have an option for you to select NO OS, because then people will select it and start getting computers that don't work.
Remember also that Dell supports their own hardware. If someone gets it, and it doesn't work, Dell gets the phone call. So even if they offer Windows AND Linux, when people choose Linux, and then go to install a program that they expect to work that does not work on Linux, Dell gets that call too.
Adding an option for No OS or Linux to consumer-model desktops and laptops just does not make sense for Dell to do. The number of people who would like to use Linux who would be pleased by the option is far, far, far less than the number of customers who will end up with computers that they think, even though it's because of their own ignorance, are broken. Dell does not care whether the customer thinks they have a broken computer because the customer is ignorant. Dell only cares that the customer thinks they got a broken computer.
Another cost is support. Fielding people who can support Windows 95 and Windows XP is a whole different ball game than fielding support that can handle Windows XP and Linux.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Dell does have Linux available on some computers - specifically, high-end workstations. But all that shows is that it's profitable to offer high-end workstations with !windows while trying to offer consumer computers with !windows is not.
It isn't any more reasonable for Dell to offer 'No Windows' or 'Linux' than it is for them to offer 'No Video Card' or a video card from a non-partnered vendor. You buy the computer, you get the video cards they make available. If you don't like it, you don't get to pull it out and send it back. The only reason you get a refund on Windows is because of the license agreement.
Or, put another way, if YOU want Linux on your computer, don't buy your computer at Dell. It's not their obligation to offer Linux if they think it's more trouble for them than it's worth.
Gah, I should have known better than to use an absolute word.
Fine, most models all come with Windows installed.
That it may make financial sense to offer the option on high-end workstations doesn't mean it ALSO makes business sense to offer the option on consumer computers and laptops.
If it's up to Dell at all, my suggestion to them would be to just have that as an option when ordering via phone or internet. Subtract whatever minimal amount they want and thereby save us and them some grief and some money in the process.
Every option that Dell adds costs them money. Right now, every computer Dell makes has a hard drive in it with Windows installed. They're all the same. If they add an option so that you can select 'No Windows', then they need to start keeping track of which computers have windows on them and which don't.
Now, obviously, Dell already has lots of options. But you'll note most of those options lead you to spending MORE money, not less money. And how many people really go to Dell to buy a computer and DON'T want windows on it? I would guess that the number is so small that the extra business Dell might get by offering a no-windows option is not worth the cost to them of doing so. Which is a perfectly rational business decision to make.
On the other hand, if lots of people keep calling up Dell and tying up their customer service reps on the phone doing Windows refunds, they may decide that offering the option is less expensive than fielding the calls (Dell doesn't want to pay people to talk to you on the phone any more than you want to waste time talking on the phone to them). So, if enough people call, the rational business decision might change from 'Always bundle windows' to 'Offer a no-Windows option'. Which is where 'the principle mentioned' in TFA applies.
The drive is the thing that does the reading and writing. The disk is the thing that the data is written to/read from.
In floppy drives, you can take the disk in and out.
In hard drives, the disks are mounted and (normally) not removable. But there are still hard disks in that hard drive - round things with data on them that spin.
So, is is Solid State Disk or Solid State Drive?
NEITHER!
Solid State Device. There is no disk, and since there's no disk to spin, nothing is being driven either.
Not doing anything ILLEGAL is absolutely NOT the same as having nothing to hide.
Do you want the government opening the mail that contains your medical insurance claims? Do you want the government opening mail that contains confidential business documents, or trade secrets? Do you want the incumbent political officials having access to confidential campaign materials should you want to run for office?
And remember, 'the government' is ultimately a person in an office somewhere, with your mail in their personal possession. Do you trust every person the government might hire at any time in the future to not run to the photocopier with your confidential documents?
We all, at some point or another, have something to hide - and not because it might be illegal or even embarrassing, but because our confidential information, in the wrong hands, can be damaging to us.
I will work for Wikipedia for a salary equal to the amount of advertising revenue. If we lose the revenue, you can just fire me, I'll be ok with it. Then the content will be saved!
I'm not sure where you live in the US, but most places I've been to where there are more than 2 lanes of traffic restrict trucks to the right 2 lanes, with exceptions for the odd left-handed exit.
Prior 9/11; two hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, half hour at the other end : 10.5 hours.
Post 9/11; four hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, one hour at the other end : 13 hours
Where are you flying out of?
Aside from odd days like when TSA suddenly decides to not let anyone take any liquids on the plane, I haven't noticed any difference between pre- and post- 9/11 total air travel load-in/out times. About the only change I have noticed is that the cutoff for checking bags is 15-30 minutes earlier, depending on the airport.
You want a license in Europe, you need to spend big money on real driving classes and pass rigorous driving tests. You don't see as many idiots on European roads because the idiots don't get licenses to drive.
Hey, look, the obvious has made it to the front page of Slashdot disguised as an article again.
If some bonehead makes a bad driving maneuver, he might cause a traffic jam. And whether or not he actually causes a traffic jam is dependent on how many cars are on the road!
This whole thing is just dumb. Yes, if all drivers drove perfectly, then we could push more cars through the same piece of road. But that's not the way it works. Roads don't have a hard capacity. As the number of cars on the road increase, the chances of a traffic-jam-causing event increase. The more cars, the greater probability of a jam. Maybe at 120 cars a minute there's a 50-50 chance of a jam, but at 140 cars a minute a traffic jam is virtually certain.
So, if cars were driven by perfect-driving robots instead of people, we'd could put more cars on the road without traffic jams. Thanks Slashdot!
California's market was never deregulated. That was just utility marketing speak. It was RE-regulated. They changed the old regulations to new different regulations. And the new regulations sucked. The REGULATIONS about how you could charge for power are what allowed Enron to do their dirty tricks.
We have two kinds of companies offering broadband services, the cable companies, which have to offer service to everybody, and the phone companies, which only have to offer service where it is the most profitable. The most profitable place to offer service will be where it is cheapest to offer service.
The problem is, the phone company is allowed to set their prices based on the cost of providing service to a particular customer. If providing service toa customer is expensive, the phone company doesn't have to do it. The cable company doesn't have that option - it has to provide service to everybody. So the phone company drives down the price in the profitable areas, and the cable company is screwed - if they lower prices to compete, they still have to provide service to the unprofitable customers, and are eventually forced out of business because they arn't making any money. IF they don't lower prices, the phone company will just lower prices JUST ENOUGH to undercut the cable company, not really saving the cable company any money, while the cable company will probably have to raise rates for everyone because, now that they've lost their profitable customers to the phone company undercutting them, need to cover the increased per-customer costs of being saddled with only the expensive customers.
So, everybody loses - the profitable customers end up paying higher rates to the phone company because the cable company can't compete, and the unprofitable customers end up paying higher rates because they're not being subsidized by the profitable ones.
Now, I'm not saying that unprofitable customers should have the same rates as profitable ones - if you choose to live out in the boonies, that's your choice. But if we're not going to force phone companies to build out to everyone, then we shouldn't be forcing cable companies to do so either.
the small one-person companies don't even qualify to get certified for the green status
Did you even read the article?
Small, one-person COMPANIES DO qualify, as long as they are incorporated!
It's PROPRIETORSHIPS that don't qualify.
See the difference?
Whether you can get a certificate or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF YOUR COMPANY!
This does not harm small business. It may harm unincorporated business. As I already suggested, the solution to this is to take an hour and incorporate.
Bullshit. Why should I be forced to spend more money when a Sole Proprietorship is JUST AS LEGITIMATE as a Corporation.
Why should I be forced to pay someone to create a website and rent a server when a brick-and-mortar storefront is JUST AS LEGITIMATE as a web storefront?
Fact is, you're not. Nobody is forcing you to spend money to incorporate. But just like if you want to sell on the internet, you need to pay for a website, if you want a certifying authority to certify your identity, then you need to meet the requirements for being certified. Nobody is FORCING you to do it, but if you're not willing to prove your identity by getting incorporated, then the certifying authority isn't willing to certify your identity either.
This isn't about whether a sole proprietorship is JUST AS LEGITIMATE as a corporation, whatever 'just as legitimate' means. It's about having a standard of what it means to have a certified business identity. Corporations have state records about who they are, and who their registered agents are. Sole proprietorships do not. If, as a sole proprietorship, you claim you are "Al's Used Cars", how do I know that you're actually Al's Used Cars? Just because you say you are? What's to prevent some other person from coming along and saying THEY are Al's Used Cars? As a certifying authority, how do I tell which one of you is the real Al's Used Cars and which one of you is full of it?
With Corporations, if someone comes to me and says they are Apple Computer, I can go to the state records office and find out who the registered agent for Apple Computer is and make sure I'm dealing with the real Apple Computer.
Getting a certificate of identity requires having a verifiable identity. As a business, the only way to have a verifiable identity is to incorporate.
So why should you be forced to pay more money? Because if you don't, you don't have a business identity to verify, and thus can't get a green address bar. And you don't deserve one.
If you can't get a certificate as a sole proprietorship, INCORPORATE! Problem solved.
Nobody is making anyone run their business as a sole proprietorship. And this day in this sue-happy age, there's plenty of other reasons incorporation is a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts.
I really don't have the trunk space to be hauling around a child just to get my car started.
let the user buy the decryption keys
Dell's customers want to take their computer out of the box, match each colored plug to the respective colored receptacle on the back, turn it on, and have it work. They do not want to buy and figure out how to use decryption keys.
Increased costs are not limited to the assembly process.
Having a 'No OS' option does one thing none of the other options do:
It allows for the customer to make a choice that results in them receiving a computer that does not work.
There's a big difference between whether a CD is included or not and whether the computer does anything when you turn it on.
Here, I'll help.
Windows version: none. Are you saying they don't track which machines went out with Windows 95 or Vista Pro?
Hrm, looking at my original post, no it does not appear I said that. I said that offering an additional option of operating system costs money that is probably not worth the increased business from having the option.
I cited having to add an item to the assembly process as an example, but it was just one example.
You mention that Dell already tracks what OS shipped on each computer. So what? The increased costs are not just in remembering what OS was on the computer when you sold it.
Increased costs also come from other areas. There's a cost in giving a user a choice they may not understand - confusion may cost you sales, and it may cost you more money on customer service inquiry. Most people know that 512 MB is better than 256 MB. Most users do not know what the difference is between Windows and Linux.
Most importantly, when you customize a Dell, there are *NO* options you can select that will result in you getting a computer you can't turn on and use. You can't select NO hard drive. You can't select NO memory. And they're not going to have an option for you to select NO OS, because then people will select it and start getting computers that don't work.
Remember also that Dell supports their own hardware. If someone gets it, and it doesn't work, Dell gets the phone call. So even if they offer Windows AND Linux, when people choose Linux, and then go to install a program that they expect to work that does not work on Linux, Dell gets that call too.
Adding an option for No OS or Linux to consumer-model desktops and laptops just does not make sense for Dell to do. The number of people who would like to use Linux who would be pleased by the option is far, far, far less than the number of customers who will end up with computers that they think, even though it's because of their own ignorance, are broken. Dell does not care whether the customer thinks they have a broken computer because the customer is ignorant. Dell only cares that the customer thinks they got a broken computer.
Another cost is support. Fielding people who can support Windows 95 and Windows XP is a whole different ball game than fielding support that can handle Windows XP and Linux.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Dell does have Linux available on some computers - specifically, high-end workstations. But all that shows is that it's profitable to offer high-end workstations with !windows while trying to offer consumer computers with !windows is not.
It isn't any more reasonable for Dell to offer 'No Windows' or 'Linux' than it is for them to offer 'No Video Card' or a video card from a non-partnered vendor. You buy the computer, you get the video cards they make available. If you don't like it, you don't get to pull it out and send it back. The only reason you get a refund on Windows is because of the license agreement.
Or, put another way, if YOU want Linux on your computer, don't buy your computer at Dell. It's not their obligation to offer Linux if they think it's more trouble for them than it's worth.
Gah, I should have known better than to use an absolute word.
Fine, most models all come with Windows installed.
That it may make financial sense to offer the option on high-end workstations doesn't mean it ALSO makes business sense to offer the option on consumer computers and laptops.
If it's up to Dell at all, my suggestion to them would be to just have that as an option when ordering via phone or internet. Subtract whatever minimal amount they want and thereby save us and them some grief and some money in the process.
Every option that Dell adds costs them money. Right now, every computer Dell makes has a hard drive in it with Windows installed. They're all the same. If they add an option so that you can select 'No Windows', then they need to start keeping track of which computers have windows on them and which don't.
Now, obviously, Dell already has lots of options. But you'll note most of those options lead you to spending MORE money, not less money. And how many people really go to Dell to buy a computer and DON'T want windows on it? I would guess that the number is so small that the extra business Dell might get by offering a no-windows option is not worth the cost to them of doing so. Which is a perfectly rational business decision to make.
On the other hand, if lots of people keep calling up Dell and tying up their customer service reps on the phone doing Windows refunds, they may decide that offering the option is less expensive than fielding the calls (Dell doesn't want to pay people to talk to you on the phone any more than you want to waste time talking on the phone to them). So, if enough people call, the rational business decision might change from 'Always bundle windows' to 'Offer a no-Windows option'. Which is where 'the principle mentioned' in TFA applies.
The drive is the thing that does the reading and writing. The disk is the thing that the data is written to/read from.
In floppy drives, you can take the disk in and out.
In hard drives, the disks are mounted and (normally) not removable. But there are still hard disks in that hard drive - round things with data on them that spin.
So, is is Solid State Disk or Solid State Drive?
NEITHER!
Solid State Device. There is no disk, and since there's no disk to spin, nothing is being driven either.
Should really call it SSS, Solid State Storage.
I have nothing to hide.
Not doing anything ILLEGAL is absolutely NOT the same as having nothing to hide.
Do you want the government opening the mail that contains your medical insurance claims? Do you want the government opening mail that contains confidential business documents, or trade secrets? Do you want the incumbent political officials having access to confidential campaign materials should you want to run for office?
And remember, 'the government' is ultimately a person in an office somewhere, with your mail in their personal possession. Do you trust every person the government might hire at any time in the future to not run to the photocopier with your confidential documents?
We all, at some point or another, have something to hide - and not because it might be illegal or even embarrassing, but because our confidential information, in the wrong hands, can be damaging to us.
Right, because I was totally serious there.
I will work for Wikipedia for a salary equal to the amount of advertising revenue. If we lose the revenue, you can just fire me, I'll be ok with it. Then the content will be saved!
if you are a double-0 agent, you shouldn't have written unencrypted data to the drive in the first place
Better hope your OS doesn't swap to disk!
This was just a backup of the last article.
I'm not sure where you live in the US, but most places I've been to where there are more than 2 lanes of traffic restrict trucks to the right 2 lanes, with exceptions for the odd left-handed exit.
Prior 9/11; two hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, half hour at the other end : 10.5 hours.
Post 9/11; four hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, one hour at the other end : 13 hours
Where are you flying out of?
Aside from odd days like when TSA suddenly decides to not let anyone take any liquids on the plane, I haven't noticed any difference between pre- and post- 9/11 total air travel load-in/out times. About the only change I have noticed is that the cutoff for checking bags is 15-30 minutes earlier, depending on the airport.
How does Rotterdam reduce baggage claim/travel time at the destination?
As an added bonus, you won't even need to buy her shoes.*
* For best results, confine to kitchen.
They don't teach driving in high school.
You want a license in Europe, you need to spend big money on real driving classes and pass rigorous driving tests. You don't see as many idiots on European roads because the idiots don't get licenses to drive.
Hey, look, the obvious has made it to the front page of Slashdot disguised as an article again.
If some bonehead makes a bad driving maneuver, he might cause a traffic jam. And whether or not he actually causes a traffic jam is dependent on how many cars are on the road!
This whole thing is just dumb. Yes, if all drivers drove perfectly, then we could push more cars through the same piece of road. But that's not the way it works. Roads don't have a hard capacity. As the number of cars on the road increase, the chances of a traffic-jam-causing event increase. The more cars, the greater probability of a jam. Maybe at 120 cars a minute there's a 50-50 chance of a jam, but at 140 cars a minute a traffic jam is virtually certain.
So, if cars were driven by perfect-driving robots instead of people, we'd could put more cars on the road without traffic jams. Thanks Slashdot!
California's market was never deregulated. That was just utility marketing speak. It was RE-regulated. They changed the old regulations to new different regulations. And the new regulations sucked. The REGULATIONS about how you could charge for power are what allowed Enron to do their dirty tricks.
We have two kinds of companies offering broadband services, the cable companies, which have to offer service to everybody, and the phone companies, which only have to offer service where it is the most profitable. The most profitable place to offer service will be where it is cheapest to offer service.
The problem is, the phone company is allowed to set their prices based on the cost of providing service to a particular customer. If providing service toa customer is expensive, the phone company doesn't have to do it. The cable company doesn't have that option - it has to provide service to everybody. So the phone company drives down the price in the profitable areas, and the cable company is screwed - if they lower prices to compete, they still have to provide service to the unprofitable customers, and are eventually forced out of business because they arn't making any money. IF they don't lower prices, the phone company will just lower prices JUST ENOUGH to undercut the cable company, not really saving the cable company any money, while the cable company will probably have to raise rates for everyone because, now that they've lost their profitable customers to the phone company undercutting them, need to cover the increased per-customer costs of being saddled with only the expensive customers.
So, everybody loses - the profitable customers end up paying higher rates to the phone company because the cable company can't compete, and the unprofitable customers end up paying higher rates because they're not being subsidized by the profitable ones.
Now, I'm not saying that unprofitable customers should have the same rates as profitable ones - if you choose to live out in the boonies, that's your choice. But if we're not going to force phone companies to build out to everyone, then we shouldn't be forcing cable companies to do so either.
We surveyed 10 million Americans, and not one of them had been a homicide victim.
They can prove their identity, but why would you want to prove your identity is 'phishers are us'?
The important part is the phisher can't get a certificate saying they're Bank of America.
the small one-person companies don't even qualify to get certified for the green status
Did you even read the article?
Small, one-person COMPANIES DO qualify, as long as they are incorporated!
It's PROPRIETORSHIPS that don't qualify.
See the difference?
Whether you can get a certificate or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF YOUR COMPANY!
This does not harm small business. It may harm unincorporated business. As I already suggested, the solution to this is to take an hour and incorporate.
Bullshit. Why should I be forced to spend more money when a Sole Proprietorship is JUST AS LEGITIMATE as a Corporation.
Why should I be forced to pay someone to create a website and rent a server when a brick-and-mortar storefront is JUST AS LEGITIMATE as a web storefront?
Fact is, you're not. Nobody is forcing you to spend money to incorporate. But just like if you want to sell on the internet, you need to pay for a website, if you want a certifying authority to certify your identity, then you need to meet the requirements for being certified. Nobody is FORCING you to do it, but if you're not willing to prove your identity by getting incorporated, then the certifying authority isn't willing to certify your identity either.
This isn't about whether a sole proprietorship is JUST AS LEGITIMATE as a corporation, whatever 'just as legitimate' means. It's about having a standard of what it means to have a certified business identity. Corporations have state records about who they are, and who their registered agents are. Sole proprietorships do not. If, as a sole proprietorship, you claim you are "Al's Used Cars", how do I know that you're actually Al's Used Cars? Just because you say you are? What's to prevent some other person from coming along and saying THEY are Al's Used Cars? As a certifying authority, how do I tell which one of you is the real Al's Used Cars and which one of you is full of it?
With Corporations, if someone comes to me and says they are Apple Computer, I can go to the state records office and find out who the registered agent for Apple Computer is and make sure I'm dealing with the real Apple Computer.
Getting a certificate of identity requires having a verifiable identity. As a business, the only way to have a verifiable identity is to incorporate.
So why should you be forced to pay more money? Because if you don't, you don't have a business identity to verify, and thus can't get a green address bar. And you don't deserve one.
If you can't get a certificate as a sole proprietorship, INCORPORATE! Problem solved.
Nobody is making anyone run their business as a sole proprietorship. And this day in this sue-happy age, there's plenty of other reasons incorporation is a good idea.