If you worked in an organization where you hand to manage hundreds of desktop Macs it would dawn on you. I know places like that are not exactly everywhere, but they do exist...I know because I work at one. After our current Xserves reach the end of their useful life, there will be absolutely no enterprise class hardware that can be used for management and deployment of desktops. I'm sorry, but we will not be putting Minis on rack shelves for services (Open Directory, for example) that need to be available 24x7. The lack of redundant power supplies, lights out management and hot swappable drives is just not acceptable in an enterprise datacenter. I also cannot give up 6u per Mac Pro just to get the same 8-core speed that is currently available in a 1u box while I'm giving up those availability features. It's just not going to happen.
We're already pondering what life is going to be like with Windows-only desktops. It's possible Apple is going to pull off some announcement about OSX server availability on VMWare/HyperV or something (which would be acceptable for larger environments I guess) but I can't plan ahead for what they *might* announce. Frankly, it doesn't give me confidence in the future of OSX server in general. Without large deployments, people won't be needing things like Open Directory, so that could easily be dropped at some point, for example.
They are effectively removing themselves from consideration in large environments. Just a week or two ago, there were rumors they were going to make a bigger play in the enterprise space and I was anxious to see what they had in the pipeline. Now, suddenly we're looking at abandoning OSX as a platform almost completely at hundreds of desktops. We were about to put in an order for 50+ iMacs for the second or third time this year alone, but now those plans are on hold until we can get a new long term plan together. As a result, it is definitely going to be a factor in future iPad/iPhone deployment (which has been pretty positive thus far).
I never doubted Apple was evil, I didn't know they were dumb too.
You hit the nail on the head, and I'm not even sure you noticed. That's the philosophical difference between the iphone and Android phones. One is much more open, with all the good and bad that comes with it...you can really get at the insides and bend it to your will, and write any sort of app you want, for better or worse. The price you pay for openness like that is the potential for huge instability, but the rating system will hopefully help with that over time. For some technically oriented people and some others, this trade is very worthwhile. The openness is worth those possible inconveniences, and we understand and accept it. I mean, it's not like the user experience is BAD or anything, it's just sometimes things don't work as perfectly as you'd like.
Meanwhile, you have the opposite approach, which is very much the Apple way of doing things. Very closed, very restricted from a developer's standpoint. The benefit of this approach is that the user experience is very controlled and streamlined. Not that they never experience crashes, but generally speaking, the overall experience is a lot more sanitized, clean, and consistent. Few crashes, familiar overall look and feel. It's "the Apple Way" or the highway, but you can see they try to make "the Apple Way" pretty darn nice, if not open.
When people ask me if they should get an iphone or something else, I tell them for most people, your 2 best bets are an Android phone and an iphone. The way they should decide is by thinking about what they expect out of their cell phone. If they only want a few apps they saw on TV and don't want to fuck with it too much and just want a really nice capable phone, then iphone. If they want to do all sorts of additional interesting things, they should definitely get an Android, but recognize that with those abilities comes complexity, and be sure you want a device like your cell phone to *be* that complex.
It all depends on what you want out of a phone, and it's different for everybody. I don't really get why people get so angry about it.
Oh come on, you edit your pictures while you're still on holiday? Really? You must be fun to travel with.
Clearly, you are not the target market. It's OK, don't be mad over it, just don't get one. My wife (for example), IS the target market. She edits photos when she gets home on a home computer. She likes having a useful browser laying on the coffee table without hauling a laptop around the house. She enjoys reading interactive books with the kids. She likes it PRECISELY because it is NOT a computer. Companies have been making tablets like you claim to want for 15+ years now. I had one in 1989 that was a 386sx and ran "Windows 3.1 for Pen" (no joke). Instead of complaining that Apple isn't filling the niche you want, why don't you support a company that IS and buy one of their devices already?
Really, people, if you don't want one, don't get one, that's cool. What is not cool is assuming everybody that buys one is a drooling idiot and only bought it because it's stylish. Some people would like to do a few basic computing tasks sometimes WITHOUT using a real computer.
Why are people so angry that Apple doesn't make what they want? Why are the same people who DIDN'T buy the tablet of their dreams 5 years ago when HP was making them, now ANGRY that Apple is making money on a similar but different product?
I'd argue they are NOT wholly unhealthy for society. They are a necessary evil. While you or I may not approve of the way they do business, the computing landscape would not be the same without them. Enjoy using a truly powerful AND easy to use smartphone? Thank Apple. Like buying music online? Thank Apple. Over the next couple years, you'll probably find a good use for a tablet style computing device, and you can thank Apple for that too. Of course others did all these things first, but Apple made them mainstream and kick-started each of these industries, including all the good competing products and services.
If you don't like what Apple does, don't buy their stuff, that's cool, but remember that when you grab your Android phone and use it to buy an mp3 from Amazon, and next year listen to that mp3 on your Android (or WebOS, eh HP?) tablet, remember that Apple were the first ones to make those things viable business models in the mainstream, and the devices you're using may very well not be possible without them.
First, you're a jerk for that unnecessary insult. Some people like the benefits of using the computer without much liking the computer itself.
Second, the iPad isn't a computer, so you can relax. That's the point here, now his wife can do certain tasks that *used to* require a computer, which is good.
Jerk.
It's not a tax on the inept, it's a product and service to fill a perceived gap in the marketplace. The entire economy is built on people paying money for goods and services that they themselves can't or won't provide for themselves. This is no different...it's paying Apple for making it very simple and convenient to handle a few specific tasks that have traditionally been done on more complex devices. No more, no less. If enough people see value in that, the product will succeed, if not, then it won't, it's just that simple.
Well, a lot of people in the so-called "geek community" sure to seem angry that the iPad even exists. As if they're indignant that Apple didn't use their personal dream spec-sheet when designing a mass-market computing appliance. To drag out an old analogy, I am a car guy, and I appreciate hearing the engine roar, and I like shifting my own gears, changing my own oil, etc. and mostly I like old sports cars, but I don't get enraged that the Ford Taurus exists. I don't call Ford fools and idiots, and anybody who would possibly want one must be a brainwashed asshole who is sucking Alan Mulally's cock. Yet there seems to be a lot of this sort of thing happening around the web in the last day or so. It's the much-maligned Apple fanboyism just in the opposite direction.
Not to accuse you personally Arthur, of course, I'm just thinking that a lot of the people who supposedly "get the point" sure do seem keen to ruin it for the people who DID find the iPad a compelling device, and I just don't get that.
Anyhow, a bit on-topic, an Android tablet would be nice if it could get near the 10-hour battery life Apple claims....that would be sweeeeet.
Sounds like what you really wanted was an ASUS touchscreen netbook, which you got, so that's nice. I think a lot of tech enthusiasts and geeks expected this to be a general purpose computing device, combined with some sort of Apple Magic to alleviate the conundrum caused by needing to perform sophisticated tasks with no simple way of giving sophisticated input (ie keyboard/mouse). For the last 10 years, Microsoft has repeatedly shown that a full desktop OS without a keyboard and mouse is a letdown. The approach that Apple took was to strip the machine down to the very basic tasks that average consumers (not geeks) most often use their computer for, and optimized the whole device for *just those tasks*. The end result is very far from the functionality of a full blown computer, but in return you get a very good and simple experience (save Flash support, grrr) as long as you are only doing the things it was designed to do, which again covers most average consumers, most of their time. Geeks decry it's lack of abilities, but the general public will love it because it makes some very common tasks as simple as possible.
I probably would not buy one just for myself, but my wife will LOVE having one of these in the house. I like tinkering with computers and making them do interesting things...they are their own reward to a certain extent and I like understanding how they work and bending them to my will. My wife (like most regular consumers) *tolerates* computers because they can help her accomplish something. That's why the tragically named iPad will be popular despite the outcry of geeks everywhere.
You know, if you got that Box Backup really stable and added facilities for MS Exchange and a few popular databases, that setup would get installed all over the place. I'd very seriously consider ditching a commercial product like Veritas for something like that. Actually now that I think about it, since Symantec took it over, I'd probably trade Backup Exec for a piece of shiny aluminum foil. I'll keep an eye on that project...it's a good idea.
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Did you read your own link? The terms differential and incremental don't have anything to do with whether or not whole files get backed up, they have to do with how incomplete backups are taken relative to the last full backup (your provided link clearly explains this). Still, in either case, if 10 bytes out of 100MB changes, that WHOLE FILE is backed up, which is exactly what you wrongly said "does not qualify as differential". You may be absolutely correct that it's not differential (I'm not very familiar with Time Machine), but that is absolutely not the reason why.
I believe you are thinking of a delta-type backup (like rsync). I also believe that if you look at commercial backup solutions, you will find that a majority of them do NOT do this kind of thing. You're usually on your own hacking together rsync scripts, or you're dealing with some kind of file syncing product and not an standard backup solution.
(hope I didn't sound like a dick there, it's just I deal with a lot of lower level sysadmins who don't understand those concepts very well and I hate to see people perpetuating mistakes- no offense is intended)
It is not differential by any stretch. Backing up the entire file when it changes does not qualify as differential.
Ummm...actually in the context of backup strategies, that is typically EXACTLY what differential backup means. Not to say it excludes the possibility of delta-only storage, but that is most certainly *not* implied.
http://minnesotapublicradio.org/ is a great local resource...lots of info including lots of interviews and debates available online. It's the best voter resource I've found for local issues. A lot of people say that public media (including MPR) has a liberal bias, but I think they've done a great job of also covering the conservative and independent perspectives. If you haven't voted yet today, I'd have a look.
Looks like under $50, and while you may not be able to buy it directly in the US, I've got to think they'll be available on ebay fairly soon. If it's a tri-band GSM, you will likely just be able to slap your SIM card in and go.
Personally, I can't wait to get one (and one for my dad)!
If your department/company is on desktops then the upgrade costs for a rollout will be minimal anyway as a vista PC will likely only be a couple hundred more than a bottom end XP box from dell, and I'm sure the entire optiplex line will be Vista compatible.
Not to pick on you in particular, but there is a pretty big misconception out there that Vista requires everybody to upgrade hardware. I was at a TechNet event (mandatory for work) last week regarding Vista deployment and the MS rep stood in front of 1000+ people and told us that officially, Vista absolutely WILL run on *any* box that comes with a Microsoft "Designed for XP" sticker on it, which most people are already using in a corporate environment (and if you're not, then you're clearly not the early-adopter type anyhow). Part of the install checks your hardware capabilities and turns off eye-candy and such to (hopefully) make a reasonable-performing system.
There is reason to be skeptical that it will perform just as good as XP, on exactly the same hardware, but he said that this was one of Microsoft's priorities.
Anyhow, my point is that most people won't *need* to upgrade just to run Vista. XP Ready == Vista Ready (although not necessarily "Vista Optimal").
I just took a peek at the EULA.TXT included in a fresh download (PsTools.zip file) vs. a copy that came with the same download a couple months ago (file dated Jan 11 2006), and it's *completely* changed. The new version is a "free for personal use only" sorta thing whereas the previous EULA was free for all uses short of infringment and void of warranty.
Have to see how well those EULAs hold up. IANAL of course, but it looks to me like if you're a sysadmin at a commercial entity, you can't use their previously-free tools for free any more. Pretty sad.
Somebody please tell me I'm reading it wrong....
Slow down with the Kool-aid there, kid. First, if the country FOREFITS it's most basic freedoms, then why even bother to defend it? If we're not free, it's not worth the trouble to begin with. You might as well just spit on the constitution. Yes having our buildings blown up is a problem, but I am NOT ABOUT to sit around and let the United States tear it's very BASIC IDENTITY to shreds for fear of some asshole with a boxcutter. No way in hell. If you're for that kind of "defense", then maybe you're the one who should be joining the Taliban...they LOVE telling people what to do.
Second, since you seem all gung-ho to allow chimpy to do whatever he thinks is necessary, remember this....this is precedent he's setting here. Legally or popularly...if he gets away with something, then future presidents will also probably get away with the same thing, using the same excuses. So ask yourself, "Hippy-liberal hater", would you be totally cool with this (to the point of actively defending it) if Hillary Clinton were doing it? Because mark my words, some day, nuts like you are going to force the people to vote for a nut like her, and then you'll be sorry you allowed this kind of behavior to become acceptable.
What goes around comes around. NOBODY should be allowed to get away with this.
But what alternatives are there to fuel cells, when the oil runs out? Artificial petroleum, maybe?
Well the easiest (and that is a very relative term) are ethanol or biodiesel. Both are liquid fuels, meaning our entire infrastructure designed for handling liquids doesn't need to be replaced (gas pumps, tanker trucks, pipelines, etc.). They are carbon neutral, meaning the carbon released during combustion is the same carbon that the original plants absorbed as they grew (ie no net carbon increase in the atmosphere). Both run in cars that are manufactured TODAY (sometimes with slight modifications), and both are dinosaur-petroleum free. Instead of sending your money overseas to some royal family half a world away, your money goes to local farmers for growing the biomass that these fuels are derived from.
Both still have their problems, of course...and there is debate about whether either can replace oil on a large scale, but there is a lot of potential there, and if the energy balance is there, then they seem like the most obvious alternatives. Unfortunately, neither get the same kind of press hydrogen does.
Well if that's your point, then you're simply wrong. I'm sorry if me trying to clarify things a bit for you got you in a twist. Obviously you've already made your judgement about everybody in the world who thinks differently from you, which I'd like to point out is the same thing you accused (unprovoked and unsupported I might add) those people of.
Look I'm not going to get into a flamewar about it. What I'm saying is that so-called "stereotypical response" you're talking about is NOT asking for a phone that just makes phone calls and doesn't care about anything else like you say. I mean, a lot of people in general are dumb, but do you really believe that people can't find a phone that makes phone calls? Don't you think they are asking for something besides that? Either you're not hearing them (possible), or they're doing a bad job at getting thier point across (more likely). Since your original post seemed to be a little derisive of people who ask for such a thing, I was simply trying to let you know that those people don't deserve that because they are NOT asking for what you seem to think they're asking for.
Damn shame that VK2000 doesn't have bluetooth, otherwise I'd probably start shopping for one today...and unfortunately the 8310 is a little smaller but thicker, which isn't great for carrying it in your pocket. But I definitely appreciate somebody who appreciates the utility of a simple phone!
Do you even know what you're talking about? I hear what you're saying, but that's not what people are asking for. And I don't appreciate being called an idiot.
Everybody KNOWS there are cheap phones that don't do much more than make phone calls. It would be nice if a manufacturer put some effort into developing a nice phone that focused on voice functionality. Small (think small pager or Zippo lighter), simple fast phone book (for example, Samsung phones have a nice phonebook, except it's really slow), perhaps bluetooth for a headset connection or to act as a modem on a laptop or real PDA, and SMALL.
Like I said, I don't have any problem if you want to have a phone that does everything...did something happen to you in your childhood that makes you wish that I don't get what I want too?
Feel defensive much? I am one of those people who want a small, simple phone, but it doesn't mean I believe phones like this shouldn't exist. The gripe that you're (apparently) mistaking for some kind of personal attack is that there are multitudes of camera phones, lots of mp3-player phones, big built in screens, PDAs, etc out there to choose from, while the people who would just really like to have basic phone call functionality in a smaller, lighter package have nothing to choose from. It's not that I don't want you to have your media center/PDA/camcorder/PC/widescreen TV/kitchen sink phone, it's just that it would be nice if somebody would also make a phone for us.
So if you can't understand that, then by all means, keep whining about everybody who wants to take your technology away.
Slashdot Mirror
If you worked in an organization where you hand to manage hundreds of desktop Macs it would dawn on you. I know places like that are not exactly everywhere, but they do exist...I know because I work at one. After our current Xserves reach the end of their useful life, there will be absolutely no enterprise class hardware that can be used for management and deployment of desktops. I'm sorry, but we will not be putting Minis on rack shelves for services (Open Directory, for example) that need to be available 24x7. The lack of redundant power supplies, lights out management and hot swappable drives is just not acceptable in an enterprise datacenter. I also cannot give up 6u per Mac Pro just to get the same 8-core speed that is currently available in a 1u box while I'm giving up those availability features. It's just not going to happen.
We're already pondering what life is going to be like with Windows-only desktops. It's possible Apple is going to pull off some announcement about OSX server availability on VMWare/HyperV or something (which would be acceptable for larger environments I guess) but I can't plan ahead for what they *might* announce. Frankly, it doesn't give me confidence in the future of OSX server in general. Without large deployments, people won't be needing things like Open Directory, so that could easily be dropped at some point, for example.
They are effectively removing themselves from consideration in large environments. Just a week or two ago, there were rumors they were going to make a bigger play in the enterprise space and I was anxious to see what they had in the pipeline. Now, suddenly we're looking at abandoning OSX as a platform almost completely at hundreds of desktops. We were about to put in an order for 50+ iMacs for the second or third time this year alone, but now those plans are on hold until we can get a new long term plan together. As a result, it is definitely going to be a factor in future iPad/iPhone deployment (which has been pretty positive thus far).
I never doubted Apple was evil, I didn't know they were dumb too.
You hit the nail on the head, and I'm not even sure you noticed. That's the philosophical difference between the iphone and Android phones. One is much more open, with all the good and bad that comes with it...you can really get at the insides and bend it to your will, and write any sort of app you want, for better or worse. The price you pay for openness like that is the potential for huge instability, but the rating system will hopefully help with that over time. For some technically oriented people and some others, this trade is very worthwhile. The openness is worth those possible inconveniences, and we understand and accept it. I mean, it's not like the user experience is BAD or anything, it's just sometimes things don't work as perfectly as you'd like.
Meanwhile, you have the opposite approach, which is very much the Apple way of doing things. Very closed, very restricted from a developer's standpoint. The benefit of this approach is that the user experience is very controlled and streamlined. Not that they never experience crashes, but generally speaking, the overall experience is a lot more sanitized, clean, and consistent. Few crashes, familiar overall look and feel. It's "the Apple Way" or the highway, but you can see they try to make "the Apple Way" pretty darn nice, if not open.
When people ask me if they should get an iphone or something else, I tell them for most people, your 2 best bets are an Android phone and an iphone. The way they should decide is by thinking about what they expect out of their cell phone. If they only want a few apps they saw on TV and don't want to fuck with it too much and just want a really nice capable phone, then iphone. If they want to do all sorts of additional interesting things, they should definitely get an Android, but recognize that with those abilities comes complexity, and be sure you want a device like your cell phone to *be* that complex.
It all depends on what you want out of a phone, and it's different for everybody. I don't really get why people get so angry about it.
Oh come on, you edit your pictures while you're still on holiday? Really? You must be fun to travel with.
Clearly, you are not the target market. It's OK, don't be mad over it, just don't get one. My wife (for example), IS the target market. She edits photos when she gets home on a home computer. She likes having a useful browser laying on the coffee table without hauling a laptop around the house. She enjoys reading interactive books with the kids. She likes it PRECISELY because it is NOT a computer. Companies have been making tablets like you claim to want for 15+ years now. I had one in 1989 that was a 386sx and ran "Windows 3.1 for Pen" (no joke). Instead of complaining that Apple isn't filling the niche you want, why don't you support a company that IS and buy one of their devices already?
Really, people, if you don't want one, don't get one, that's cool. What is not cool is assuming everybody that buys one is a drooling idiot and only bought it because it's stylish. Some people would like to do a few basic computing tasks sometimes WITHOUT using a real computer.
Why are people so angry that Apple doesn't make what they want? Why are the same people who DIDN'T buy the tablet of their dreams 5 years ago when HP was making them, now ANGRY that Apple is making money on a similar but different product?
I'd argue they are NOT wholly unhealthy for society. They are a necessary evil. While you or I may not approve of the way they do business, the computing landscape would not be the same without them. Enjoy using a truly powerful AND easy to use smartphone? Thank Apple. Like buying music online? Thank Apple. Over the next couple years, you'll probably find a good use for a tablet style computing device, and you can thank Apple for that too. Of course others did all these things first, but Apple made them mainstream and kick-started each of these industries, including all the good competing products and services.
If you don't like what Apple does, don't buy their stuff, that's cool, but remember that when you grab your Android phone and use it to buy an mp3 from Amazon, and next year listen to that mp3 on your Android (or WebOS, eh HP?) tablet, remember that Apple were the first ones to make those things viable business models in the mainstream, and the devices you're using may very well not be possible without them.
Wow. That was the most gentile Godwin-ing of a discussion I've ever seen. :)
First, you're a jerk for that unnecessary insult. Some people like the benefits of using the computer without much liking the computer itself. Second, the iPad isn't a computer, so you can relax. That's the point here, now his wife can do certain tasks that *used to* require a computer, which is good. Jerk.
It's not a tax on the inept, it's a product and service to fill a perceived gap in the marketplace. The entire economy is built on people paying money for goods and services that they themselves can't or won't provide for themselves. This is no different...it's paying Apple for making it very simple and convenient to handle a few specific tasks that have traditionally been done on more complex devices. No more, no less. If enough people see value in that, the product will succeed, if not, then it won't, it's just that simple.
Well, a lot of people in the so-called "geek community" sure to seem angry that the iPad even exists. As if they're indignant that Apple didn't use their personal dream spec-sheet when designing a mass-market computing appliance. To drag out an old analogy, I am a car guy, and I appreciate hearing the engine roar, and I like shifting my own gears, changing my own oil, etc. and mostly I like old sports cars, but I don't get enraged that the Ford Taurus exists. I don't call Ford fools and idiots, and anybody who would possibly want one must be a brainwashed asshole who is sucking Alan Mulally's cock. Yet there seems to be a lot of this sort of thing happening around the web in the last day or so. It's the much-maligned Apple fanboyism just in the opposite direction.
Not to accuse you personally Arthur, of course, I'm just thinking that a lot of the people who supposedly "get the point" sure do seem keen to ruin it for the people who DID find the iPad a compelling device, and I just don't get that.
Anyhow, a bit on-topic, an Android tablet would be nice if it could get near the 10-hour battery life Apple claims....that would be sweeeeet.
Sounds like what you really wanted was an ASUS touchscreen netbook, which you got, so that's nice. I think a lot of tech enthusiasts and geeks expected this to be a general purpose computing device, combined with some sort of Apple Magic to alleviate the conundrum caused by needing to perform sophisticated tasks with no simple way of giving sophisticated input (ie keyboard/mouse). For the last 10 years, Microsoft has repeatedly shown that a full desktop OS without a keyboard and mouse is a letdown. The approach that Apple took was to strip the machine down to the very basic tasks that average consumers (not geeks) most often use their computer for, and optimized the whole device for *just those tasks*. The end result is very far from the functionality of a full blown computer, but in return you get a very good and simple experience (save Flash support, grrr) as long as you are only doing the things it was designed to do, which again covers most average consumers, most of their time. Geeks decry it's lack of abilities, but the general public will love it because it makes some very common tasks as simple as possible.
I probably would not buy one just for myself, but my wife will LOVE having one of these in the house. I like tinkering with computers and making them do interesting things...they are their own reward to a certain extent and I like understanding how they work and bending them to my will. My wife (like most regular consumers) *tolerates* computers because they can help her accomplish something. That's why the tragically named iPad will be popular despite the outcry of geeks everywhere.
Gotcha. Again sorry to sound so crabby about it.
You know, if you got that Box Backup really stable and added facilities for MS Exchange and a few popular databases, that setup would get installed all over the place. I'd very seriously consider ditching a commercial product like Veritas for something like that. Actually now that I think about it, since Symantec took it over, I'd probably trade Backup Exec for a piece of shiny aluminum foil. I'll keep an eye on that project...it's a good idea.
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Did you read your own link? The terms differential and incremental don't have anything to do with whether or not whole files get backed up, they have to do with how incomplete backups are taken relative to the last full backup (your provided link clearly explains this). Still, in either case, if 10 bytes out of 100MB changes, that WHOLE FILE is backed up, which is exactly what you wrongly said "does not qualify as differential". You may be absolutely correct that it's not differential (I'm not very familiar with Time Machine), but that is absolutely not the reason why.
I believe you are thinking of a delta-type backup (like rsync). I also believe that if you look at commercial backup solutions, you will find that a majority of them do NOT do this kind of thing. You're usually on your own hacking together rsync scripts, or you're dealing with some kind of file syncing product and not an standard backup solution.
(hope I didn't sound like a dick there, it's just I deal with a lot of lower level sysadmins who don't understand those concepts very well and I hate to see people perpetuating mistakes- no offense is intended)
It is not differential by any stretch. Backing up the entire file when it changes does not qualify as differential.
Ummm...actually in the context of backup strategies, that is typically EXACTLY what differential backup means. Not to say it excludes the possibility of delta-only storage, but that is most certainly *not* implied.
Eh... A Ctrl freak?
http://minnesotapublicradio.org/ is a great local resource...lots of info including lots of interviews and debates available online. It's the best voter resource I've found for local issues. A lot of people say that public media (including MPR) has a liberal bias, but I think they've done a great job of also covering the conservative and independent perspectives. If you haven't voted yet today, I'd have a look.
http://www.mobileburn.com/gallery.jsp?Id=2607 has a (IMHO) better article.
Looks like under $50, and while you may not be able to buy it directly in the US, I've got to think they'll be available on ebay fairly soon. If it's a tri-band GSM, you will likely just be able to slap your SIM card in and go.
Personally, I can't wait to get one (and one for my dad)!
If your department/company is on desktops then the upgrade costs for a rollout will be minimal anyway as a vista PC will likely only be a couple hundred more than a bottom end XP box from dell, and I'm sure the entire optiplex line will be Vista compatible.
Not to pick on you in particular, but there is a pretty big misconception out there that Vista requires everybody to upgrade hardware. I was at a TechNet event (mandatory for work) last week regarding Vista deployment and the MS rep stood in front of 1000+ people and told us that officially, Vista absolutely WILL run on *any* box that comes with a Microsoft "Designed for XP" sticker on it, which most people are already using in a corporate environment (and if you're not, then you're clearly not the early-adopter type anyhow). Part of the install checks your hardware capabilities and turns off eye-candy and such to (hopefully) make a reasonable-performing system.
There is reason to be skeptical that it will perform just as good as XP, on exactly the same hardware, but he said that this was one of Microsoft's priorities.
Anyhow, my point is that most people won't *need* to upgrade just to run Vista. XP Ready == Vista Ready (although not necessarily "Vista Optimal").
I just took a peek at the EULA.TXT included in a fresh download (PsTools .zip file) vs. a copy that came with the same download a couple months ago (file dated Jan 11 2006), and it's *completely* changed. The new version is a "free for personal use only" sorta thing whereas the previous EULA was free for all uses short of infringment and void of warranty.
Have to see how well those EULAs hold up. IANAL of course, but it looks to me like if you're a sysadmin at a commercial entity, you can't use their previously-free tools for free any more. Pretty sad.
Somebody please tell me I'm reading it wrong....
Slow down with the Kool-aid there, kid. First, if the country FOREFITS it's most basic freedoms, then why even bother to defend it? If we're not free, it's not worth the trouble to begin with. You might as well just spit on the constitution. Yes having our buildings blown up is a problem, but I am NOT ABOUT to sit around and let the United States tear it's very BASIC IDENTITY to shreds for fear of some asshole with a boxcutter. No way in hell. If you're for that kind of "defense", then maybe you're the one who should be joining the Taliban...they LOVE telling people what to do.
Second, since you seem all gung-ho to allow chimpy to do whatever he thinks is necessary, remember this....this is precedent he's setting here. Legally or popularly...if he gets away with something, then future presidents will also probably get away with the same thing, using the same excuses. So ask yourself, "Hippy-liberal hater", would you be totally cool with this (to the point of actively defending it) if Hillary Clinton were doing it? Because mark my words, some day, nuts like you are going to force the people to vote for a nut like her, and then you'll be sorry you allowed this kind of behavior to become acceptable.
What goes around comes around. NOBODY should be allowed to get away with this.
These guys beat you to it:
http://www.paperdisk.com/
But what alternatives are there to fuel cells, when the oil runs out? Artificial petroleum, maybe?
Well the easiest (and that is a very relative term) are ethanol or biodiesel. Both are liquid fuels, meaning our entire infrastructure designed for handling liquids doesn't need to be replaced (gas pumps, tanker trucks, pipelines, etc.). They are carbon neutral, meaning the carbon released during combustion is the same carbon that the original plants absorbed as they grew (ie no net carbon increase in the atmosphere). Both run in cars that are manufactured TODAY (sometimes with slight modifications), and both are dinosaur-petroleum free. Instead of sending your money overseas to some royal family half a world away, your money goes to local farmers for growing the biomass that these fuels are derived from.
Both still have their problems, of course...and there is debate about whether either can replace oil on a large scale, but there is a lot of potential there, and if the energy balance is there, then they seem like the most obvious alternatives. Unfortunately, neither get the same kind of press hydrogen does.
Well if that's your point, then you're simply wrong. I'm sorry if me trying to clarify things a bit for you got you in a twist. Obviously you've already made your judgement about everybody in the world who thinks differently from you, which I'd like to point out is the same thing you accused (unprovoked and unsupported I might add) those people of.
Good day, sir.
Look I'm not going to get into a flamewar about it. What I'm saying is that so-called "stereotypical response" you're talking about is NOT asking for a phone that just makes phone calls and doesn't care about anything else like you say. I mean, a lot of people in general are dumb, but do you really believe that people can't find a phone that makes phone calls? Don't you think they are asking for something besides that? Either you're not hearing them (possible), or they're doing a bad job at getting thier point across (more likely). Since your original post seemed to be a little derisive of people who ask for such a thing, I was simply trying to let you know that those people don't deserve that because they are NOT asking for what you seem to think they're asking for.
Do you get it now?
Ahh now there's news I can use!
Damn shame that VK2000 doesn't have bluetooth, otherwise I'd probably start shopping for one today...and unfortunately the 8310 is a little smaller but thicker, which isn't great for carrying it in your pocket. But I definitely appreciate somebody who appreciates the utility of a simple phone!
Do you even know what you're talking about? I hear what you're saying, but that's not what people are asking for. And I don't appreciate being called an idiot.
Everybody KNOWS there are cheap phones that don't do much more than make phone calls. It would be nice if a manufacturer put some effort into developing a nice phone that focused on voice functionality. Small (think small pager or Zippo lighter), simple fast phone book (for example, Samsung phones have a nice phonebook, except it's really slow), perhaps bluetooth for a headset connection or to act as a modem on a laptop or real PDA, and SMALL.
Like I said, I don't have any problem if you want to have a phone that does everything...did something happen to you in your childhood that makes you wish that I don't get what I want too?
Feel defensive much? I am one of those people who want a small, simple phone, but it doesn't mean I believe phones like this shouldn't exist. The gripe that you're (apparently) mistaking for some kind of personal attack is that there are multitudes of camera phones, lots of mp3-player phones, big built in screens, PDAs, etc out there to choose from, while the people who would just really like to have basic phone call functionality in a smaller, lighter package have nothing to choose from. It's not that I don't want you to have your media center/PDA/camcorder/PC/widescreen TV/kitchen sink phone, it's just that it would be nice if somebody would also make a phone for us.
So if you can't understand that, then by all means, keep whining about everybody who wants to take your technology away.