"Semen and pubic hair found in underwear the woman wore to the exam does not match Bryant. The defense has said the woman had multiple sexual partners the week of the alleged assault as part of a "scheme" to gain the attention of an ex-boyfriend."
What is really most precious to a woman? Let's move beyond sexual intercourse as the most fucking important thing in the world.
No, there aren't many responsible companies at all, and your post illustrates why. They have higher prices, less effective marketing (because they don't lie like their irresponsible competition), don't get ahead because they don't do unethical backroom deals, etc., so in the end they just go belly-up, and all the irresponsible companies get bigger.
Not really. Some people actually go out of their way to buy from companies that they like. For example, I try to buy Newman's Own products even if they cost a little more since all profits go to charity. You can find analgous cases in software--I'd rather pay a little more for a non-Microsoft product, even if the marketing is a little less effective and the backroom deals aren't there.
Do all consumers think like this? probably not. But here's my data point.
Don't blame this on consumers. We don't have real choice until we have the relevant information.
Then go find some relevant information before you buy the product. Now that you have the relevant information about Netgear, if you don't trust Netgear anymore, don't buy their products.
Every time you buy a product, a service, whatever, there is an implied risk that it won't turn out the way you like it. Tough shit. Take responsibility for your own actions.
You might have missed it, the law said what Microsoft is doing is illegal.
Surely nobody would question it's immoral.
One thing we've learned over the past 4 years is that we have many different ideas of what is "moral" in America. On copyright, on plagarism, on profit, etc, etc.
I am not sure that folks enjoy you imposing your morals upon them.
seems like if you set up a VPN, then you could have it implemented for a Congress, or at a more basic level, a company Board of Directors, thus allowing business to proceed online on a small scale. Of course then the system would prove itself before being released to the general public.
.. there comes a point where all this convenience is deadly to fat guys like me. I'll just stick with putting a CD in my stereo, thanks. North America has so much convenience we're all dropping dead. I even have a remote control to turn on my Exercycle from the couch, so my wife thinks I'm excercising when I'm actually watching Smallville reruns.
Maybe you can get divorced and start having sex again. That would be some good exercise. sexercise.
*Reliability - The ISM band (2.4Hz and 5GHz) is shared spectrum. By it's nature one cannot provide a gurantee of service. OK. But how do you know that the hot spot will even be on? Paying somebody you trust (i.e. T-Mobile) may improve the chances of this, if you choose correctly.
*Convenience - Maybe, but with so many comrecial providers, one probably has to reconfigure anyway. Again, the T-Mobile example. They're as ubiquitous as Starbucks.
*Speed - All 802.11 access point share spectrum, so if a free hotspot is bogged, so are the commercial ones. I'm thinking more about the speed of the pipe. If I set up a free wireless on my ISDN, it's going to be slower than an SDSL line that a commercial provider rents out.
*Security - Most of the free hotspot providers are knowledgeable hobbyists, who know more about wireless security than many so called experts. Once again, I disclaim all knowledge of Wifi security. But do you care to give examples of your claim?
The basic problem for commercial hotspot providers is that they are trying to make money off a free public resource: the ISM bands. Being commercial hotspot provider is a little like claiming a free lunch, then complaining when others also claim their free lunch instead of buying it from you. Last time I checked, trying to make a buck is not a problem. For example, you could cross a river by swimming or using your own boat, but sometimes it's more convenient to pay a ferry service to help you out. All that commercial services are really selling is (1) convenience and hand-holding and (2) a service network. The spectrum is there for people to make money off of it, for it drives innovation and progress. Land is a public resource (else it wouldn't be taxed), the radio airwaves are a public resource....people make money off of both and I would argue that for all the problems (ClearChannel) that have come out of this, we've seen an impressive amount of progress.
The minute, though, that someone tries to shut down the concept of free Wifi spots (unthinkable?), I'll be fighting with you.
There are actually a few airports that do free wireless. Do a quick search and you'll find them. Since we both agree that this is a business problem, let's look at your particular business case. Is free Wifi a good enough incentive for you to switch airports?
Probably not. Which is why I don't think you'll see Free Wifi at every airport.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that Wifi, relative to many other costs of an airport, is nearly free. But profit-seeking businesses look to charge what the market demands, regardless of how much it costs to meet that demand.
We've seen prices below cost from Microsoft and prices wayyy above cost for...say...porn.
Many reasons. For example, a whole lot of information is free, but many people pay for information.
*Reliability - Someone guarantees that it's going to be there for you. *Convenience - More hot spots. Less time configuring. Paid services are often suited towards the mainstream user--one who might be scared of the prospect of finding hotspots. *Speed - Don't these free hotspots get bogged down and/or are throttled? *Security - I actually don't know a single thing about this, someone please help me out on this one.
Obviously you're not going to get everyone to pay, but that's okay. Not only are there those who don't mind paying, remember that there are plenty of places still left with non free WiFi. (I'm talking about people who intentionally leave their AP open)
Just because something is free doesn't mean that it's bad. The failing businesses just didn't do their homework on the market. I was disapointed, though, to see a leading pay WiFi provider spread this piece of FUD:
Mr. Sims said he is not worried about the growth in free hot spots because he believes commercial networks can offer more reliable, more secure Internet access. Free service is fine for casual and periodic use, he said, but "when you absolutely, positively have to get that report downloaded or get access to your company system to conduct business, free probably isn't going to cut it."
Even if that statement is completely false, it will probably hit a chord in that Reliability bullet point above for the "mainstream" user.
I'm not sure that this is a "Tech" story as much as a Business story. The article's basic thesis is that the opportunity for pay WiFi businesses is getting dimmer. That's a message to short the stock of some of these guys or to not go and do my own version of T-Mobile Hotspot.
I think there are some (smaller) opportunities left, though, so I'm interested to hear what kind of niche businesses slashdot readers are profiting from. Final quote, which predicts the commodititization of WiFi:
While Wi-Fi "offers a revenue generating opportunity," he said, "it's real benefit to SBC is as a customer retention and acquisition tool."
Sounds quite a bit like what that Sun guy said about hardware last week.
Re:Rich have a philanthropy disease
on
60GB iPod Coming?
·
· Score: 1
Hard work is not owning a company and then getting lucky enough to retire after having your company bought out.
Have you ever tried to start your own company? And have it succeed?
More likely it is a combination of hard work and luck that brought this grandparent poster fortune.
And even if it is 100% luck, why talk shit about his good fortune? I know that if I had $50mil in the bank, I would be doing philanthropy. Wouldn't you?
reminds me of Ali G - In The House, when he becomes an MP and examines confiscated materials: weed, porn...
my thoughts
on
OQO Examined
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Before you ask "Why?", I listened to a presentation of OQO's business plans and was told that they're aiming for a market of CEOs and folks like pharmaceutical reps (i.e. NOT slashdot readers).
I would be worried, though, about the plan to underproduce in the first year. I think they're going for something like the PT Cruiser, where undersupply is supposed to generate immense demand. I personally don't think that it will be a winning idea for OQO. Maybe for the iPod mini. But one of their competitive advantages is being "first-to-market" (in this particular product space of the ultra-portable) and they'd lose that if they tried to artificially underproduce.
I was told that the price will be $1500 and that it would beta on first-class seats of trans-Atlantic flights this fall. But of course that could all change. These signs all point OQO trying to position itself as a luxury product and thus wouldn't do so well in the mass market.
Interestingly, the presenters suggested that customers would have a desktop, laptop, AND an OQO (i.e. an OQO would not be a replacement for a laptop). I wonder if that is too many gadgets. Personally I will be going for a full featured ultralight laptop (IBM X31 and Sharp MM20 come to mind) instead for that price.
I once heard about this guy from a friend that works for Pepsi. he told me that this guy, a co-worker of his at one time, on a bet, drink six cans of
beer (or one of those similar kind) in just a few minutes (think chug).
He said within 15 minutes, they were rushing him to the emergency room.... don't tell me that stuff doesn't have an effect.
I don't think that either finding is rather surprising.
Slashdot Mirror
Not something to panic about != Something to keep in mind.
I realize you are addressing a larger issue, but look at this tidbit from the Kobe case:
link
"Semen and pubic hair found in underwear the woman wore to the exam does not match Bryant. The defense has said the woman had multiple sexual partners the week of the alleged assault as part of a "scheme" to gain the attention of an ex-boyfriend."
What is really most precious to a woman? Let's move beyond sexual intercourse as the most fucking important thing in the world.
No, there aren't many responsible companies at all, and your post illustrates why. They have higher prices, less effective marketing (because they don't lie like their irresponsible competition), don't get ahead because they don't do unethical backroom deals, etc., so in the end they just go belly-up, and all the irresponsible companies get bigger.
Not really. Some people actually go out of their way to buy from companies that they like. For example, I try to buy Newman's Own products even if they cost a little more since all profits go to charity. You can find analgous cases in software--I'd rather pay a little more for a non-Microsoft product, even if the marketing is a little less effective and the backroom deals aren't there.
Do all consumers think like this? probably not. But here's my data point.
Don't blame this on consumers. We don't have real choice until we have the relevant information.
Then go find some relevant information before you buy the product. Now that you have the relevant information about Netgear, if you don't trust Netgear anymore, don't buy their products.
Every time you buy a product, a service, whatever, there is an implied risk that it won't turn out the way you like it. Tough shit. Take responsibility for your own actions.
You might have missed it, the law said what Microsoft is doing is illegal.
Surely nobody would question it's immoral.
One thing we've learned over the past 4 years is that we have many different ideas of what is "moral" in America. On copyright, on plagarism, on profit, etc, etc.
I am not sure that folks enjoy you imposing your morals upon them.
seems like if you set up a VPN, then you could have it implemented for a Congress, or at a more basic level, a company Board of Directors, thus allowing business to proceed online on a small scale. Of course then the system would prove itself before being released to the general public.
Interesting. I like your lateral thinking.
Your comment just got modded +3 Funny. You realize that I would have missed your post if I took your advice :)
.. there comes a point where all this convenience is deadly to fat guys like me. I'll just stick with putting a CD in my stereo, thanks. North America has so much convenience we're all dropping dead. I even have a remote control to turn on my Exercycle from the couch, so my wife thinks I'm excercising when I'm actually watching Smallville reruns.
Maybe you can get divorced and start having sex again. That would be some good exercise. sexercise.
*Reliability - The ISM band (2.4Hz and 5GHz) is shared spectrum. By it's nature one cannot provide a gurantee of service.
OK. But how do you know that the hot spot will even be on? Paying somebody you trust (i.e. T-Mobile) may improve the chances of this, if you choose correctly.
*Convenience - Maybe, but with so many comrecial providers, one probably has to reconfigure anyway.
Again, the T-Mobile example. They're as ubiquitous as Starbucks.
*Speed - All 802.11 access point share spectrum, so if a free hotspot is bogged, so are the commercial ones.
I'm thinking more about the speed of the pipe. If I set up a free wireless on my ISDN, it's going to be slower than an SDSL line that a commercial provider rents out.
*Security - Most of the free hotspot providers are knowledgeable hobbyists, who know more about wireless security than many so called experts.
Once again, I disclaim all knowledge of Wifi security. But do you care to give examples of your claim?
The basic problem for commercial hotspot providers is that they are trying to make money off a free public resource: the ISM bands. Being commercial hotspot provider is a little like claiming a free lunch, then complaining when others also claim their free lunch instead of buying it from you.
Last time I checked, trying to make a buck is not a problem. For example, you could cross a river by swimming or using your own boat, but sometimes it's more convenient to pay a ferry service to help you out. All that commercial services are really selling is (1) convenience and hand-holding and (2) a service network. The spectrum is there for people to make money off of it, for it drives innovation and progress. Land is a public resource (else it wouldn't be taxed), the radio airwaves are a public resource....people make money off of both and I would argue that for all the problems (ClearChannel) that have come out of this, we've seen an impressive amount of progress.
The minute, though, that someone tries to shut down the concept of free Wifi spots (unthinkable?), I'll be fighting with you.
I agree completely.
And I think the arguments you cited are the reason why we won't see Free Wifi at most airports.
I think many secondary and minor airports will do it, though. (i.e. Long Beach, which is a minor airport near LAX)
What I am looking forward to is Free Wifi on the airplane. the technology is there.
There are actually a few airports that do free wireless. Do a quick search and you'll find them. Since we both agree that this is a business problem, let's look at your particular business case. Is free Wifi a good enough incentive for you to switch airports?
Probably not. Which is why I don't think you'll see Free Wifi at every airport.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that Wifi, relative to many other costs of an airport, is nearly free. But profit-seeking businesses look to charge what the market demands, regardless of how much it costs to meet that demand.
We've seen prices below cost from Microsoft and prices wayyy above cost for...say...porn.
Your example is insightful in the realm of free Wifi in the coffee shop.
But there are more than a few APs being left open by non-commercial providers. Since the article is about New York, NYCWireless is a good example.
Many reasons. For example, a whole lot of information is free, but many people pay for information.
*Reliability - Someone guarantees that it's going to be there for you.
*Convenience - More hot spots. Less time configuring. Paid services are often suited towards the mainstream user--one who might be scared of the prospect of finding hotspots.
*Speed - Don't these free hotspots get bogged down and/or are throttled?
*Security - I actually don't know a single thing about this, someone please help me out on this one.
Obviously you're not going to get everyone to pay, but that's okay. Not only are there those who don't mind paying, remember that there are plenty of places still left with non free WiFi. (I'm talking about people who intentionally leave their AP open)
Just because something is free doesn't mean that it's bad. The failing businesses just didn't do their homework on the market. I was disapointed, though, to see a leading pay WiFi provider spread this piece of FUD:
Mr. Sims said he is not worried about the growth in free hot spots because he believes commercial networks can offer more reliable, more secure Internet access. Free service is fine for casual and periodic use, he said, but "when you absolutely, positively have to get that report downloaded or get access to your company system to conduct business, free probably isn't going to cut it."
Even if that statement is completely false, it will probably hit a chord in that Reliability bullet point above for the "mainstream" user.
I'm not sure that this is a "Tech" story as much as a Business story. The article's basic thesis is that the opportunity for pay WiFi businesses is getting dimmer. That's a message to short the stock of some of these guys or to not go and do my own version of T-Mobile Hotspot.
I think there are some (smaller) opportunities left, though, so I'm interested to hear what kind of niche businesses slashdot readers are profiting from. Final quote, which predicts the commodititization of WiFi:
While Wi-Fi "offers a revenue generating opportunity," he said, "it's real benefit to SBC is as a customer retention and acquisition tool."
Sounds quite a bit like what that Sun guy said about hardware last week.
+5 Honesty
Hard work is not owning a company and then getting lucky enough to retire after having your company bought out.
Have you ever tried to start your own company? And have it succeed?
More likely it is a combination of hard work and luck that brought this grandparent poster fortune.
And even if it is 100% luck, why talk shit about his good fortune? I know that if I had $50mil in the bank, I would be doing philanthropy. Wouldn't you?
Microsoft never innovates or popularizes a single idea!
Hang on while I go install KDE with a taskbar, start menu, integrated filesystem/net browser, Mono, etc....
The parent cuts into the heart of the issue: in the business world, ideas are worthless without execution. It's the execution that matters...
Awesome!
1. Download 20+ GB
2. ???
3. Profit!
Understood, but the minute that you put a cap on your "unlimited" service, please stop calling your service "unlimited".
Comcast, anybody?
let them have the laptop. remember, this is slashdot, where "Information Wants to be Free"
reminds me of Ali G - In The House, when he becomes an MP and examines confiscated materials: weed, porn...
Before you ask "Why?", I listened to a presentation of OQO's business plans and was told that they're aiming for a market of CEOs and folks like pharmaceutical reps (i.e. NOT slashdot readers).
I would be worried, though, about the plan to underproduce in the first year. I think they're going for something like the PT Cruiser, where undersupply is supposed to generate immense demand. I personally don't think that it will be a winning idea for OQO. Maybe for the iPod mini. But one of their competitive advantages is being "first-to-market" (in this particular product space of the ultra-portable) and they'd lose that if they tried to artificially underproduce.
I was told that the price will be $1500 and that it would beta on first-class seats of trans-Atlantic flights this fall. But of course that could all change. These signs all point OQO trying to position itself as a luxury product and thus wouldn't do so well in the mass market.
Interestingly, the presenters suggested that customers would have a desktop, laptop, AND an OQO (i.e. an OQO would not be a replacement for a laptop). I wonder if that is too many gadgets. Personally I will be going for a full featured ultralight laptop (IBM X31 and Sharp MM20 come to mind) instead for that price.
Let me reiterate the most insightful line I've seen in this whole topic from the parent:
Communication will get to the bottom of your issue.
PS: was personally a fan of nvc, but simple honest talking is a great way to start.
If you told your customers to "open a can of WhoopAss", how long do you think they would last?
I don't think that either finding is rather surprising.
I remember in high school watching people drink Red Bull and celebrate the "fact" (Myth) that it included bull testicle extract.