It is obvious that a significant segment of the public ALREADY believes that the Internet is reliable enough, since VoIP services like Vonage, TW Digital Phone, AT&T, etc are selling well and people are DITCHING their much more reliable landline phone service. And I would say they would all say that they rely on their phone service much more than 100% access to a word processor or ebay. Even I would say that my Internet cable modem service is probably about 99% reliable (up time), not 99.9999% yet, but at least 99% -- that's got to be good enough for many folks that want hassle-free, no-maintenance, appliance-style computing.
Despite all the arguments against thiin clients, etc, which I AGREE with for myself, I believe there still IS a market for a thin client/centralized administration style of computing. My parents, now 70+, do need and want to use computing and the Internet, and the web is arguably de rigeur for life in these times. But the notion that my parents can deal with Windows Update, anti-virus software, do needed backups of their data, defend themselves against hackers, understand how to install new apps, etc, etc, is unimagineable. There is NO WAY they will survive. And its been born out... Just last month they had two incidents: their wireless/cable modem router setup got hosed and they were down for a week until one of us could talk them through a fix. Then their printer setup went south and they couldn't print for a month until one of us could visit them and fix it.
It seems to that there IS a perfectly viable market for say 20-50% of the population who want hassle-free, appliance-style computing, even at the expense of a possible loss of privacy.
As far as the argument that the Internet/broadband services aren't reliable ? All you have to do is look at the droves of people moving to VoIP+wireless, dropping their POTS/PSTN service like a hot potato. PLENTY of folks clearly are giving up the obvious higher reliability of landlines for VoIP and wireless as their ONLY phone service, which I'd say at this point they rely upon more heavily than ebay shopping or email or typing out a letter.
It has nothing to do with "terms". The point is that it will be undeniable that MS 1) knew about a serious security flaw for a while, 2) developed a working patch/fix for the flaw, 3) willfully withheld the fix for an unreasonable amount of time and thus did not fulfill its obligation to migitate damages due to its flawed product, and thus would be guilty of gross negligence.
They will be sooo sued if they withhold important security patches for a month and some company's (or other government's!) computers get hacked. The EULA cannot withstand that kind of negligence.
maybe cuz:
1) Using current LCDs a white and a black cost about the same, power-wise...
2) Consumers want content on a white background, like they're used to in the real, non-cyber, world (National Inquirer, Cosmo, etc). Can you imagine reading the NY Times or WSJ on a black background ? Didn't think so...
While their efforts are all well and good, there doesn't sound like there is much substance there when you here that one of the ideas is to resort to an blinking LED when an email arrives.
1) Clearly moving quickly to a display technology that emits light efficiently ONLY WHERE YOU WANT IT, like OLEDs, is much smarter than the current backlit architecture, where you blast an array of FILTERS (devices design to THROW AWAY LIGHT) with a bright uniform backlight. The current LCD technology is about as stupid as it gets when it comes to energy efficiency.
2) I am constantly amazed that no laptop company has yet make a laptop with EXCHANGEABLE displays. There are times, in the dark, where you want a bright color display, BUT there are other times when you would be much happier with a passive/reflective/no backlight display, which, by the way, is far more energy efficient. If I'm working outside, for example, writing a paper or whatever, I really would be happier with a simple STN reflective, LOW POWER, NO BACKLIGHT, perhaps even monochrome LCD (the type on those old Palm V's would be perfect: very high contrast, very low power). So why not have a laptop that you can simply plug in different display screens, depending on your anticipated usage ? I would venture to guess that a standard modern laptop with a TFT and a battery life of 3 hours, would last 6+ hours using a passive STN display.
The fact is that in most daily human environments other than in a movie theater, it is expected that there will be sufficient lighting to read magazines, write postcards, etc, etc. So laptop displays need to take advantage of this, rather than the current (stupid) brute force method of trying to drown out the environmental lighting with a light-producing display.
Seems like you left off some that I don't think you'd contest (or perhaps you would)...
Like research, particularly medical research. The government is currently the largest single funder of medical research through its NIH. Compared with commercially funded medical research, NIH-funded research has yielded the most important discoveries, both fundamental (basic science), and directly clinically relevant. It is one of only now a few areas that the US remains the undisputed global leader by far.
Or commuter transportation, like subways, bus systems, etc. Your criticism of subsidized mass transit neglects the huge benefit that cities derive from the reduction of auto traffic, parking load, pollution, development of local business economies and other factors that make mass transit a good investment when viewing the total economic, social and environmental picture.
I don't want local government providing free wifi on the simple principle that it's not a proper function of government. Government exists only to provide services that cannot be provided by the free market, especially those directly related to government's protective function (i.e., it's legal monopoly on the use of force, namely police, courts, and national defense) to prevent force being used against it's citizens. There's ample evidence that private firms can provide WiFi.
mmm, you mean like EDUCATION ? There's ample evidence that private institutions can provide education. Do you mean like public commuter transportation ? There's ample evidence that private companies can provide commuter transportation. Do you mean like the USPS shipping services ? There's ample evidence that private companies can provide shipping services. Do you mean like medical research ? There's ample evidence that private institutions can conduct medical research.
It doesn't seem to me like your "principle" is followed very closely in our current society, nor is it obvious that we are the worse for it...
I sold a bunch of used CDs for $0.01 each, with $3.50 shipping, plus a smaller fee for each additional CD.
Not referring to your one-of-a-kind used CD auctions.
Go look at the cell phone accessories section. There are hundreds of auctions that all work like this: $0.01 for the item cost, $5.95 or $9.95 for "shipping". The item is typically a leather case, charger, etc that CLEARLY is worth more than 1 cent. The profit is embedded in the "shipping charge". You cannot argue that $0.01 is merely the starting bid, since dozens upon dozens of these auctions END at $0.01 and the sellers keep on selling their items that are worth several dollars for $0.01 PLUS "shipping".
I'm sure this issue, which is the number one black mark wrt ebay in my book, is also what irks a majority of ebay buyers: the common tactic of charging outrageous "shipping/handling" fees prevalent among many sellers.
You've all seen it, from the sometimes hidden, and going from minor to major irritation of charging shipping/handling FAR, FAR beyond the true shipping costs (e.g. $25 to ship an 8oz disk drive), to the totally blatant: Item costs 1 cent, but shipping is $5.95 or $9.95, etc.
I am just totally surprised that ebay continues to let this happen, because not only is it a big, big turnoff for its buyers, plus a huge fraud loophole (oh, I sent you the WRONG thing, ok, here's a refund BUT NO REFUND OF THE "SHIPPING"), but it is a huge loophole in ebay's revenue stream, since ebay doesn't "tax" shipping costs, only item costs (and listing fees), hence the most of the transaction margin in these deals, hidden in the "shipping" costs, goes untaxed.
What is wrong with ebay that it doesn't stop this nonsense ? Enforce REAL shipping costs!
To be fair, Paypal was at least once a separate entity, and of course it had to make money to exist. But what drive's Paypal's fees (besides the usual bookkeeping/admin costs), are credit card fees. Remember that every time a vendor accepts a credit card payment, the VENDOR, not the customer, must pay the credit card company a fee, which generally ranges from 2-5% of the transaction. So Paypal is acting as the vendor so that each seller doesn't have to start up his own merchant CC account. You'll find that Paypal's fees aren't that much higher than the credit card fees alone. But that is also why Paypal started to try to encourage buyers to use their bank accounts to fund transactions, to avoid having to pay the CC fees.
I've been with Paypal since near its beginning and I've always been surprised that its made it since its margins are actually very low. So yeah, Paypal isn't doing that much gouging, at least on this issue... (it has other problems...)
If HomePNA is working well as a "backbone", why change it. Just add wireless AP's coming off the HomePNA where you want to have wireless access.
Actually that is what I do in my home. WiFi couldn't get everywhere so since I had some HomePNA cards around, I just created a HomePNA long distance link with a couple of WiFi nodes at the ends.
All of this falls under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Just as the act guarantees your right to install a Fram air filter in your car without warranty repercussions, it allows you to install Crucial RAM in your Apple computer without Apple being able to deny all subsequent warranty claims.
Sure, but the problems arise when the actual act of introducing a 3rd party product does cause damage. You can get into some pretty difficult to resolve finger pointing. You put XYZ memory into an ABC computer and it blows the power supply. ABC shouldn't have to pay for the blown power supply. XYZ claims that you inserted the memory backwards first, destroying the memory. XYZ claims no fault, no liability. Magnusson-Moss really only protects against out-of-warranty claims due to illegal "tie-ins".
You are refering to international mail. The rest of us are talking about domestic exchanges (mail, SMS, etc). The post office has no need to "balance its books" for domestic mail, for obvious reasons, but those reasons do not apply to domestic SMS between different wireless carriers.
I certainly understand your sentiment, and don't necessarily disagree with it. However, try this on:
You have a basic cell phone rate with no special SMS rate -- however you DID say OK to enabling your phone for SMS on a casual rate basis. A guy who has Verizon decides to send you 100 SMS text messages. Is there ANY reason why Cingular isn't entitled to recover the costs of delivering these 100 SMS message to you ? Cingular didn't get ANY of the fees from the sending operation (Verizon got them). Note that Cingular has NO idea if you know this guy or not, and why should it matter to Cingular if you know this guy -- it still delivered the messages to you just the same.
Now, from your viewpoint, does it matter whether:
1) This guy is your best friend,
2) This guy is your worst enemy,
3) This guy is someone you met once,
4) You don't know this guy, but the messages are meaningful and helpful to you,
5) The messages are total SPAM.
I do think the US carriers should get together and agree not to charge each other for SMS deliveries, and also put into place some rudimentary SPAM-blocking facilities to make sure that SMS SPAM is difficult to send and costly.
So , if understand this correctly,in the US you have to pay for sms you send and recieve,even without knowing that you wanted to recieve that message?
Do you guys also have to pay for recieving post (with a stamp)?
Of course that is not a fair comparison, for the simple reason that the US Post Office, is a single entity that is getting paid for its delivery services, whereas with SMS there is often TWO (or more) entities that are using up resources to deliver the text message. Now you could argue that the carriers SHOULD set up an agreement to not charge each other but just freely deliver text messages, for all customer's benefit. That would be NICE and maybe it will happen someday. But the basic underlying economic principle is that you should get charged any time something costs resources. Otherwise, that service become easy to abuse and the company will not get cost-recovery.
on the condition that they keep enough credit to always be able to call us (we return the calls).
Unless you have an incoming calls free rate (Nextel), don't see how calling them back on their cell phone helps at all, since most carriers charge for airtime regardless of "incoming" or "outgoing".
it is not OK for companies to set arbitrary and complicated pricing schemes and trap customers in it.
I don't think 10 cents a message can be considered "arbitrary and complicated".
At some point, the carrier should have done an automatic "courtesy upgrade".
Do you know of ANY common service that works this way ? If you bring 12 individual cans of Coke to the cashier at the supermarket, do you expect the cashier to say: "Gee each can costs 75 cents, but a twelve pack only costs $4. I'm going to automatically charge you as if you are buying the 12-pack." ?!?
You end up calling Europe 10 times this month because your uncle has fallen ill. The costs are astronomical. Do you expect your phone company to step in and say, "Well if you had only adopted our Int'l rate plan for $5/mo, you would have cut your bill by 90%. In fact, we are going to ASSUME that is what you would have wanted to do, so we are AUTOMATICALLY signing you up for this OPTION and knock your bill down AS IF YOU ALREADY had this option." ?!?
The fact is that even if a company is trying to save a customer money (questionable why it should) IT CANNOT ASSUME that you would have wanted to add a feature option like unlimited SMS for $10/mo as a continuing monthly cost, which often comes with CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. YOU must agree to taking on new services and contracts. I definitely don't want companies adding new options to my service plan without asking me, EVEN if it might save me money FOR THAT MONTH.
So then, your argument reduces to, "Well companies simply shouldn't charge that much for SMS. They should put a cap of $10-20." Well fine, go ahead and try to convince a company that that is in its best interest.
The whole issue is Darwinian anyways. People too stupid or undisciplined to regulate their spending NEED to be held responsible for their actions. There is nothing even remotely necessities-of-life about SMS anyways, it is a total LUXURY.
Nothing new here. In my days as a college student, it was long distance charges, primarily to LD girl friends and boy friends. People would ring up $150-200/mo LD charges, which, 20 years ago, is probably similar to $800/mo today (certainly tuition is > 4X today in numerical dollars than 20 years ago...)
These days with LD charges included in cell phone rates, unlimited nights and weekends, and low LD landline rates, I doubt any college students (anybody smart anyways), has such high LD phone charges. So the phone companies simply needed to shift the source of the revenue stream...
The article has some reasonable points and certainly it is possible that some fraction of the population would be content with some form of thin client managed by a remote company. Certainly businesses should be strongly moving in that direction for many of their needs. Indeed many use PC's now only because of habit or because they're still the cheapest. But they really use these PC more like thin clients. They Ghost the disk, MS Office might live on the local disk, but all work files live on the file server and the work flow wouldn't be altered one iota if replaced by a thin client. If the PC fails, they replace it with another with identical Ghost'd disk, i.e. without regard to recovering the contents of the old disk, because there is nothing there, its all on the file server. Again, it might as well have been a thin client.
However despite increasing bandwidth out to the Internet as a compelling force, equally powerful trends suggested the continued importance and popularity of the home PC. Most of these trends can be summed up as needing even higher bandwidth locally, as well as needing specific interfacing of other devices, both of which aren't likely to be reasonably handled by some form of thin client. For example, all the reasons to burn personalized CDs or DVDs. It is not likely that burning CDs or DVDs would happen straight over the Internet without some kind of fast local store (i.e. hard disk). Another is interfacing digital and video cameras and editing those results. Again it doesn't seem reasonable to build a thin client to interface these device just to ship the many gigs of data (particularly video) out over the Internet to a remote fileserver and, worse, to perform editing against the remote fileserver -- these applications, popular on the home front, pretty much dictate a home PC-like architecture with fast, large local file store.
Undoubtedly many others will come up, because the same kinds of advancing technology that permits higher bandwidths to the Internet, also provide even higher bandwidth needing applications locally. And the reason why thin clients have yet to take off among the general population is simply that hard disks are so cheap, so the difference between the cost of a PC and a thin client is very small and yet one gives up all the flexibility, etc. For many, this situation is likely to continue.
Actually the argument is rather similar to arguments for and against the future of distributable home entertainment media vs just using big pipes. Does anyone think that we won't have media like CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, PS2 games, etc in the future. Why not distribute all music and movies and video games via big pipes ? Why have a PS2 or Xbox or GC in the future, or an HD-DVD player ? Just use a thin client... Some of the same reasons why...
Carol: I just hate driving down to your 'rents for Xmas, honey. The traffic on 95 is horrible, particularly at the Delaware Bridge...
Bob: I've got an idea... an hour before we leave, I'll just hack in a traffic report of a huge accident so that cars will re-route. It will be clear sailing for us!
Carole: Oh, Bob... You're such a hot stud. I'm so glad I married Geek...
Well, what's happening in those self-winding watches is that the motions of your wrist through-out the day can transfer much greater mechanical energy than it takes to move those tiny little watch hands over the same time period. The energy is captured by a unbalanced flywheel and stored in a spring.
In the case of the mouse, it is unlikely that you could generate and capture enough energy to power a mouse. You would also have to factor in the very poor efficiency of converting mechanical to electrical energy (maybe 30%). Then you'd have to have batteries in there anyways to provide energy when the mouse is not moving. I think you'd be better off charging up these batteries in other ways. Like how about using several high powered 860nm IR LED's to power solar cells on the mouse (but solar cells are about 20% efficient).
Slashdot Mirror
It is obvious that a significant segment of the public ALREADY believes that the Internet is reliable enough, since VoIP services like Vonage, TW Digital Phone, AT&T, etc are selling well and people are DITCHING their much more reliable landline phone service. And I would say they would all say that they rely on their phone service much more than 100% access to a word processor or ebay. Even I would say that my Internet cable modem service is probably about 99% reliable (up time), not 99.9999% yet, but at least 99% -- that's got to be good enough for many folks that want hassle-free, no-maintenance, appliance-style computing.
Despite all the arguments against thiin clients, etc, which I AGREE with for myself, I believe there still IS a market for a thin client/centralized administration style of computing. My parents, now 70+, do need and want to use computing and the Internet, and the web is arguably de rigeur for life in these times. But the notion that my parents can deal with Windows Update, anti-virus software, do needed backups of their data, defend themselves against hackers, understand how to install new apps, etc, etc, is unimagineable. There is NO WAY they will survive. And its been born out... Just last month they had two incidents: their wireless/cable modem router setup got hosed and they were down for a week until one of us could talk them through a fix. Then their printer setup went south and they couldn't print for a month until one of us could visit them and fix it.
It seems to that there IS a perfectly viable market for say 20-50% of the population who want hassle-free, appliance-style computing, even at the expense of a possible loss of privacy.
As far as the argument that the Internet/broadband services aren't reliable ? All you have to do is look at the droves of people moving to VoIP+wireless, dropping their POTS/PSTN service like a hot potato. PLENTY of folks clearly are giving up the obvious higher reliability of landlines for VoIP and wireless as their ONLY phone service, which I'd say at this point they rely upon more heavily than ebay shopping or email or typing out a letter.
It has nothing to do with "terms". The point is that it will be undeniable that MS 1) knew about a serious security flaw for a while, 2) developed a working patch/fix for the flaw, 3) willfully withheld the fix for an unreasonable amount of time and thus did not fulfill its obligation to migitate damages due to its flawed product, and thus would be guilty of gross negligence.
They will be sooo sued if they withhold important security patches for a month and some company's (or other government's!) computers get hacked. The EULA cannot withstand that kind of negligence.
Nor should the US gov't allow such tactics.
maybe cuz:
1) Using current LCDs a white and a black cost about the same, power-wise...
2) Consumers want content on a white background, like they're used to in the real, non-cyber, world (National Inquirer, Cosmo, etc). Can you imagine reading the NY Times or WSJ on a black background ? Didn't think so...
1) Clearly moving quickly to a display technology that emits light efficiently ONLY WHERE YOU WANT IT, like OLEDs, is much smarter than the current backlit architecture, where you blast an array of FILTERS (devices design to THROW AWAY LIGHT) with a bright uniform backlight. The current LCD technology is about as stupid as it gets when it comes to energy efficiency.
2) I am constantly amazed that no laptop company has yet make a laptop with EXCHANGEABLE displays. There are times, in the dark, where you want a bright color display, BUT there are other times when you would be much happier with a passive/reflective/no backlight display, which, by the way, is far more energy efficient. If I'm working outside, for example, writing a paper or whatever, I really would be happier with a simple STN reflective, LOW POWER, NO BACKLIGHT, perhaps even monochrome LCD (the type on those old Palm V's would be perfect: very high contrast, very low power). So why not have a laptop that you can simply plug in different display screens, depending on your anticipated usage ? I would venture to guess that a standard modern laptop with a TFT and a battery life of 3 hours, would last 6+ hours using a passive STN display.
The fact is that in most daily human environments other than in a movie theater, it is expected that there will be sufficient lighting to read magazines, write postcards, etc, etc. So laptop displays need to take advantage of this, rather than the current (stupid) brute force method of trying to drown out the environmental lighting with a light-producing display.
Like research, particularly medical research. The government is currently the largest single funder of medical research through its NIH. Compared with commercially funded medical research, NIH-funded research has yielded the most important discoveries, both fundamental (basic science), and directly clinically relevant. It is one of only now a few areas that the US remains the undisputed global leader by far.
Or commuter transportation, like subways, bus systems, etc. Your criticism of subsidized mass transit neglects the huge benefit that cities derive from the reduction of auto traffic, parking load, pollution, development of local business economies and other factors that make mass transit a good investment when viewing the total economic, social and environmental picture.
It doesn't seem to me like your "principle" is followed very closely in our current society, nor is it obvious that we are the worse for it...
Go look at the cell phone accessories section. There are hundreds of auctions that all work like this: $0.01 for the item cost, $5.95 or $9.95 for "shipping". The item is typically a leather case, charger, etc that CLEARLY is worth more than 1 cent. The profit is embedded in the "shipping charge". You cannot argue that $0.01 is merely the starting bid, since dozens upon dozens of these auctions END at $0.01 and the sellers keep on selling their items that are worth several dollars for $0.01 PLUS "shipping".
I'm sure this issue, which is the number one black mark wrt ebay in my book, is also what irks a majority of ebay buyers: the common tactic of charging outrageous "shipping/handling" fees prevalent among many sellers.
You've all seen it, from the sometimes hidden, and going from minor to major irritation of charging shipping/handling FAR, FAR beyond the true shipping costs (e.g. $25 to ship an 8oz disk drive), to the totally blatant: Item costs 1 cent, but shipping is $5.95 or $9.95, etc.
I am just totally surprised that ebay continues to let this happen, because not only is it a big, big turnoff for its buyers, plus a huge fraud loophole (oh, I sent you the WRONG thing, ok, here's a refund BUT NO REFUND OF THE "SHIPPING"), but it is a huge loophole in ebay's revenue stream, since ebay doesn't "tax" shipping costs, only item costs (and listing fees), hence the most of the transaction margin in these deals, hidden in the "shipping" costs, goes untaxed.
What is wrong with ebay that it doesn't stop this nonsense ? Enforce REAL shipping costs!
I've been with Paypal since near its beginning and I've always been surprised that its made it since its margins are actually very low. So yeah, Paypal isn't doing that much gouging, at least on this issue... (it has other problems...)
If HomePNA is working well as a "backbone", why change it. Just add wireless AP's coming off the HomePNA where you want to have wireless access.
Actually that is what I do in my home. WiFi couldn't get everywhere so since I had some HomePNA cards around, I just created a HomePNA long distance link with a couple of WiFi nodes at the ends.
You haven't lived until you've seen Robyn Byrd prancing around in her tiny bikini to the sounds of "Baby, Let me Bang your Box"...
You are refering to international mail. The rest of us are talking about domestic exchanges (mail, SMS, etc). The post office has no need to "balance its books" for domestic mail, for obvious reasons, but those reasons do not apply to domestic SMS between different wireless carriers.
You have a basic cell phone rate with no special SMS rate -- however you DID say OK to enabling your phone for SMS on a casual rate basis. A guy who has Verizon decides to send you 100 SMS text messages. Is there ANY reason why Cingular isn't entitled to recover the costs of delivering these 100 SMS message to you ? Cingular didn't get ANY of the fees from the sending operation (Verizon got them). Note that Cingular has NO idea if you know this guy or not, and why should it matter to Cingular if you know this guy -- it still delivered the messages to you just the same.
Now, from your viewpoint, does it matter whether:
1) This guy is your best friend,
2) This guy is your worst enemy,
3) This guy is someone you met once,
4) You don't know this guy, but the messages are meaningful and helpful to you,
5) The messages are total SPAM.
I do think the US carriers should get together and agree not to charge each other for SMS deliveries, and also put into place some rudimentary SPAM-blocking facilities to make sure that SMS SPAM is difficult to send and costly.
Do you guys also have to pay for recieving post (with a stamp)?
Of course that is not a fair comparison, for the simple reason that the US Post Office, is a single entity that is getting paid for its delivery services, whereas with SMS there is often TWO (or more) entities that are using up resources to deliver the text message. Now you could argue that the carriers SHOULD set up an agreement to not charge each other but just freely deliver text messages, for all customer's benefit. That would be NICE and maybe it will happen someday. But the basic underlying economic principle is that you should get charged any time something costs resources. Otherwise, that service become easy to abuse and the company will not get cost-recovery.
Unless you have an incoming calls free rate (Nextel), don't see how calling them back on their cell phone helps at all, since most carriers charge for airtime regardless of "incoming" or "outgoing".
I don't think 10 cents a message can be considered "arbitrary and complicated".
At some point, the carrier should have done an automatic "courtesy upgrade".
Do you know of ANY common service that works this way ? If you bring 12 individual cans of Coke to the cashier at the supermarket, do you expect the cashier to say: "Gee each can costs 75 cents, but a twelve pack only costs $4. I'm going to automatically charge you as if you are buying the 12-pack." ?!?
You end up calling Europe 10 times this month because your uncle has fallen ill. The costs are astronomical. Do you expect your phone company to step in and say, "Well if you had only adopted our Int'l rate plan for $5/mo, you would have cut your bill by 90%. In fact, we are going to ASSUME that is what you would have wanted to do, so we are AUTOMATICALLY signing you up for this OPTION and knock your bill down AS IF YOU ALREADY had this option." ?!?
The fact is that even if a company is trying to save a customer money (questionable why it should) IT CANNOT ASSUME that you would have wanted to add a feature option like unlimited SMS for $10/mo as a continuing monthly cost, which often comes with CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. YOU must agree to taking on new services and contracts. I definitely don't want companies adding new options to my service plan without asking me, EVEN if it might save me money FOR THAT MONTH.
So then, your argument reduces to, "Well companies simply shouldn't charge that much for SMS. They should put a cap of $10-20." Well fine, go ahead and try to convince a company that that is in its best interest.
The whole issue is Darwinian anyways. People too stupid or undisciplined to regulate their spending NEED to be held responsible for their actions. There is nothing even remotely necessities-of-life about SMS anyways, it is a total LUXURY.
These days with LD charges included in cell phone rates, unlimited nights and weekends, and low LD landline rates, I doubt any college students (anybody smart anyways), has such high LD phone charges. So the phone companies simply needed to shift the source of the revenue stream...
However despite increasing bandwidth out to the Internet as a compelling force, equally powerful trends suggested the continued importance and popularity of the home PC. Most of these trends can be summed up as needing even higher bandwidth locally, as well as needing specific interfacing of other devices, both of which aren't likely to be reasonably handled by some form of thin client. For example, all the reasons to burn personalized CDs or DVDs. It is not likely that burning CDs or DVDs would happen straight over the Internet without some kind of fast local store (i.e. hard disk). Another is interfacing digital and video cameras and editing those results. Again it doesn't seem reasonable to build a thin client to interface these device just to ship the many gigs of data (particularly video) out over the Internet to a remote fileserver and, worse, to perform editing against the remote fileserver -- these applications, popular on the home front, pretty much dictate a home PC-like architecture with fast, large local file store.
Undoubtedly many others will come up, because the same kinds of advancing technology that permits higher bandwidths to the Internet, also provide even higher bandwidth needing applications locally. And the reason why thin clients have yet to take off among the general population is simply that hard disks are so cheap, so the difference between the cost of a PC and a thin client is very small and yet one gives up all the flexibility, etc. For many, this situation is likely to continue.
Actually the argument is rather similar to arguments for and against the future of distributable home entertainment media vs just using big pipes. Does anyone think that we won't have media like CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, PS2 games, etc in the future. Why not distribute all music and movies and video games via big pipes ? Why have a PS2 or Xbox or GC in the future, or an HD-DVD player ? Just use a thin client... Some of the same reasons why...
glad someone caught that... Bob's still a stud after 30 years ... he's been buying some of that spam Vi* gra, Levitr* and Ci@lis...
Carol: I just hate driving down to your 'rents for Xmas, honey. The traffic on 95 is horrible, particularly at the Delaware Bridge...
Bob: I've got an idea... an hour before we leave, I'll just hack in a traffic report of a huge accident so that cars will re-route. It will be clear sailing for us!
Carole: Oh, Bob... You're such a hot stud. I'm so glad I married Geek...
If that bothers you, try it as viola!...
Let me see you fiddle with that...
In the case of the mouse, it is unlikely that you could generate and capture enough energy to power a mouse. You would also have to factor in the very poor efficiency of converting mechanical to electrical energy (maybe 30%). Then you'd have to have batteries in there anyways to provide energy when the mouse is not moving. I think you'd be better off charging up these batteries in other ways. Like how about using several high powered 860nm IR LED's to power solar cells on the mouse (but solar cells are about 20% efficient).