"However Twitter (and Facebook, Gmail, etc) are FREE services"
No, you still have to pay for ISP usage and/or electricity usage and for a computer/laptop, etc...
Paper can be used to aid terrorism since they can use it to communicate, and paper is cheap too.
and what if a church gave food to the needy around its neighborhood and one of the people it was giving free food just so happens to be a terrorist.
What if some promotional band gave away free flashlights and a terrorist used it for the wrong reasons.
Just because something is given for free and is then misused doesn't mean the person who gave it away should be liable.
Twitter etal is FREE as far as Twitter doesn't charge the user for that service. ISP costs are completely irrelevant to the issue, which concerns whether Twitter (not the ISP, power co. etc) is supporting terrorism.
Also you are say *should* (not be liable), what we are discussing is what the law says, not what should be. And yes, if a church is giving away free food, and terrorist happen to benefit, the church *could* be charged for supporting terrorism, UNDER the LAW. "should" is an entirely different issue... a fairly nuanced one, as is the definition of a "terrorist".
please note that I don't agree with this law, certainly not as written, but then I don't agree with a lot of the recent "anti-terrorist" laws as written, but I (mostly we the people), don't count...
the keyword here is SUPPORT. Phones, mail services, SMS, etc are all fee-for-service and therefore if a terrorist uses them, he/she pays. No special "support". However Twitter (and Facebook, Gmail, etc) are FREE services, which means that the service is GIVING them a service, hence SUPPORT. If the group is identifyable, then Twitter could be liable.
If Twitter wanted to argue this, they might have to show they the services aren't really free but just paid for by everyone (including the terrorists) in other ways, hence no "support" from Twitter. Still might not be enough, might not pass the test...
No, actually ISPs are NOT common carriers (yet). They are defined as "information services". Apparently ISPs actually *want* not to be common carriers because it means they can grab more money from customers, shape, throttle and generally violate net neutrality in ways that a common carrier would not be allowed to do.
Apparently ISPs would rather take the risk and be exposed (liable) for what its customers do in exchange for the freedoms (and abuses) that come with NOT being common carriers. But all it might take is an actual terrorist event where an ISP *is* held accountable, for ISPs to retreat back to common carrier status. Of course, they probably figure that they have Congress in their pockets so that that would never happen (i.e. they want their cake and eat it too... they want the protections of common carrier status, its non-liable features, but without the constraints that would limit their revenue generating power)
This is as bad as when the phone company charged $4 a month for "touch tone service" when it actually costs them less to provide it than to deal with pulse dialing.
I always thought it was more egregious for them to charge for NOT listing your number, rather than for listing it. When asked, reps always gave some lame excuse, like it costs money to flag to remove the listing entry...
The modern day equivalent would be getting charged $0.10 or more to send SMS text msgs, which costs the carrier nothing. Or being charged to fetch your voicemail even though M2M calls (within network calls) are free. Or Sprint's lovely policy of forcing you to sign a 2 year contract even if you bring your own phone -- despite the justification for ETF's and contracts being handset subsidies...
Does current time code even have the sufficient smarts currently to handle specific countries CHANGING their TZ on a particular date?
Yes. Linux/Unix has a long history of tracking timezone changes for specific countries, states, provinces, etc. It's called the Olsen Timzone Database.
The solution to all of this, of course, is recording time as UTC and converting it for proper display depending on context.
Since Samoa and Tokelau are skipping a day, this is a "spring-forward" scenario - which is very easy to calculate.
ok, but the question is whether existing code in routine use (Unix: date(1), ctime(3), and similar functions in Windows), actually makes use of this database and regularly gets updates from this DB.
Sure the display from UTC is relatively easy, although is currently deploy code (OS's, applications, etc in common use), *already* set up to handle this? But going from dates to UTC is somewhat more tricky. What do commonly used OSs, apps, do about a user that is entering NONEXISTENT dates, like Dec 30, 2011 *in that locality* (but not necessarily in the locality of the user)? I guess dates are meaningless unless accompanied by the locality of the date.
yup, worse than Y2K I would imagine. It is going to be a horror show from a tech/accounting POV, for those countries and for anyone globally that cares to ever know about or interact with them.
off hand, for Unix types, you'll have to know not only what timezone, but also the exact locality to get the calendar right. Does current time code even have the sufficient smarts currently to handle specific countries CHANGING their TZ on a particular date? I kinda doubt it...
I completely don't understand the OP's mentality, but perhaps that's because I've been an exempt employee ever since college. I think the OP has completely handled it wrong. 1) I don't understand not doing any and everything thing I can to do the best possible job, even if it means "performing above my skill grade" or "pay grade", whatever that means. Just do the best job you can, sheesh. 2) doing this thing after hours, using your own equipment now really makes this complicated, because now you really feel like you'll need to get paid on the side for this. Never should have done that. You've created a difficult situation here, instead of an opportunity to be a great employee with all the positive things that might have come from this.
Despite what consumer spending numbers might tell you, it is also quite obvious that huge numbers of US consumers are willing and apparently have the means to spend many $1000's/yr on iPhones, iPads, pricey wireless contracts, expensive cable TV services and many other "luxury" items. All that stuff adds up quickly to many $1000's/yr... so there *is* plenty of spending and disposable income around...
No one company should own any kind of spectrum for communications. It should be *licensed* from the government, with licensing fees paid yearly. Multiple companies can use the same spectrum for the same purpose. Hell, the towers used today ought to be considered standard infrastructure like utility lines, telephone lines, etc... Revert to common carrier status and anyone can use anyone else's - that way all the different companies can invest in upgrading, all using the same protocols, same bandwidth, etc... Then it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as each company maintaining their own...
Sheesh - they did it 30+ years ago with telephone companies... Time to do it again with cellular companies...
"owns" *means* licensed from the gov't now...
I don't see what you mean about landlines, which *are* owned by only a few large carriers.
Mostly I don't see what you mean by multiple carriers can use the same spectrum. And SOME POINT or level of granularity, there has to be exclusivity of use. Even Ethernet works that way. Only ONE carrier signal can be running at that level of granularity, be it in time, space, frequency band, locality, etc. Therefore there MUST be SOME amount of dividing up between the carriers. I don't think you solve much if you push this level of exclusivity below frequency bands and into channels or time slots or whatever -- still will have the same problems.
And you don't really address how the tower infrastructure would be paid for and maintained, nevermind any incentive for upgrading. Are you saying the gov't should pay for all intrastructure (then license out slot/localities)? gawd. Or all carriers should "chip in" (into what? and in what proportion?)
I don't see a coherent workable solution in your post here. But I do agree that wireless carriers SHOULD revert to common carrier status, instead of this silly "information service" nonsense. Of course I also believe in net neutrality, but the carriers don't...
That's a stupid idea... AT&T would have gotten approval for this spectrum purchase WITHOUT the Tmo debacle. See that Verizon is probably getting approval for a large $3+B spectrum purchase from the cablecos.
The idea that the Tmo debacle, for which AT&T is paying $4B for its FAILURE, was a strategy to get this $2B spectrum purchase approved is just silly... (total price tag of $6B? lol)
How about the fact that Newark, JFK (and LGA) serve GREATLY overlapping populations... that's pretty much a divide by three right there...
then, the big US airlines: AA (hubs Chicago, which has Midway, and DFW, but that's east/west), United (also Chicago, and Denver east/west), and Delta (ATL). So its no surprise that Chicago is at least number two, but it has Midway. ATL is number one...
Is Qualcomm's spectrum something that can be used by either GSM or CDMA carriers? I am surprised that anything Qualcomm does would be of any use to GSM carriers like AT&T or T-Mobile. If Qualcomm needed to sell, one would have thought that they'd sell to Sprint or Verizon.
Or is this totally unrelated to whether the carrier is a CDMA or a GSM carrier?
1) it is *totally* unrelated to CDMA vs GSM. 2) You haven't kept up with wireless and GSM very much. ALL modern wireless technology HEAVILY uses Qualcomm technology and patents, including if not especially GSM (post-GSM). 3G "GSM" is WCDMA, which is just a modification of CDMA. Qualcomm makes a ton of money off BOTH CDMA and GSM (and LTE), nevermind the money they make from the chipsets that most handset manufs use.
the coming duopoly of the Baby Bells, also the prime holders of the cellular bands (850Mhz), drives home the answer to the question posed in the '90's:
Can upstart carriers who did not benefit from the massive cellular band giveway survive and overcome the market and technical obstacles presented by the spectrum resources they could acquire. Just how much of a headstart and intrinsic advantage did the cellular carriers get?
Through a gradual series of buyouts and mergers, the BabyBells (AT&T and Verizon) now have near total control over the cellular bands (850Mhz), spectrum that was given away initial (not paid for), and has tremendous inherent advantages in terms of coverage (distance) and building penetration, when compared with the PCS bands (1900Mhz), the primary bands that Sprint and Tmobile were forced to buy and utilize (they didn't get free spectrum and were not able to get any 850Mhz spectrum).
The struggles of Sprint and Tmobile, the primary PCS carriers in US, make the answer now extremely clear: The PCS carriers never really had a chance against the cellular carriers who happen to also be Baby Bells with the deep landline pockets.
Between this $2B spectrum purchase by AT&T and the $3+B spectrum purchase from the cablecos by Verizon, it is quite clear (if it wasn't before), that we in the US are lumbering towards a wireless duopoly, held by the former BabyBells. Sprint and Tmobile (if it will exist in the near future, which it probably won't), are all but doomed -- there is no way they will be able to effectively compete, nevermind survival a direct squeeze/war by the BabyBells, if and when they choose (probably under some Repub administration).
It will be surprising, in 5-10 years, not to have much higher prices and many fewer choices... (sigh)...
A fuel cell running that long is likely a based on a solid and oxygen and not on a liquid.
no... the FC most considered to be currently practical and immediately marketable (like next year), is based on methanol (a liquid). You can just pour in fresh methanol to recharge the FC. Of course its a fire hazard (although it can be mixed with water to reduce its flammability).
TSA and FAA regulations already prohibit spare lithium batteries from being packed in baggage. Anything similar with an even higher energy density would also be prohibited unless one could show there is no way to release the energy quickly (explosion or flammable). But it can't be too slow since laptops need high current (low internal resistance), so only a very narrow range of properties would be acceptable as a long-life high energy power source that cannot be exploited as a bomb or at least a firestarter.
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
Then start a business and see if you're right. I suspect Dell knows a bit more about this than you're guessing they do.
-jcr
just because at this moment I'm unwilling to "start a business" doesn't mean that I'm not right...
And as far as Dell "knowing more", you'd think so, but then look at the boneheaded moves of HP in recent months, or see how well companies like Gateway, once high flyers in the PC business, are doing. Just because they are in the business doesn't mean that they know what they are doing or aren't prone to making huge, huge mistakes.
I just ordered another ASUS EEE... they were HARD to find... all sold out everywhere. Not going to convince me there is no market for sub $300 laptops or netbooks. This is Dell's failing, not the lack of a market...
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
So you're saying that Dell's army of market researchers and experts was a waste, and they should have just come to ask you?
mmm, sure... yes. I am certainly saying that Dell is wrong about the netbook (and tablet) market. And surely you are NOT saying that Dell's "army of market researchers" is any more infallible than HP's army of market researchers that ended up losing $3B+ for HP on webOS and Palm and created the whole TouchPad fiasco and nearly led HP into oblivion by deciding to sell off HP's PC division. Dell could never be as stupid as those guys, right? But even HP is still in the netbook and tablet market...
as I said in the title, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Dell is in trouble some day soon...
Re:next we'll hear that Dell is in trouble...
on
Dell Ditches Netbooks
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have owned a couple of Toshiba Portégés over the years, so I do have a Z830 on my shopping list. However, my point was that Dell has nothing at that level. I can understand that 1.1kg might be extreme, but Intel's Ultrabook specs call for a maximum of 1.3kg and Dell can't even match that weight.
I have had many Porteges. Not one could hold a candle to my ASUS EEE's 8 hour battery life. Not even close.
Show me a laptop/notebook that costs $250 or less and has an 8 hour battery life and weighs 1kg and *then* I'll believe that netbooks are worthless...
At this point, you'd be more accurate (still not accurate though), to say that the iPad killed the TABLET market. The netbook market is still very much alive...
And Dell killed the Dell tablet and netbook market... doesn't mean that either the tablet *or* netbook market is dead, just that Dell is...
First no tablets, then no netbooks from Dell? Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops. I realize that Dell wasn't a big presences in either market, but that's Dell's failing, not a measure of the market and demand itself...
Slashdot Mirror
so you mean that if I go to Samoa today, fired up a Unix/Linux/BSD and type "cal 12 2011", I will get this:
$ cal 12 2011
December 2011
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 31
And date 201112300000?
$ date 201112300000
Non-existent date
"interesting" really? sheesh...
"air" is not an entity that under a liable party's control is lending [b]material support[/b] to terrorists...
"However Twitter (and Facebook, Gmail, etc) are FREE services"
No, you still have to pay for ISP usage and/or electricity usage and for a computer/laptop, etc...
Paper can be used to aid terrorism since they can use it to communicate, and paper is cheap too.
and what if a church gave food to the needy around its neighborhood and one of the people it was giving free food just so happens to be a terrorist.
What if some promotional band gave away free flashlights and a terrorist used it for the wrong reasons.
Just because something is given for free and is then misused doesn't mean the person who gave it away should be liable.
Twitter etal is FREE as far as Twitter doesn't charge the user for that service. ISP costs are completely irrelevant to the issue, which concerns whether Twitter (not the ISP, power co. etc) is supporting terrorism.
Also you are say *should* (not be liable), what we are discussing is what the law says, not what should be. And yes, if a church is giving away free food, and terrorist happen to benefit, the church *could* be charged for supporting terrorism, UNDER the LAW. "should" is an entirely different issue... a fairly nuanced one, as is the definition of a "terrorist".
please note that I don't agree with this law, certainly not as written, but then I don't agree with a lot of the recent "anti-terrorist" laws as written, but I (mostly we the people), don't count...
the keyword here is SUPPORT. Phones, mail services, SMS, etc are all fee-for-service and therefore if a terrorist uses them, he/she pays. No special "support". However Twitter (and Facebook, Gmail, etc) are FREE services, which means that the service is GIVING them a service, hence SUPPORT. If the group is identifyable, then Twitter could be liable.
If Twitter wanted to argue this, they might have to show they the services aren't really free but just paid for by everyone (including the terrorists) in other ways, hence no "support" from Twitter. Still might not be enough, might not pass the test...
No, actually ISPs are NOT common carriers (yet). They are defined as "information services". Apparently ISPs actually *want* not to be common carriers because it means they can grab more money from customers, shape, throttle and generally violate net neutrality in ways that a common carrier would not be allowed to do.
Apparently ISPs would rather take the risk and be exposed (liable) for what its customers do in exchange for the freedoms (and abuses) that come with NOT being common carriers. But all it might take is an actual terrorist event where an ISP *is* held accountable, for ISPs to retreat back to common carrier status. Of course, they probably figure that they have Congress in their pockets so that that would never happen (i.e. they want their cake and eat it too... they want the protections of common carrier status, its non-liable features, but without the constraints that would limit their revenue generating power)
Doesn't the IRS charge you an extra fee if you want to pay your taxes by credit card?
Also I believe many colleges charge an extra fee if you pay tuition by credit card...
This is as bad as when the phone company charged $4 a month for "touch tone service" when it actually costs them less to provide it than to deal with pulse dialing.
I always thought it was more egregious for them to charge for NOT listing your number, rather than for listing it. When asked, reps always gave some lame excuse, like it costs money to flag to remove the listing entry...
The modern day equivalent would be getting charged $0.10 or more to send SMS text msgs, which costs the carrier nothing. Or being charged to fetch your voicemail even though M2M calls (within network calls) are free. Or Sprint's lovely policy of forcing you to sign a 2 year contract even if you bring your own phone -- despite the justification for ETF's and contracts being handset subsidies...
Does current time code even have the sufficient smarts currently to handle specific countries CHANGING their TZ on a particular date?
Yes. Linux/Unix has a long history of tracking timezone changes for specific countries, states, provinces, etc. It's called the Olsen Timzone Database.
The solution to all of this, of course, is recording time as UTC and converting it for proper display depending on context.
Since Samoa and Tokelau are skipping a day, this is a "spring-forward" scenario - which is very easy to calculate.
ok, but the question is whether existing code in routine use (Unix: date(1), ctime(3), and similar functions in Windows), actually makes use of this database and regularly gets updates from this DB.
Sure the display from UTC is relatively easy, although is currently deploy code (OS's, applications, etc in common use), *already* set up to handle this? But going from dates to UTC is somewhat more tricky. What do commonly used OSs, apps, do about a user that is entering NONEXISTENT dates, like Dec 30, 2011 *in that locality* (but not necessarily in the locality of the user)? I guess dates are meaningless unless accompanied by the locality of the date.
yup, worse than Y2K I would imagine. It is going to be a horror show from a tech/accounting POV, for those countries and for anyone globally that cares to ever know about or interact with them.
off hand, for Unix types, you'll have to know not only what timezone, but also the exact locality to get the calendar right. Does current time code even have the sufficient smarts currently to handle specific countries CHANGING their TZ on a particular date? I kinda doubt it...
I completely don't understand the OP's mentality, but perhaps that's because I've been an exempt employee ever since college. I think the OP has completely handled it wrong. 1) I don't understand not doing any and everything thing I can to do the best possible job, even if it means "performing above my skill grade" or "pay grade", whatever that means. Just do the best job you can, sheesh. 2) doing this thing after hours, using your own equipment now really makes this complicated, because now you really feel like you'll need to get paid on the side for this. Never should have done that. You've created a difficult situation here, instead of an opportunity to be a great employee with all the positive things that might have come from this.
Despite what consumer spending numbers might tell you, it is also quite obvious that huge numbers of US consumers are willing and apparently have the means to spend many $1000's/yr on iPhones, iPads, pricey wireless contracts, expensive cable TV services and many other "luxury" items. All that stuff adds up quickly to many $1000's/yr... so there *is* plenty of spending and disposable income around...
No one company should own any kind of spectrum for communications. It should be *licensed* from the government, with licensing fees paid yearly.
Multiple companies can use the same spectrum for the same purpose. Hell, the towers used today ought to be considered standard infrastructure like utility lines, telephone lines, etc... Revert to common carrier status and anyone can use anyone else's - that way all the different companies can invest in upgrading, all using the same protocols, same bandwidth, etc... Then it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as each company maintaining their own...
Sheesh - they did it 30+ years ago with telephone companies... Time to do it again with cellular companies...
"owns" *means* licensed from the gov't now...
I don't see what you mean about landlines, which *are* owned by only a few large carriers.
Mostly I don't see what you mean by multiple carriers can use the same spectrum. And SOME POINT or level of granularity, there has to be exclusivity of use. Even Ethernet works that way. Only ONE carrier signal can be running at that level of granularity, be it in time, space, frequency band, locality, etc. Therefore there MUST be SOME amount of dividing up between the carriers. I don't think you solve much if you push this level of exclusivity below frequency bands and into channels or time slots or whatever -- still will have the same problems.
And you don't really address how the tower infrastructure would be paid for and maintained, nevermind any incentive for upgrading. Are you saying the gov't should pay for all intrastructure (then license out slot/localities)? gawd. Or all carriers should "chip in" (into what? and in what proportion?)
I don't see a coherent workable solution in your post here. But I do agree that wireless carriers SHOULD revert to common carrier status, instead of this silly "information service" nonsense. Of course I also believe in net neutrality, but the carriers don't...
That's a stupid idea... AT&T would have gotten approval for this spectrum purchase WITHOUT the Tmo debacle. See that Verizon is probably getting approval for a large $3+B spectrum purchase from the cablecos.
The idea that the Tmo debacle, for which AT&T is paying $4B for its FAILURE, was a strategy to get this $2B spectrum purchase approved is just silly... (total price tag of $6B? lol)
How about the fact that Newark, JFK (and LGA) serve GREATLY overlapping populations... that's pretty much a divide by three right there...
then, the big US airlines: AA (hubs Chicago, which has Midway, and DFW, but that's east/west), United (also Chicago, and Denver east/west), and Delta (ATL). So its no surprise that Chicago is at least number two, but it has Midway. ATL is number one...
Is Qualcomm's spectrum something that can be used by either GSM or CDMA carriers? I am surprised that anything Qualcomm does would be of any use to GSM carriers like AT&T or T-Mobile. If Qualcomm needed to sell, one would have thought that they'd sell to Sprint or Verizon.
Or is this totally unrelated to whether the carrier is a CDMA or a GSM carrier?
1) it is *totally* unrelated to CDMA vs GSM.
2) You haven't kept up with wireless and GSM very much. ALL modern wireless technology HEAVILY uses Qualcomm technology and patents, including if not especially GSM (post-GSM). 3G "GSM" is WCDMA, which is just a modification of CDMA. Qualcomm makes a ton of money off BOTH CDMA and GSM (and LTE), nevermind the money they make from the chipsets that most handset manufs use.
the coming duopoly of the Baby Bells, also the prime holders of the cellular bands (850Mhz), drives home the answer to the question posed in the '90's:
Can upstart carriers who did not benefit from the massive cellular band giveway survive and overcome the market and technical obstacles presented by the spectrum resources they could acquire. Just how much of a headstart and intrinsic advantage did the cellular carriers get?
Through a gradual series of buyouts and mergers, the BabyBells (AT&T and Verizon) now have near total control over the cellular bands (850Mhz), spectrum that was given away initial (not paid for), and has tremendous inherent advantages in terms of coverage (distance) and building penetration, when compared with the PCS bands (1900Mhz), the primary bands that Sprint and Tmobile were forced to buy and utilize (they didn't get free spectrum and were not able to get any 850Mhz spectrum).
The struggles of Sprint and Tmobile, the primary PCS carriers in US, make the answer now extremely clear: The PCS carriers never really had a chance against the cellular carriers who happen to also be Baby Bells with the deep landline pockets.
Between this $2B spectrum purchase by AT&T and the $3+B spectrum purchase from the cablecos by Verizon, it is quite clear (if it wasn't before), that we in the US are lumbering towards a wireless duopoly, held by the former BabyBells. Sprint and Tmobile (if it will exist in the near future, which it probably won't), are all but doomed -- there is no way they will be able to effectively compete, nevermind survival a direct squeeze/war by the BabyBells, if and when they choose (probably under some Repub administration).
It will be surprising, in 5-10 years, not to have much higher prices and many fewer choices... (sigh)...
A fuel cell running that long is likely a based on a solid and oxygen and not on a liquid.
no... the FC most considered to be currently practical and immediately marketable (like next year), is based on methanol (a liquid). You can just pour in fresh methanol to recharge the FC. Of course its a fire hazard (although it can be mixed with water to reduce its flammability).
TSA and FAA regulations already prohibit spare lithium batteries from being packed in baggage. Anything similar with an even higher energy density would also be prohibited unless one could show there is no way to release the energy quickly (explosion or flammable). But it can't be too slow since laptops need high current (low internal resistance), so only a very narrow range of properties would be acceptable as a long-life high energy power source that cannot be exploited as a bomb or at least a firestarter.
Obviously you don't understand lasers. They aren't just "more powerful" lights, created by "overcoming natural constraints" of LEDs...
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
Then start a business and see if you're right. I suspect Dell knows a bit more about this than you're guessing they do.
-jcr
just because at this moment I'm unwilling to "start a business" doesn't mean that I'm not right...
And as far as Dell "knowing more", you'd think so, but then look at the boneheaded moves of HP in recent months, or see how well companies like Gateway, once high flyers in the PC business, are doing. Just because they are in the business doesn't mean that they know what they are doing or aren't prone to making huge, huge mistakes.
I just ordered another ASUS EEE... they were HARD to find... all sold out everywhere. Not going to convince me there is no market for sub $300 laptops or netbooks. This is Dell's failing, not the lack of a market...
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
So you're saying that Dell's army of market researchers and experts was a waste, and they should have just come to ask you?
mmm, sure... yes. I am certainly saying that Dell is wrong about the netbook (and tablet) market. And surely you are NOT saying that Dell's "army of market researchers" is any more infallible than HP's army of market researchers that ended up losing $3B+ for HP on webOS and Palm and created the whole TouchPad fiasco and nearly led HP into oblivion by deciding to sell off HP's PC division. Dell could never be as stupid as those guys, right? But even HP is still in the netbook and tablet market...
as I said in the title, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Dell is in trouble some day soon...
I have owned a couple of Toshiba Portégés over the years, so I do have a Z830 on my shopping list. However, my point was that Dell has nothing at that level. I can understand that 1.1kg might be extreme, but Intel's Ultrabook specs call for a maximum of 1.3kg and Dell can't even match that weight.
I have had many Porteges. Not one could hold a candle to my ASUS EEE's 8 hour battery life. Not even close.
Show me a laptop/notebook that costs $250 or less and has an 8 hour battery life and weighs 1kg and *then* I'll believe that netbooks are worthless...
iPad killed the netbook market.
At this point, you'd be more accurate (still not accurate though), to say that the iPad killed the TABLET market. The netbook market is still very much alive...
And Dell killed the Dell tablet and netbook market... doesn't mean that either the tablet *or* netbook market is dead, just that Dell is...
First no tablets, then no netbooks from Dell? Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops. I realize that Dell wasn't a big presences in either market, but that's Dell's failing, not a measure of the market and demand itself...