You just have to buy an older model (cheaper too, NEAT!)
And it also becomes obsolete and you can't find accessories for it, and it's huge. Not to mention that your company drops support for it (happened to me when I picked an older phone).
And phones don't have to freeze features. I just think there's a market out there for phones that aren't flashy, but are built like tanks, have month-long standby times, and get reception inside bunkers. (Unfortunately, the cost of entry into this market is so high that an entrepreneur can't do it, and so we'll probably never see them.)
Just to clarify: I don't think that my post will change anything. I'm just pointing out a problem, and hopefully people will catch on and use market forces to do it.
Phone companies have a right to seek profits, but when people are half-duped, half-convinced-of-necessity into buying a camera phone with Bluetooth when all they do is call their friends and then complain that it dies quickly, doesn't get good reception, and makes it hard to edit phonebook entries, they need to rethink their buying strategy. And when that happens (if that happens), we'll have market pressure that will get good, solid phones made.
One more reason that cell phone manufacturers need to focus on the big three (battery life, signal strength, ease of use) instead of mindless feature-creep.
Most people buy bluetooth phones and don't know what to use it for, just that it's another thing they have. (I have a Bluetooth phone, but only because my Powerbook also has bluetooth and can sync wirelessly. Otherwise I keep it turned off.)
Most people really just want a phone that can hold contacts, get really great reception, and lasts a while between charges. (And, outside the US, send and recieve text messages easily.) Why not focus on these features? The same reason most car commercials are about performance and showing off instead of reliability and gas mileage; people are more convinced by flash than substance.
Repeat after me: Something that has a lot of functions doesn't do any of those things as well as a dedicated piece of equipment. (PCs are a special case; software isn't.) Just like the only unitasker in your kitchen should be a fire extinguisher, the only multitasker in your geek lair should be your PC.
It helps that you live in a densely populated area. The problem with the US is that it's so big that, unless you live in a large city (something I would loathe), you have limited choices for bandwidth. Some places have better choices than others, but in my case the only solution to get speeds like that is to create a FTTH network.
I'm 17,000 feet from the CO. Give me something other than ComSUCKcast for >Mb service for a reasonable price, not something I have huddle around a central office for.
Music has been sold via hardcopy in stores for decades, and in higher quality than you'll ever find on Kazaa! You can't spin your usage of Kazaa as you being a victim. Get up and trot over to your local music store and pick up an album.
I'm doing my part by making any websites I can (that is, that I don't have to report to someone who wants them compatible) non-IE-compatible, by using web standards. Also, I work in web development, and I'm going to be putting pressure on the department to use standard-compliance and test in browsers other than IE 6 and Netscape 7. Especially Safari.
Hopefully they'll let me bring my Powerbook into work so I can do some, um, testing.
Yeah, that's it.
Oblig. Monty Python Quote
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
So why not launch a mission to test it? If we're actually going to Mars, it won't be a big deal to develop a small system and test it.
And don't we know enough about the Martian environment to create a test chamber for systems?
I guess this is the real problem I have with NASA's solutions. Yeah, there are a lot of issues with going to Mars. But it's like everyone at NASA's saying "Oh, it's too hard. So let's not do it."
Get off your asses and figure out the solutions! Figure out ways to figure out the problems! Don't just throw up your hands and assume that it's not worth it.
I talk loudly through the ads about how much I paid for my ticket and how I shouldn't have to pay for things I can stay home and watch. Nobody seems to mind.
In situ propellant production has been done for decades for other reasons. The reactions are well known. How hard would it be to set up a pseudo martian atmosphere and test it?
How is there any logic in going to the moon BEFORE going to Mars? If we're going to Mars, we can build a ship in LEO with four or five shuttle flights. Why build a base on the moon to get a craft to Mars? The moon isn't anything like Mars; you can't grow your own food without a big nuclear reactor, the temperature swings are greater, dust is less of a problem, it's bombarded with radiation half the time, and the methods for using local materials are extremely different.
We can't learn anything about living on Mars by living on the moon, except maybe how people respond to being so far away from Earth.
Going to Mars AND going to the moon makes more sense, since the only related operations are leaving Earth orbit. Of course, since the moon is close enough for unmanned craft to do really good, long-term science, maybe we should set up unmanned craft on the moon, and send people to Mars where they can do the most good.
Then there's no reason why I can't pay a radio station $15 (about right for a three minute ad during off-peak times) to play my new song that I made in GarageBand. Or to spew about how the RIAA sucks donkey balls.
Slashdot Mirror
And it also becomes obsolete and you can't find accessories for it, and it's huge. Not to mention that your company drops support for it (happened to me when I picked an older phone).
And phones don't have to freeze features. I just think there's a market out there for phones that aren't flashy, but are built like tanks, have month-long standby times, and get reception inside bunkers. (Unfortunately, the cost of entry into this market is so high that an entrepreneur can't do it, and so we'll probably never see them.)
I'm not saying their isn't a market for these things, just that the market isn't nearly as big as the cell phone companies believe it to be.
Phone companies have a right to seek profits, but when people are half-duped, half-convinced-of-necessity into buying a camera phone with Bluetooth when all they do is call their friends and then complain that it dies quickly, doesn't get good reception, and makes it hard to edit phonebook entries, they need to rethink their buying strategy. And when that happens (if that happens), we'll have market pressure that will get good, solid phones made.
Most people buy bluetooth phones and don't know what to use it for, just that it's another thing they have. (I have a Bluetooth phone, but only because my Powerbook also has bluetooth and can sync wirelessly. Otherwise I keep it turned off.)
Most people really just want a phone that can hold contacts, get really great reception, and lasts a while between charges. (And, outside the US, send and recieve text messages easily.) Why not focus on these features? The same reason most car commercials are about performance and showing off instead of reliability and gas mileage; people are more convinced by flash than substance.
Repeat after me: Something that has a lot of functions doesn't do any of those things as well as a dedicated piece of equipment. (PCs are a special case; software isn't.) Just like the only unitasker in your kitchen should be a fire extinguisher, the only multitasker in your geek lair should be your PC.
It helps that you live in a densely populated area. The problem with the US is that it's so big that, unless you live in a large city (something I would loathe), you have limited choices for bandwidth. Some places have better choices than others, but in my case the only solution to get speeds like that is to create a FTTH network.
I'm 17,000 feet from the CO. Give me something other than ComSUCKcast for >Mb service for a reasonable price, not something I have huddle around a central office for.
I can't leave my house you insensitive clod!
It takes three times as long and obfuscates your code, but it is possible. LOL
Hopefully they'll let me bring my Powerbook into work so I can do some, um, testing.
Yeah, that's it.
"Let us not go to Camelot; it is a silly place"
It's a joke, people. Laugh.
Cool Story. Thanks for sharing.
Yes I realize the irony of using a computer to protest computers.
A digital Thermopylae.
'Luftschifftechnik' is a stretch (luft-shiff-tech-nick)
But for the life of me I don't know how to pronounce 'GmbH'. I think they made that part up.
(There's a really great classical work called "Bonham" that all LZ fans should check out.)
Aha! So that's what they did to my house! No wonder I can only get reception outside!
And don't we know enough about the Martian environment to create a test chamber for systems?
I guess this is the real problem I have with NASA's solutions. Yeah, there are a lot of issues with going to Mars. But it's like everyone at NASA's saying "Oh, it's too hard. So let's not do it."
Get off your asses and figure out the solutions! Figure out ways to figure out the problems! Don't just throw up your hands and assume that it's not worth it.
You and me both, brother. But Mars has better real estate prospects.
And it's fission, not fusion.
I talk loudly through the ads about how much I paid for my ticket and how I shouldn't have to pay for things I can stay home and watch. Nobody seems to mind.
In situ propellant production has been done for decades for other reasons. The reactions are well known. How hard would it be to set up a pseudo martian atmosphere and test it?
We can't learn anything about living on Mars by living on the moon, except maybe how people respond to being so far away from Earth.
Going to Mars AND going to the moon makes more sense, since the only related operations are leaving Earth orbit. Of course, since the moon is close enough for unmanned craft to do really good, long-term science, maybe we should set up unmanned craft on the moon, and send people to Mars where they can do the most good.
More oversight at the white house? Let's just make sure it also removes the oversight from congress.
Radio? Isn't that what WiFi, Bluetooth, and GSM use? You can listen to music for free over it? How come nobody told me???
Then there's no reason why I can't pay a radio station $15 (about right for a three minute ad during off-peak times) to play my new song that I made in GarageBand. Or to spew about how the RIAA sucks donkey balls.