but what i dont understand is HOW ODF isnt disable friendly?!
And you must not have read the article, nor my post. Again, he doesn't say that ODF isn't disable friendly, he says the current applications that support ODF aren't disable friendly. Big difference. In other words, he doesn't mind a plug-in for word, and he wouldn't mind using ODF in OSS applications, provided that those applications were disable friendly.
It's pretty apparent that, once again, Slashdot has taken an article completely out of context.
The gentleman in the article was critisizing the State of Massachusetts decision to require ODF on the basis that ODF compatible software isn't friendly to the disabled. This has nothing to do with whether or not Word can or cannot read the format, nor about whether open formats are better than closed.
He is merely stating that making the decision based on currently available technology does not support his group. From the article: Winske said he likes the concept of open-source technology and hopes that OpenDocument will one day be accessible. "I have no problem with it," he said. "The Mozilla Project and Firefox have proved that if people build a better mousetrap, people will use it. It's a matter of making that mousetrap accessible."
[quote]Because of this, speaker reviews are much less useful than other kinds. Being geeks, we're used to being able to categorize and rank things by technical merit. Speakers just don't work like that.
Unfortunately, there's also a vast number of people in the audio business selling snake oil to take advantage of the poor hearing of most humans.[/quote]
Unfortunately, it's too easy to find reviews of non-quantifiable items (such as speakers) but it's near impossible (I've been unable to find) reviews of quantifiable components such as interconnection cables. Cables have power loss, impedence, bandwidths, etc. which would make it easy to determine if the $50 cable is any better than the $10 one. But I digress. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Oh yeah, and being somebody who does spend modest amounts of money on components and speakers, everybody's hearing is subjective, and to all my friends who can't tell the difference between a pair of B&Ws and a sony all-in-one from circuit city, well, they get through life spending less money than I do.
It's an interesting point, but if it's true, why do ISPs keep rolling out lines with more and more bandwidth?
Because more is always better, right? It's like home theater receivers and powered speakers with regards to output power. A lot of people think that if the number is higher, it must be better. And a lot of people figure, well, if I can spend only $10 more but get twice the speed, wow, I should do that. Never underestimate the power of marketing.
I have a 6mb (max, I did test the speed, and got 5700kb during some times, down to about 3mb other times) connection, but I don't need it, in fact, if I could get a reliable DSL connection at 768kb, I'd be fine. Most people don't use the bandwidth they pay for, which is why ISPs can use it as a marketing ploy.
I think in the future this will change, when everything comes over IP, it'll have to be over fiber. I just don't see the coax and copper giving us near enough.
Except for one thing - the revenue the city generates isn't *directly* tied to the performance of the network. So the desire to operate the network smoothly isn't driven by a swift kick to the government coffers like it is for a company.
You mean like how if Comcast service sucks, I can go to Verizon, and if Verizon sucks I can go to Comcast? It's not like the guys in the ISP arena have a true economic desire to operate a network smoothly anyway.
Is a antenna which can change direction depending on a signal already there ? If not the idea wont work at all.
A combination of multiple "antennas" with a 120degree coverage (for three) rather than a single antenna with 360 coverage, and phased array (look at phased array radars) could make this possible. Power savings though, might not happen because of the processing required.
The thing that frustrates me is when people want something done, and can't be bothered learning how. The sort of people who say "I know nothing about computers. Can you setup my email program for me?". Now of course, once in a while that's fine. After all, people need a bit of help when they're getting in to something new. But when the same person consistently asks for help, not because they're novices but because it's easier to ask for help than it is to learn to do it your self, that's what gets annoying.
I've never quite understood this mentality on Slashdot. In general, we know about computers and technology, that's our forte, hence people ask for our assistance. My mother's forte is investments, she knows markets, she knows where to put what money and for how long to get a certain return on investment.
Guess what, when I have an investment question I go to her. Not because I don't want to or can't learn, but she is the expert, and everytime I talk to her about investing, I learn something.
Flip side is true too. I know about computers, so when my mom has a question about computers and needs help, she asks me. I'm more than happy to help her.
In general, people have strong suits, and it is most efficient to utilize their knowledge and to "trade" the help. My brother is a mechanic, while I am willing to work on my car, I generally don't touch much without at least talking to him about it so I don't screw something up. It's this attitude of elitism among computer literates that bugs me.
I don't know where you got a US population density of 80/sq km.
Mostly copied from my post above:
US: 9,161,923 sq km, 298mln pop, approx 33 people/sq km, would require 2381 GSM base stations (CIA factbook) Europe: 9,938,000 sq km, 727mln pop, 73.15 people/sq km, would require 2582 GSM base stations (worldatlas.com) Sweden: 449,964 sq km, 9mln pop, approx 20 people/sq km, would require 117 GSM base stations (CIA factbook)
So while Sweden's population density is lower than the US, it's not lower by much, but the area of the US (which is going to add to the cost of rolling out a network very quickly) is 20 times that of Sweden.
And here you are running into another reason why GSM is unfeasible for the US. Finland, overall is a heck of a lot smaller for rolling out a nationwide cellular network.
US: 9,161,923 sq km, 298mln pop, approx 33 people/sq km, would require 2381 GSM base stations (CIA factbook) Europe: 9,938,000 sq km, 727mln pop, 73.15 people/sq km, would require 2582 GSM base stations (worldatlas.com) Finland: 338,145 sq km, 5mln pop, approx 15 people/sq km, would require 88 GSM base stations (CIA factbook)
So while Finland has lower population density, Europe has a much greater. Comparing a roll-out in Finland to the US is like comparing the gas mileage of a Honda Civic and a Bus. They are completely different applications.
That's really odd, because I just priced out the E1505 spec'd as you have above, including discounts available today (which is one advantage of non-Mac, prices do change, and do come down). Here's what it came up with: E1505 Core Duo T2500 2GHz 2 GB DDR2/533 15.4" SXGA+ 100 GB 5400 rpm SATA DVD burner Wireless A/B/G and Bluetooth 53 W-hr battery (85WHr is $100 more) 128 MB ATI X1300 (256MB X1400 is $80 more) Corel Wordperfect (MS Works is $100 more, Office is $149 more) 3 year warranty (accidental damage is $119 more for the three years)
Total price is $1597 after discounts. Compared to your $2850 MacBook, about a 44% difference, almost half price. Now, a big part of this is a "$750 coupon" that Dell has available for today. While definately more than usual, it's not unusual for these laptops to be $300-$400 off of the "normal price." It's kind of like cars. MSRP doesn't mean much, since for the most part, it's not what you pay.
Add the better battery, better graphics card, office and accidental damage protection, and you're at $2050. Compared to your $2857 MacBook Pro, about a 30% difference.
My point is, the argument that PCs are just as expensive as Macs is ludacris. Macs cost more than PC's similarily equipped. But that doesn't mean that it is an unjustified difference.
Now here we are in the US with multiple competing mobile formats. It is a complicated undertaking for a consumer to decide which mobile operator to choose -- there are coverage maps, different network capabilities, non-overlapping phone models. Add to that the fact that despite all this "competition" the cost to the consumer is fairly high compared to Europe.
I don't think this is because there wasn't a government mandate to use GSM or another standardized technology. One thing a lot of people forget when trying to compare Europe to the US is population density and size. Europe is much more centered around it's cities (which is part of the reason why they have much better public transit). Whereas in the US, we tend to spread out (the majority still being in cities, but there is a lot of the population who live very far away from cities).
GSM is a great technology for covering cities and dense populations, it is not a good technology for covering the expansive parts of America.
Beyond technology, one of the reasons why cell phones are confusing for consumers, and expensive, is because there really is a lack of competition. Similar to gas companies, it's basically an oligopoly. The barriers to entry are so high (just imagine how much it would cost to build a cellular network to cover the US) that it doesn't have to respond to normal market forces. Once a competing technology (WiFi/UWB/some hybrid combo) can provide a technological competitor to cell phones, prices will lower, and service will improve. But right now it's not like there is real competition in the US cell market. It's like politics, for the most part you choose democrat or republican. And don't think for one moment that if a viable third party was being formed, that the donkeys and the elephants wouldn't join forces to squash it.
Dell Inspiron E1505 CoreDuo 1.83GHz, Windows Media Center (with recovery CD), 1GB RAM (vs. 512MB), 15.4" 1680x1050 widescreen SXGA+ (vs. 1440x900), 80GB SATA, DVD+/-RW, 802.11, 128MB ATI X1300 (vs. 128MB X1600), 85WHr battery (vs. 60WHr), 1 year warranty for $1342 (vs. $1999 so 33% less). Dimensions are close (same width, Dell is 0.5" taller, about an inch deeper, and 0.5lbs heavier). Pretty close comparison. Is it twice as much, no, is it a substantial increase, yes. I'm sure somebody will post "but what about iLife, etc.?" Sure, there are difference, and there are reasons why the cost is more for the Mac, but it's not "free" software if you are paying more to get it included. Personally, I think Macs cost quite a bit more than PCs, but if it's worth it to you, then buy it, if not, don't.
Inspiron 6400 with same specs as above (but only 512MB RAM) is $1292 (35% off of the Mac price). The price differences get even higher when comparing to the $2500 MacBook Pro.
Except that a warranty doesn't help when you need your laptop. I'm not even talking need as in life or death, but need as in land a multi-million dollar account. You don't want to show up to a meeting at a potential client, only to find out that when you dropped your briefcase while picking up your suitcase from the baggage carousel that you no longer have your presentation or demo system available.
I ran into this mentality when I did some hiking in mountains. Sure, lots of equipment brands had warranties that would cover the problems encountered, only that won't help me when I am three days from civilization. Sometimes it just has to work.
In terms of an accidental damage option. It's insurance/warranty, which means it has nothing to do with confidence in your hardware, but it's a financial calculation. $X from each sale is earmarked for support. The average cost of support on the unit is $Y/year. The number of years of warranty is X/Y. Cruder than reality, but close enough.
If you think that the Mac laptops are of the same quality as the Thinkpads, then you are sorely mistaken. A Mac will not stand up to the abuse that a thinkpad routinely takes by a traveler.
Don't get me wrong, the Mac may be a fine laptop for the home user/non-traveler, but if you lug your laptop around, the Mac won't stand up like the Thinkpad will.
They are ugly, heavy, and generally have less features than similarly priced notebooks from other makers. So why were they so good? I.B.M. You had the reputation of IBM behind each one.
That, or they are built like a tank, something that a business would appreciate. I have a circa 1999/2000 I-Series thinkpad. Bottom of the line pretty much. The friend who purchased it new abused the hell out of it (since selling it to me and buying powerbooks, he has broken the powerbook multiple times). Six years later, everything works but the PCMCIA card reader (he dropped it onto its' side with a wireless card installed) and the hinges for the screen take some finessing (it travelled cross country, more then once, thrown into the bed of a truck). The thing is a tank, and if you are travelling, it will outlast anything out there. Sure they are more expensive, but there is a reason.
Color! Brightness! Good keyboards! STYLE.
Maybe it's just me, but I like the plain, black look of the thinkpad, I find it rather sleek. But hey, style is subjective. I also like the look of the powerbook. And in terms of keyboard, I have not used a keyboard on a laptop I prefer to the thinkpad (this includes HPs, Dells, Apples and Toshibas).
It's all Windows underneath the hood, and in all likelihood it's the same hardware as well.
While that may be true, the fact that the "hood" is heavier duty, makes a huge difference.
Most EBay transactions cross a state line, and therefore are exempt from Sales taxes on this point as well.
Not really true. While sales tax isn't collected at the time of sale, the buyer has a legal responsibility to pay for the taxes for items purchased for use in the state of residence when they file their state income return. So everything you buy online, or from across state lines (that wasn't already taxed in the state it was sold) is taxable and there is a line on the state tax forms (in MA it's called the use tax) for it. Generally though, people ignore it.
I think that if the citizens of a town really want to finance this boondoggle (it isn't being provided freely by Earthlink and Google right?), let them do it.
And from the article:
Both companies would share the cost of installing the necessary equipment, estimated at up to $12 million. San Francisco will pay nothing and actually reap some fees by leasing city property as perches for Wi-Fi antennas.
We have 3 cheap WiFi providers in the area (very cheap), we have DSL and we have Cable, and now we have 2 more wired providers who are testing the waters. I see no reason to give free access on the taxpayer's backs.
See above. Also, most people don't have those options. Most people, have the access to cable modem, some have access to DSL or other methods. But in most of the country, many choices don't exist. Also, most of these services are available because the companies were allowed right-of-way access to install the infrastructure. Access mandated by, you guessed it, the government.
Since you are an "anarcho-capitalist" (does this mean that if your house is on fire you don't call and use the services of the fire department? If it snows, do you make sure not to drive on the roads that the gov't plows?) You should love this idea. It is capitalism at it's best, companies competing to provide a service to consumers, at no cost to the government, nor the user.
UWB: 480mbps
WiFi: 54mbps (well, I guess you can get the hybrid 108mbps)
UWB: Short range
WiFi: Medium range
Totally different uses. Think of it this way. All of those cables connecting your TV and other video/audio components together, can go away with UWB. HD quality connections, wirelessly. Can't do that with WiFi.
-dave
But will we all use it? Come on... Who'se ma, uncle, PHB, CxO,... can use styles in Word, decent formulas in Excel, make a (technically) good PowerPoint, use Outlook to the max.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed at the number of coworkers, who struggle to use email, yet can use some of the very advanced features in Office. I don't think these features are ignored because nobody wants to use them, they're ignored because people don't know that they are there. Once people learn about them, they tend to start using them. Just my experience anyway.
my phone should only ring when the call is from list X while I have it set this way, so that while I'm attending certain functions, only list X callers will interrupt my activities. I should be able to have many such lists, and using ring tones, know which list the caller is from.
My two year old cell phone can do this. I can specify different ringers to different people and answer based on that. Also, there's this little thing called caller-id. In a meeting, if I need to be reachable, my phone is set to vibrate. If it goes off, I look at the caller-id to decide if I should answer or not. I can set it to always vibrate for certain people, or I can set it to never ring for certain people.
On the computer, set your messaging status to away, or set up email folders for different people and set a notification to inform you when you get an email in that folder, or again, get the notification, and only open the email if it's from specific people.
What the law should say is that Smut cannot be forced on those not desiring it, however they must also take common sense steps to avoid it on their own.
Right, because that's so much less vague than the current law. What are common sense steps? Could a spammer say that it's common sense to have spam filtering software, therefore any porn spam seen is exempt? If there is a pornographic image on a sign, is the common sense step to make sure that you never look there? How do you know not to look until you've already seen it.
But that's my point. When customers do this, then a situation develops where there isn't anything the shareholders can do to get their money out of the company other than selling off the pieces and shutting things down.
So you want to baby everybody? If someone (or in this case, a large group of shareholders) makes bad decisions, he or she (or they) have to face the consequences. Basically it because a game of musical chairs. Somebody gets caught losing money eventually (maybe even a large pyramid scheme). But it's based on the decisions they made. I don't think we let people fail enough, so they never learn. If you live in a flood zone and don't have flood insurance, well, in the words of Bill, "Here's your sign." If you vote for short term gains and get caught losing money, well, maybe you've learned something and you'll change.
And personally, I don't think Ford's problem isn't that they aren't serving their customers (according to Edmunds, for 2003 Ford had the following cars on the top ten best sellers: F-Series, Explorer, Taurus). Their problem is that they are reselling the same car to the same buyer and not bringing in new buyers. What they need to do is to get more people to test-drive their cars.
And lumping analysts in with short-term stockholders is a bad idea. It really depends on who is the analysts customer (yes, they are in fact serving a customer). My mother managed mutual funds for large investors, investors who bought funds and planned on keeping them for decades. Her analysts were to give her the data to determine good long term investments, but in order to make money, you don't forego a good short term investment.
Why is this one of the few insightful, forward looking comments in the whole story? Everybody is saying, it'll flop because it's not what I want. Well, maybe you aren't the market, but it sure as hell is what I would want and I can imagine a lot of fields where this can be used.
The comparisons to a PDA are faulty. PDAs have nowhere near the functionality and performance of an ultramobile computer. The USB ports give it nearly unlimited expansion. Plug in a small keyboard (I'm sure somebody will make a nice line of accessories). Different accessories and cases can customize it for a persons need. It replaces the PDA, laptop, ipod (including video), portable gaming system, possibly phone (keep in mind, it's expandable and runs real software, so putting a softphone on this would be easy).
My only problem is the price, as I am a cheap skate and $600+ is too much for a device that I don't currently need, though if I were buying another laptop, I'd consider it.
Another common complaint seems to be that MS isn't designing this, merely getting others to create the hardware. Well, guess what happens everytime they do anything but release a new OS (and then sometimes even then)? Everybody accuses them of anti-trust violations. Instead they are releasing a spec for a form factor and functionality of a product and telling hardware vendors that they have software to run on it, and you can make the hardware be what you feel would be best. Seems like a good idea to me.
All in all I think it looks like an interesting idea, and while I won't be buying one right away, I'm definately interested to see how they expand and adapt and hopefully see prices come down a little.
Companies look to the last and the next three months, no further.
Exactly, because that is what the owners want (by way of shareholder voting, boards, etc.). If the owner of a private company wants to look into the long term, fine. If the stockholders (read: owners) want to look for long term gains, great, and that's the direction the company should be pointed in.
Customers everywhere scratch their heads and wonder why customer service on nearly every level for nearly every industry is absolutely abysmal
And for the answer, they should look into the mirror. Customer service is performed when it presents an advantage to a company. Customer service is not free. It requires people, resources and training. If customers were willing to pay more for service, then more companies would provide it. But fact of the matter is, most people buy based on price.
Car sales are probably the best example. How many people buy the car from the dealer that gives them the best price rather than the best service? I paid a few hundred dollars more to buy my last vehicle from another dealer because they provided better service and I could trust them. If you aren't willing to pay more for better service, then you shouldn't expect better service.
We all know that media companies and their obsession with DRM is leading to a dangerous and eventually (in the HDTV realm anyway) huge conflict with their customers.
Then don't buy from those companies. Make sure your friends don't buy from those companies. But don't give a business money, then turn around and say, "but you aren't giving me what I want."
Slashdot Mirror
but what i dont understand is HOW ODF isnt disable friendly?!
And you must not have read the article, nor my post. Again, he doesn't say that ODF isn't disable friendly, he says the current applications that support ODF aren't disable friendly. Big difference. In other words, he doesn't mind a plug-in for word, and he wouldn't mind using ODF in OSS applications, provided that those applications were disable friendly.
-dave
It's pretty apparent that, once again, Slashdot has taken an article completely out of context.
The gentleman in the article was critisizing the State of Massachusetts decision to require ODF on the basis that ODF compatible software isn't friendly to the disabled. This has nothing to do with whether or not Word can or cannot read the format, nor about whether open formats are better than closed.
He is merely stating that making the decision based on currently available technology does not support his group. From the article:
Winske said he likes the concept of open-source technology and hopes that OpenDocument will one day be accessible. "I have no problem with it," he said. "The Mozilla Project and Firefox have proved that if people build a better mousetrap, people will use it. It's a matter of making that mousetrap accessible."
-dave
[quote]Because of this, speaker reviews are much less useful than other kinds. Being geeks, we're used to being able to categorize and rank things by technical merit. Speakers just don't work like that.
Unfortunately, there's also a vast number of people in the audio business selling snake oil to take advantage of the poor hearing of most humans.[/quote]
Unfortunately, it's too easy to find reviews of non-quantifiable items (such as speakers) but it's near impossible (I've been unable to find) reviews of quantifiable components such as interconnection cables. Cables have power loss, impedence, bandwidths, etc. which would make it easy to determine if the $50 cable is any better than the $10 one. But I digress. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Oh yeah, and being somebody who does spend modest amounts of money on components and speakers, everybody's hearing is subjective, and to all my friends who can't tell the difference between a pair of B&Ws and a sony all-in-one from circuit city, well, they get through life spending less money than I do.
-dave
It's an interesting point, but if it's true, why do ISPs keep rolling out lines with more and more bandwidth?
Because more is always better, right? It's like home theater receivers and powered speakers with regards to output power. A lot of people think that if the number is higher, it must be better. And a lot of people figure, well, if I can spend only $10 more but get twice the speed, wow, I should do that. Never underestimate the power of marketing.
I have a 6mb (max, I did test the speed, and got 5700kb during some times, down to about 3mb other times) connection, but I don't need it, in fact, if I could get a reliable DSL connection at 768kb, I'd be fine. Most people don't use the bandwidth they pay for, which is why ISPs can use it as a marketing ploy.
I think in the future this will change, when everything comes over IP, it'll have to be over fiber. I just don't see the coax and copper giving us near enough.
-dave
Except for one thing - the revenue the city generates isn't *directly* tied to the performance of the network. So the desire to operate the network smoothly isn't driven by a swift kick to the government coffers like it is for a company.
You mean like how if Comcast service sucks, I can go to Verizon, and if Verizon sucks I can go to Comcast? It's not like the guys in the ISP arena have a true economic desire to operate a network smoothly anyway.
-dave
Is a antenna which can change direction depending on a signal already there ? If not the idea wont work at all.
A combination of multiple "antennas" with a 120degree coverage (for three) rather than a single antenna with 360 coverage, and phased array (look at phased array radars) could make this possible. Power savings though, might not happen because of the processing required.
-dave
The thing that frustrates me is when people want something done, and can't be bothered learning how. The sort of people who say "I know nothing about computers. Can you setup my email program for me?". Now of course, once in a while that's fine. After all, people need a bit of help when they're getting in to something new. But when the same person consistently asks for help, not because they're novices but because it's easier to ask for help than it is to learn to do it your self, that's what gets annoying.
I've never quite understood this mentality on Slashdot. In general, we know about computers and technology, that's our forte, hence people ask for our assistance. My mother's forte is investments, she knows markets, she knows where to put what money and for how long to get a certain return on investment.
Guess what, when I have an investment question I go to her. Not because I don't want to or can't learn, but she is the expert, and everytime I talk to her about investing, I learn something.
Flip side is true too. I know about computers, so when my mom has a question about computers and needs help, she asks me. I'm more than happy to help her.
In general, people have strong suits, and it is most efficient to utilize their knowledge and to "trade" the help. My brother is a mechanic, while I am willing to work on my car, I generally don't touch much without at least talking to him about it so I don't screw something up. It's this attitude of elitism among computer literates that bugs me.
-dave
I went through the link on techbargains.com, which is where they listed the coupon as well.
-dave
I don't know where you got a US population density of 80/sq km.
Mostly copied from my post above:
US: 9,161,923 sq km, 298mln pop, approx 33 people/sq km, would require 2381 GSM base stations (CIA factbook)
Europe: 9,938,000 sq km, 727mln pop, 73.15 people/sq km, would require 2582 GSM base stations (worldatlas.com)
Sweden: 449,964 sq km, 9mln pop, approx 20 people/sq km, would require 117 GSM base stations (CIA factbook)
So while Sweden's population density is lower than the US, it's not lower by much, but the area of the US (which is going to add to the cost of rolling out a network very quickly) is 20 times that of Sweden.
-dave
And here you are running into another reason why GSM is unfeasible for the US. Finland, overall is a heck of a lot smaller for rolling out a nationwide cellular network.
US: 9,161,923 sq km, 298mln pop, approx 33 people/sq km, would require 2381 GSM base stations (CIA factbook)
Europe: 9,938,000 sq km, 727mln pop, 73.15 people/sq km, would require 2582 GSM base stations (worldatlas.com)
Finland: 338,145 sq km, 5mln pop, approx 15 people/sq km, would require 88 GSM base stations (CIA factbook)
So while Finland has lower population density, Europe has a much greater. Comparing a roll-out in Finland to the US is like comparing the gas mileage of a Honda Civic and a Bus. They are completely different applications.
-dave
That's really odd, because I just priced out the E1505 spec'd as you have above, including discounts available today (which is one advantage of non-Mac, prices do change, and do come down). Here's what it came up with:
E1505
Core Duo T2500 2GHz
2 GB DDR2/533
15.4" SXGA+
100 GB 5400 rpm SATA
DVD burner
Wireless A/B/G and Bluetooth
53 W-hr battery (85WHr is $100 more)
128 MB ATI X1300 (256MB X1400 is $80 more)
Corel Wordperfect (MS Works is $100 more, Office is $149 more)
3 year warranty (accidental damage is $119 more for the three years)
Total price is $1597 after discounts. Compared to your $2850 MacBook, about a 44% difference, almost half price. Now, a big part of this is a "$750 coupon" that Dell has available for today. While definately more than usual, it's not unusual for these laptops to be $300-$400 off of the "normal price." It's kind of like cars. MSRP doesn't mean much, since for the most part, it's not what you pay.
Add the better battery, better graphics card, office and accidental damage protection, and you're at $2050. Compared to your $2857 MacBook Pro, about a 30% difference.
My point is, the argument that PCs are just as expensive as Macs is ludacris. Macs cost more than PC's similarily equipped. But that doesn't mean that it is an unjustified difference.
-dave
Now here we are in the US with multiple competing mobile formats. It is a complicated undertaking for a consumer to decide which mobile operator to choose -- there are coverage maps, different network capabilities, non-overlapping phone models. Add to that the fact that despite all this "competition" the cost to the consumer is fairly high compared to Europe.
I don't think this is because there wasn't a government mandate to use GSM or another standardized technology. One thing a lot of people forget when trying to compare Europe to the US is population density and size. Europe is much more centered around it's cities (which is part of the reason why they have much better public transit). Whereas in the US, we tend to spread out (the majority still being in cities, but there is a lot of the population who live very far away from cities).
GSM is a great technology for covering cities and dense populations, it is not a good technology for covering the expansive parts of America.
Beyond technology, one of the reasons why cell phones are confusing for consumers, and expensive, is because there really is a lack of competition. Similar to gas companies, it's basically an oligopoly. The barriers to entry are so high (just imagine how much it would cost to build a cellular network to cover the US) that it doesn't have to respond to normal market forces. Once a competing technology (WiFi/UWB/some hybrid combo) can provide a technological competitor to cell phones, prices will lower, and service will improve. But right now it's not like there is real competition in the US cell market. It's like politics, for the most part you choose democrat or republican. And don't think for one moment that if a viable third party was being formed, that the donkeys and the elephants wouldn't join forces to squash it.
-dave
Dell Inspiron E1505
CoreDuo 1.83GHz, Windows Media Center (with recovery CD), 1GB RAM (vs. 512MB), 15.4" 1680x1050 widescreen SXGA+ (vs. 1440x900), 80GB SATA, DVD+/-RW, 802.11, 128MB ATI X1300 (vs. 128MB X1600), 85WHr battery (vs. 60WHr), 1 year warranty for $1342 (vs. $1999 so 33% less). Dimensions are close (same width, Dell is 0.5" taller, about an inch deeper, and 0.5lbs heavier). Pretty close comparison. Is it twice as much, no, is it a substantial increase, yes. I'm sure somebody will post "but what about iLife, etc.?" Sure, there are difference, and there are reasons why the cost is more for the Mac, but it's not "free" software if you are paying more to get it included. Personally, I think Macs cost quite a bit more than PCs, but if it's worth it to you, then buy it, if not, don't.
Inspiron 6400 with same specs as above (but only 512MB RAM) is $1292 (35% off of the Mac price). The price differences get even higher when comparing to the $2500 MacBook Pro.
BTW, upgrade to 256MB X1400 for $80.
-dave
Except that a warranty doesn't help when you need your laptop. I'm not even talking need as in life or death, but need as in land a multi-million dollar account. You don't want to show up to a meeting at a potential client, only to find out that when you dropped your briefcase while picking up your suitcase from the baggage carousel that you no longer have your presentation or demo system available.
I ran into this mentality when I did some hiking in mountains. Sure, lots of equipment brands had warranties that would cover the problems encountered, only that won't help me when I am three days from civilization. Sometimes it just has to work.
In terms of an accidental damage option. It's insurance/warranty, which means it has nothing to do with confidence in your hardware, but it's a financial calculation. $X from each sale is earmarked for support. The average cost of support on the unit is $Y/year. The number of years of warranty is X/Y. Cruder than reality, but close enough.
-dave
If you think that the Mac laptops are of the same quality as the Thinkpads, then you are sorely mistaken. A Mac will not stand up to the abuse that a thinkpad routinely takes by a traveler.
Don't get me wrong, the Mac may be a fine laptop for the home user/non-traveler, but if you lug your laptop around, the Mac won't stand up like the Thinkpad will.
-dave
They are ugly, heavy, and generally have less features than similarly priced notebooks from other makers. So why were they so good? I.B.M. You had the reputation of IBM behind each one.
That, or they are built like a tank, something that a business would appreciate. I have a circa 1999/2000 I-Series thinkpad. Bottom of the line pretty much. The friend who purchased it new abused the hell out of it (since selling it to me and buying powerbooks, he has broken the powerbook multiple times). Six years later, everything works but the PCMCIA card reader (he dropped it onto its' side with a wireless card installed) and the hinges for the screen take some finessing (it travelled cross country, more then once, thrown into the bed of a truck). The thing is a tank, and if you are travelling, it will outlast anything out there. Sure they are more expensive, but there is a reason.
Color! Brightness! Good keyboards! STYLE.
Maybe it's just me, but I like the plain, black look of the thinkpad, I find it rather sleek. But hey, style is subjective. I also like the look of the powerbook. And in terms of keyboard, I have not used a keyboard on a laptop I prefer to the thinkpad (this includes HPs, Dells, Apples and Toshibas).
It's all Windows underneath the hood, and in all likelihood it's the same hardware as well.
While that may be true, the fact that the "hood" is heavier duty, makes a huge difference.
-dave
Most EBay transactions cross a state line, and therefore are exempt from Sales taxes on this point as well.
Not really true. While sales tax isn't collected at the time of sale, the buyer has a legal responsibility to pay for the taxes for items purchased for use in the state of residence when they file their state income return. So everything you buy online, or from across state lines (that wasn't already taxed in the state it was sold) is taxable and there is a line on the state tax forms (in MA it's called the use tax) for it. Generally though, people ignore it.
-dave
I think that if the citizens of a town really want to finance this boondoggle (it isn't being provided freely by Earthlink and Google right?), let them do it.
And from the article:
Both companies would share the cost of installing the necessary equipment, estimated at up to $12 million. San Francisco will pay nothing and actually reap some fees by leasing city property as perches for Wi-Fi antennas.
We have 3 cheap WiFi providers in the area (very cheap), we have DSL and we have Cable, and now we have 2 more wired providers who are testing the waters. I see no reason to give free access on the taxpayer's backs.
See above. Also, most people don't have those options. Most people, have the access to cable modem, some have access to DSL or other methods. But in most of the country, many choices don't exist. Also, most of these services are available because the companies were allowed right-of-way access to install the infrastructure. Access mandated by, you guessed it, the government.
Since you are an "anarcho-capitalist" (does this mean that if your house is on fire you don't call and use the services of the fire department? If it snows, do you make sure not to drive on the roads that the gov't plows?) You should love this idea. It is capitalism at it's best, companies competing to provide a service to consumers, at no cost to the government, nor the user.
-dave
UWB: 480mbps WiFi: 54mbps (well, I guess you can get the hybrid 108mbps) UWB: Short range WiFi: Medium range Totally different uses. Think of it this way. All of those cables connecting your TV and other video/audio components together, can go away with UWB. HD quality connections, wirelessly. Can't do that with WiFi. -dave
But will we all use it? Come on... Who'se ma, uncle, PHB, CxO, ... can use styles in Word, decent formulas in Excel, make a (technically) good PowerPoint, use Outlook to the max.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed at the number of coworkers, who struggle to use email, yet can use some of the very advanced features in Office. I don't think these features are ignored because nobody wants to use them, they're ignored because people don't know that they are there. Once people learn about them, they tend to start using them. Just my experience anyway.
-dave
my phone should only ring when the call is from list X while I have it set this way, so that while I'm attending certain functions, only list X callers will interrupt my activities. I should be able to have many such lists, and using ring tones, know which list the caller is from.
My two year old cell phone can do this. I can specify different ringers to different people and answer based on that. Also, there's this little thing called caller-id. In a meeting, if I need to be reachable, my phone is set to vibrate. If it goes off, I look at the caller-id to decide if I should answer or not. I can set it to always vibrate for certain people, or I can set it to never ring for certain people.
On the computer, set your messaging status to away, or set up email folders for different people and set a notification to inform you when you get an email in that folder, or again, get the notification, and only open the email if it's from specific people.
-dave
What the law should say is that Smut cannot be forced on those not desiring it, however they must also take common sense steps to avoid it on their own.
Right, because that's so much less vague than the current law. What are common sense steps? Could a spammer say that it's common sense to have spam filtering software, therefore any porn spam seen is exempt? If there is a pornographic image on a sign, is the common sense step to make sure that you never look there? How do you know not to look until you've already seen it.
-dave
But that's my point. When customers do this, then a situation develops where there isn't anything the shareholders can do to get their money out of the company other than selling off the pieces and shutting things down.
So you want to baby everybody? If someone (or in this case, a large group of shareholders) makes bad decisions, he or she (or they) have to face the consequences. Basically it because a game of musical chairs. Somebody gets caught losing money eventually (maybe even a large pyramid scheme). But it's based on the decisions they made. I don't think we let people fail enough, so they never learn. If you live in a flood zone and don't have flood insurance, well, in the words of Bill, "Here's your sign." If you vote for short term gains and get caught losing money, well, maybe you've learned something and you'll change.
And personally, I don't think Ford's problem isn't that they aren't serving their customers (according to Edmunds, for 2003 Ford had the following cars on the top ten best sellers: F-Series, Explorer, Taurus). Their problem is that they are reselling the same car to the same buyer and not bringing in new buyers. What they need to do is to get more people to test-drive their cars.
And lumping analysts in with short-term stockholders is a bad idea. It really depends on who is the analysts customer (yes, they are in fact serving a customer). My mother managed mutual funds for large investors, investors who bought funds and planned on keeping them for decades. Her analysts were to give her the data to determine good long term investments, but in order to make money, you don't forego a good short term investment.
-dave
Why is this one of the few insightful, forward looking comments in the whole story? Everybody is saying, it'll flop because it's not what I want. Well, maybe you aren't the market, but it sure as hell is what I would want and I can imagine a lot of fields where this can be used.
The comparisons to a PDA are faulty. PDAs have nowhere near the functionality and performance of an ultramobile computer. The USB ports give it nearly unlimited expansion. Plug in a small keyboard (I'm sure somebody will make a nice line of accessories). Different accessories and cases can customize it for a persons need. It replaces the PDA, laptop, ipod (including video), portable gaming system, possibly phone (keep in mind, it's expandable and runs real software, so putting a softphone on this would be easy).
My only problem is the price, as I am a cheap skate and $600+ is too much for a device that I don't currently need, though if I were buying another laptop, I'd consider it.
Another common complaint seems to be that MS isn't designing this, merely getting others to create the hardware. Well, guess what happens everytime they do anything but release a new OS (and then sometimes even then)? Everybody accuses them of anti-trust violations. Instead they are releasing a spec for a form factor and functionality of a product and telling hardware vendors that they have software to run on it, and you can make the hardware be what you feel would be best. Seems like a good idea to me.
All in all I think it looks like an interesting idea, and while I won't be buying one right away, I'm definately interested to see how they expand and adapt and hopefully see prices come down a little.
-dave
Companies look to the last and the next three months, no further.
Exactly, because that is what the owners want (by way of shareholder voting, boards, etc.). If the owner of a private company wants to look into the long term, fine. If the stockholders (read: owners) want to look for long term gains, great, and that's the direction the company should be pointed in.
Customers everywhere scratch their heads and wonder why customer service on nearly every level for nearly every industry is absolutely abysmal
And for the answer, they should look into the mirror. Customer service is performed when it presents an advantage to a company. Customer service is not free. It requires people, resources and training. If customers were willing to pay more for service, then more companies would provide it. But fact of the matter is, most people buy based on price.
Car sales are probably the best example. How many people buy the car from the dealer that gives them the best price rather than the best service? I paid a few hundred dollars more to buy my last vehicle from another dealer because they provided better service and I could trust them. If you aren't willing to pay more for better service, then you shouldn't expect better service.
We all know that media companies and their obsession with DRM is leading to a dangerous and eventually (in the HDTV realm anyway) huge conflict with their customers.
Then don't buy from those companies. Make sure your friends don't buy from those companies. But don't give a business money, then turn around and say, "but you aren't giving me what I want."
-dave