Nah.... I have respect for those who like seeing live theatre/plays. But it's not my "cup of tea". For starters, live productions tend not to even cover some of the genres I like best (such as good sci-fi). They lend themsleves better to love stories, or perhaps "whodunnit" types of drama.
It's really a completely different "art form" than movies, especially nowdays with CGI and everything in the movies. To me, a movie works best when it takes you someplace you couldn't really go in "real life". Plays and theatrical performances are forced to use costumes, small props and painted backdrops to do this. If you're just into the minimalist aspect of it all, great. But if I want to see a story about a mission to Mars, I'd rather have the CGI and everything making it as believable as possible that I'm really watching the story unfold there. People pretending to walk around in low gravity on a stage with some painted "Mars-scape" backdrop behind them isn't going to compare.
Huh? Are you saying you *don't* have this same issue when using Win2K?
I don't understand. If you're not using DHCP, you're probably using a static (fixed) IP address. If so, then it's going to stay locked in, as-is, no matter what network you join. If it happens to be incorrect for the new network you join, it's going to stay incorrect until you manually change it to something usable. That's just how TCP/IP works.
I thought about this too... I think there's a flaw in the logic that monetary value drops towards "zero" as scarcity decreases or becomes non-existant. (EG. Anyone who wants that MP3 song can get it for free with ease.)
If you assign a price to an MP3 (for example) and the public feels some of that price rewards the artist for his/her hard work, a percentage will pay the price - regardless of the ease in obtaining the song for free.
Control of distribution is a "diminishing returns" game, the way I see it. If you can maintain very tight control on the distribution, then yes - you might be maximizing your profit potential. (This is pretty much how concert tickets work. You hire security and ticket-takers to try to guarantee nobody gets in to see the show for free. Then, you can charge the maximum price the market will bear to go see that show and still make ticket sales.) But whether you only realistically maintain "some" control or practically none, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Once it becomes fairly "feasible" to duplicate a work, you're at the mercy of people *choosing* to pay or not pay for it.
(To use my concert ticket analogy again, it'd be like having ticket takers at the front gate still, but security is lax and there's a back entrance people can easily sneak in. At this point, why not just put out a fish bowl with a sign asking people to please pay as they enter, and get rid of all security measures? Either way, a lot of people will choose to pay - because they just want to "do the right thing", while others won't.)
No arguments about XP product activation being a big negative for upgrading to it/using it. I've been on XP for quite a while now here at home, but that's on only one PC that won't really see any big upgrades or changes in the near future anyway.
For businesses, activation is just one more waste of time step and potential headache for the I.T. staff.
On the other hand, I always hear 2000 users make your #1 point; there's almost no difference between XP and 2000. I used to say that too, but having used XP extensively now, I'm less liable to make that statement now. For one thing, wireless networking support seems to be MUCH better in XP. On a 2000 box, you're always stuck using whatever support is included with your wireless NIC's driver CD/diskette. Sometimes that's fine, but I often find it cumbersome and glitchy. Letting XP natively manage the wi-fi card provides 1 consistent and fairly straightforward set of screens for users to navigate.
Yes, I've had to do this a number of times, actually. But one problem is, after you read off the long code over the phone to them, you may or may not get an activation key back.
I'm not quite sure what the limitations are, but Microsoft obviously has measures in place to limit the number of times someone can re-activate XP that way. I've had customers who radically changed and upgraded their PCs a number of times over the last few years. When they had a drive crash and no good backups, it was up to me to swap out their drive and re-install XP and their apps from scratch. Their key refused to activate again, because apparently, MS decided it had been re-activated too often already and they put some kind of "block" on the code.
I'd agree that much of the older stuff was indeed made better, but it's also largely just due to it being simpler. As time goes on and technologies advance, it's natural to become more concerned with issues like "size reduction", "additional new features and functionality" and ways to hold the price down while adding in the new features.
For example, I take a look at my dad's old tube AM radio. Still works! Great... but let's face it. It's a pretty basic device. You can build the same thing today on pretty much a single IC chip, and cram it into something the size of a ballpoint pen. Today's radios have a LOT more complexity. (For starters, you have that whole other band to receive called FM, and it does stereo. But you probably also want digital tuning so you're not fumbling around with a dial trying to get a station tuned in "just right", and loads of other things.) On top of that, I can see a repair sticker on the bottom of the tube radio too. So it did break down at least once before. (Most likely, needed new tubes.) You might just discard a broken radio today instead of having it fixed, but I bet the new replacement costs less than labor on a repair of ANY sort.
So I think we're not talking about a situation here that's helping drag down the net worth of current generations.
Umm... not really. My point was, businesses that one would assume are mass producing their products are reduced to doing nothing but helping someone prepare an overseas competitor to kick their butt at doing their job.
The prototyping and molds could be done overseas too, and at a much lower cost - *except*, it's still worth paying more to have someone you can easily contact, much closer to home, if you're working out glitches in the design. (It's not that often they get the mold done for you perfectly on the very first try.)
I'm glad the parent post was already modded +5 Insightful, because I think it basically is.
I'd have to say though, I've worked in I.T. for at least one company where a mix of lasers, inkjets, and a color laser were all used - and I think to pretty good effect.
The engineering people occasionally had a need to print off digital photos from one of several digital cameras that were loaned out, and I have yet to see a color laser that could print out 4x6 glossy photos that look like real photos. So for that specific purpose, the inkjet was useful for them.
In the main office building, we had another color inkjet; an old HP DeskJet 1600C, which was designed for workgroup/small office use. It was networked and had pretty large capacity ink cartridges. It sat next to a color laser printer, which was the only other "color" device in the building. For certain things like printing transparencies, labels, or on special types/thicknesses of card stock, sometime the inkjet was the better choice. (If you get labels peeling off inside your laser from the heat, you've got a big mess and jam to deal with, for example!)
It seems nobody here stopped to mention this yet, but it occurs to me that the big reason we've reached this "milestone" is thanks to slave labor!
The PC market has been depressed for a long time now. That new Dell PC with the latest generation of CPU and 512MB of RAM standard shouldn't really be selling for only $399.95. It only does because they can get Chinese workers to assemble the things for them for pennies per day.
And this carries over to ALL aspects of that PC, including the plastic molding process that makes the case! (A while back, I looked into getting a case made for a prototype product we were thiking of marketing. While there a a number of businesses in the U.S. that will do the injection molding process - they practically *all* informed me that I'd be wise to have the mass production of the end-result done in China or Taiwan. They simply couldn't compete at all on price for quantities. It seems they do most of their business helping someone get the very first sample done, and then selling you the molds that it was made with.)
I know many people say "So what? It's a global economy now!" and all that... But I'm not sure we can really preach and claim to be about such things as "freedom" or "individual rights" while letting our own economy slowly collapse. The U.S. doesn't seem like we export any technology anymore! (Heck, what do we export lately other than a lot of our jobs?!)
Being very much a "free market" proponent, it's almost hard to admit this. But right now, we're just not working on the same "playing field". I think the large nations of the world are going to have to get together and agree to add some steep tarriffs to goods imported from 3rd. world countries (and anyone using what amounts to slave labor practices to build their products).
Actually, I had a friend who worked at Radio Shack when the CueCat was being distributed free from them.
The deal was, they only had a limited number of CueCats with USB ports. The vast majority of the units they received to give out were PS/2 models. They had one or two specific models of PCs they sold (as I recall, certain Compaq Presario models) that only had USB ports - so they were instructed to only give away a USB CueCat to a customer who said he/she wanted to use it with one of those particular computers.
What some people seem to be overlooking is, *some* Mac evangelists were raving about the new G5s over Intel because the G5 seemed to be a better "bang for the buck" system than anything you could buy with Intel's processor in it AT THAT TIME.
Lots of Mac users I knew were primarily excited because the G5 running at up to 2Ghz seemed to just be the very beginning of a long, prosperous upgrade path. Intel's P4 had already been around a long time and they'd released a couple "flops" (way overpriced "Extreme" P4's for example). It wasn't looking like they were going to be in a better position than IBM was.
Jumping a whole year ahead now and saying "Hey, IBM didn't do what we all hoped... ramping up the G5 speeds quickly because of having a whole new architecture to work from." -- why would that really mean you're "eating crow" if you now agree that Intel ended up having the better roadmap?
Your list of suggestions make sense, but as a self-proclaimed "geek guy" who believes he already follows most of those, I'd still have to make a few counter-points.
1. I *do* complain (or whine; your pick how you wish to label it) a lot about things I observe in the world around me. If that's too "unattractive" for a woman to deal with, so be it. But I usually point such things out to spark a conversation. I'm typically upset at something I think needs to be pointed out and addressed, rather than just swept under the rug. All too often, I think women want to avoid confrontation or discussion that might not be of the "happy, happy - joy, joy" type. You know... the types that try to end all political discussion at a table as soon as it starts, with a "can't we just talk about something ELSE?!" plea?
2. I'm not too convinced many women really want a guy that seems very "into" them at all? Practically every time I've been in a new relationship that I was really excited about (felt those "sparks" from the first time we met and all that good stuff), the thing that seemed to immediately terminate it was expressing the fact that I felt so strongly about it! My theory is, women want to feel like they're the ones who "won the guy over" themselves... They want to be the one in the "driver's seat" after the guy makes that first move and does the initial "hitting on them" and they accept. No matter how much you're falling into "like", "love" or "lust" for the woman, the only thing she wants is for you to pay attention to her on her terms, and always drop what you're doing to come over there *if you're invited*, but NOT to start doing things on your own to show how much you care. It has to be HER show, played out the way SHE wants it to play out.
3. On the "balanced life" thing, sure - everyone needs to get out in public now and then. But if you're really into computers, you can use that to your advantage rather than it working against you here. The computer is the ultimate communications tool! Get into a local IRC chat room for your city or state and organize a "get together" for the people who congregate there. Use email to invite some people out for dinner or bowling or trivia night or whatever you think they'd all enjoy. Do some searches online for recommendations of interesting things to do or see in your area. Buy a cheap hand-held GPS and get into the new hobby of GeoCaching! (www.geocaching.com)
Possibly, except most people I think of as "power users" do things with their computers that the "average person" would find confusing and dificult to do. Their definition of "easy to use" is just worlds apart from other people.
(EG. A Unix "power user" might applaud the "ease and reliability" that comes with being able to use pipes and filters to strip the line-feed codes off of a text document from a single command on a command line interface. The "average user" would still be completely lost as to what "line feeds" are in the first place, and would find the whole business of typing out a rather cryptic-looking command on the command line to be VERY unfriendly and difficult.)
That's why, while I do agree that the "best of both worlds" approach of OS X is superior - I still maintain that people comfortable with something like an old "classic" version of MacOS may just feel like it's best to stick with what they've got and what they already know how to use. I've seen a few MS-DOS users like this too. They learned the ins and out of DOS over 10+ years of time, and they feel like most of it is "thrown out" if they upgrade to a current operating system. They can still get their work done in an ancient version of Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect, so they do.
I'd agree if you're talking about it causing loss of sales to inexperienced users who just want an "easy to use" computer.
But though that's been the supposed traditional Mac purchaser, I think that hasn't been nearly as accurate since the release of OS X 10.2. (10.1 was probably still too immature to get serious adoption.)
At this point, you've got a *lot* of long-time Windows users with piqued interest about the power and functionality of OS X. Many are on the fence, but seriously considering a Mac purchase in the near future, so they can "get in on the action". If these people can find a way to run a hacked OS X on their Intel-based Wndows boxes, I imagine most will do so rather than fork out the cash for a Mac. (Because frankly, these people are the "power users" who run at least 1 or 2 pirated apps for every legally owned one already. They just like trying out new things and can't afford to buy them all.)
Today's OS X user is just as likely an advanced, sophisticated "power user" as anything. Lots of the people who just wanted their "super easy to use, friendly computer" are still hanging onto their old MacOS 9.1 or earlier boxes and are afraid to move to OS X. That's one reason there's still a market for processor upgrades for vintage Macs. (NewerTech, Sonnet, PowerLogic, and others all sell G3 and G4 chips or logic boards you can drop in your PowerMac all the way back to 7100 or 7300/7500/7600 series systems.) A few people do this to try to get OS X working on those machines using xpostfacto software, but I'd say just as many do it because they're trying to squeeze more life and power out of their classic MacOS.
I think you're correct, but not so sure it's really outside the realm of what the original poster was trying to say?
Whether you choose to use your free time towards building a new product, or you use it to try to create important social or political change, you're doing something constructive.
Either would involve doing something that requires rejection of the typical ways people use all of their "free time" (for personal entertainment of an "escapist" nature like TV, movies, video gaming, etc., or trying to find a partner to increase one's personal happiness).
Dvorak's comments are interesting, but I think his predictions of OS X harming Linux would have been much more valid if this all played out back in the late 90's, when Linux was just starting to gain traction in corporate America, and more I.T. people were trying it out for the first time on their home machines.
At this point, I don't think it'll make too much difference. Any "harm" OS X was going to do to switching potential Linux users has already been done since the releases of OS X 10.2 and 10.3. (I'm sure some people who formerly were just trying to get a really nice, Linux-compliant PC laptop set up opted for Powerbooks or iBooks running OS X instead.)
There are, of course, a lot of "if's" here. For starters, Apple really doesn't have very strong offerings in the way of server hardware. Those XServe 1U rack systems aren't all that attractive for the majority of corporate businesses. Apple changes around product lines and ends support too quickly for their hardware/software for corporate America, generally. Coupling that with the fact that an XServe runs at a max. speed of 2.3Ghz right now, while the *workstation* G5 can do 2.7Ghz, and the fact that OS X apparently isn't well optimized for some server-type apps like SQL (according to a recent Slashdot story, even!) -- businesses would probably rather stick with Linux on an IBM or HP/Compaq rack server or something.
Now, *if* Apple could leverage their new Intel based Macs into really powerful multi-processor blade servers and get the next version of OS X handling some of these server apps more efficiently, that scenario might change.
Yep! I thought about that too! Honestly though, I can't see Apple using an Itel CPU in their hardware unless it's a specially designed model for them. I imagine they'd request custom versions of Itaniums for their PowerMac line, and custom Pentium-M's for everything else. That way, they'd be able to create a CPU that's "bound" to the Mac motherboard and OS X, so you couldn't just run out and buy OS X and install it successfully on any old PC.
On the flip-side though, perhaps the new Intel-based Macs would natively allow installations of Windows (dual boot being a likely scenario), or at least allow a new Virtual PC version to run with MUCH more speed than it has today.
As long as Apple is specifying a customized CPU just for them, they could put a "hold the DRM" order on it too.
You're generally correct about businesses.... but it really depends on where you work. I've been to a number of print shops in town, and almost all use about 50% Macs. Lots of newspapers use primarily Macs too. (Granted, our local paper seems to be migrating to PCs because of how cheap they can buy Dells and the like... but the writers still use primarily Macs as their notebooks and home desktops of choice, and they generally whine and gripe about the corporate change in course.)
I've also seen a few dentists and chiropractors who use all Macs in their offices. They're a minority, but they're out there. There are a few specialized packages for Mac OS X just for these fields.
Yep, agreed. Plus, you have so many people nowdays using 2 or 3 computers in their home - it's not that much of a stretch for an avid PC user to buy something like a Mac Mini as one of his/her "spares" - just to be able to have compatibility with a greater variety of software packages.
(In my own case, I bought a Mini as a spare machine in my basement, primarily so other people who come over/stay over a while can surf the net on it and play games, etc. on it without screwing up a more important system of mine. It's nice knowing when they get done, i don't have 50 spyware things to try to remove.)
That's good, but actually, when I read this - I wondered if it might also apply to those originsl Palm Pilots. I owned an original "Palm Pro" model which had this exact same issue... lost data any time the batteries were changed.
Seriously, I started reading their web site and this horrible "brrruzzztt!" sound came from my speakers. At first I thought it was some idiot on a CB radio broadcasting noise that leaked over into my system or something. Then it happened again, and as I scrolled down the page, I saw that lame-ass "swat the fly!" advertising on the left-hand side of the screen! I even swatted it once, hoping it'd just show me the stupid "you win a prize" page and shut up -- but nope. When I went back to the original page, the fly started buzzing again. I bailed out on it.
Actually, one of my good friends works a second job at a large electronics retailer, and he said they had a "large number of returns" of the 60GB model of the iPod photo. None of the other models were affected. He suspects they had a bad production run of the 60GB microdrives in them, and Apple hasn't openly acknowledged it yet (perhaps because it's such a limited issue).
I agree that just because someone actually presses a few keys on their cellphone while driving, it doesn't mean they're suddenly "UNSAFE!"
But I think the reasoning behind the "2 hands on the wheel" thing is the idea that if you need to quickly turn, you can do so more effectively using both hands than just one.
Honestly, the validity of this probably depends a lot on the turning radius of the car or truck you're driving though, and perhaps to a lesser extent whether or not it has power steering.
Whenever I drive older (say, 1970's) vehicles, I find that you have to crank the wheel around for as much as 1 or 2 complete turns to make anything resembling a sharp left or right turn. On most newer cars, however, as little as 1/4th. of a turn accomplishes almost the same thing.
I don't really see why it makes much difference if we charge the end user for disposal, or make the manufacturers cover it. If the manufacturers have to pay for this, they'll just figure the expense in to the price paid for the machine when it's new... so in effect, the consumer pays anyway.
The thing I find slightly ironic/interesting is, we have all this concern and hype over PC recycling lately -- yet computers aren't really made of components any more hazardous in landfills than TV sets. And we've been trashing old TVs since what? The 1950's or so?
Also a bit interesting/ironic: By the time all 50 states enact legislation preventing people from just throwing out their old CRT's (lead in the glass you know, and all that!), we'll practically all be using LCD panels as our displays anyway. The vast majority of old CRTs people are ready to toss are 14" and 15" models that have been in service for 5-10 years already and are getting tossed out as we speak....
I've been working in the computer industry for about 14 years now, and to be honest - I don't see loads and loads of computers just getting thrown away after the original buyer is done using them (in say, 3-5 years). Probably 90% of the time, they either get held onto as a "spare" or "machine for the kids", or handed down/sold cheap to someone else to be re-used. By the time one hits the dumpster, it's really been used and re-used as many as 3 or 4 times. Much better lifespans than we're seeing out of cellphones.
Ok,so it's supposed to really be a question asked to stealthily find out someone's attitude/tolerance level towards homosexuals?
I suppose that works on a crude level... But honestly, I'm not even sure I know what "pro-gay" is supposed to mean? I'd argue that only gay people are "pro-gay". Everyone else either tolerates them or they don't.
I strongly believe in everyone's right to be themselves, whatever comes with it. That doesn't mean I'd actively expend my own time and energy in support of a specific "cause" that doesn't apply to me. (EG. I'm fine with my buddy telling me he's gay, and he's still going to be my friend for the same reasons he was my friend before he revealed this additional information to me. But I'm not going to go to the local "gay pride parade" or anything.)
Slashdot Mirror
Nah.... I have respect for those who like seeing live theatre/plays. But it's not my "cup of tea". For starters, live productions tend not to even cover some of the genres I like best (such as good sci-fi). They lend themsleves better to love stories, or perhaps "whodunnit" types of drama.
It's really a completely different "art form" than movies, especially nowdays with CGI and everything in the movies. To me, a movie works best when it takes you someplace you couldn't really go in "real life". Plays and theatrical performances are forced to use costumes, small props and painted backdrops to do this. If you're just into the minimalist aspect of it all, great. But if I want to see a story about a mission to Mars, I'd rather have the CGI and everything making it as believable as possible that I'm really watching the story unfold there. People pretending to walk around in low gravity on a stage with some painted "Mars-scape" backdrop behind them isn't going to compare.
Huh? Are you saying you *don't* have this same issue when using Win2K?
I don't understand. If you're not using DHCP, you're probably using a static (fixed) IP address. If so, then it's going to stay locked in, as-is, no matter what network you join. If it happens to be incorrect for the new network you join, it's going to stay incorrect until you manually change it to something usable. That's just how TCP/IP works.
Or am I completely missing/forgetting something?
I thought about this too... I think there's a flaw in the logic that monetary value drops towards "zero" as scarcity decreases or becomes non-existant. (EG. Anyone who wants that MP3 song can get it for free with ease.)
If you assign a price to an MP3 (for example) and the public feels some of that price rewards the artist for his/her hard work, a percentage will pay the price - regardless of the ease in obtaining the song for free.
Control of distribution is a "diminishing returns" game, the way I see it. If you can maintain very tight control on the distribution, then yes - you might be maximizing your profit potential. (This is pretty much how concert tickets work. You hire security and ticket-takers to try to guarantee nobody gets in to see the show for free. Then, you can charge the maximum price the market will bear to go see that show and still make ticket sales.) But whether you only realistically maintain "some" control or practically none, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Once it becomes fairly "feasible" to duplicate a work, you're at the mercy of people *choosing* to pay or not pay for it.
(To use my concert ticket analogy again, it'd be like having ticket takers at the front gate still, but security is lax and there's a back entrance people can easily sneak in. At this point, why not just put out a fish bowl with a sign asking people to please pay as they enter, and get rid of all security measures? Either way, a lot of people will choose to pay - because they just want to "do the right thing", while others won't.)
No arguments about XP product activation being a big negative for upgrading to it/using it. I've been on XP for quite a while now here at home, but that's on only one PC that won't really see any big upgrades or changes in the near future anyway.
For businesses, activation is just one more waste of time step and potential headache for the I.T. staff.
On the other hand, I always hear 2000 users make your #1 point; there's almost no difference between XP and 2000. I used to say that too, but having used XP extensively now, I'm less liable to make that statement now. For one thing, wireless networking support seems to be MUCH better in XP. On a 2000 box, you're always stuck using whatever support is included with your wireless NIC's driver CD/diskette. Sometimes that's fine, but I often find it cumbersome and glitchy. Letting XP natively manage the wi-fi card provides 1 consistent and fairly straightforward set of screens for users to navigate.
Yes, I've had to do this a number of times, actually. But one problem is, after you read off the long code over the phone to them, you may or may not get an activation key back.
I'm not quite sure what the limitations are, but Microsoft obviously has measures in place to limit the number of times someone can re-activate XP that way. I've had customers who radically changed and upgraded their PCs a number of times over the last few years. When they had a drive crash and no good backups, it was up to me to swap out their drive and re-install XP and their apps from scratch. Their key refused to activate again, because apparently, MS decided it had been re-activated too often already and they put some kind of "block" on the code.
I'd agree that much of the older stuff was indeed made better, but it's also largely just due to it being simpler. As time goes on and technologies advance, it's natural to become more concerned with issues like "size reduction", "additional new features and functionality" and ways to hold the price down while adding in the new features.
For example, I take a look at my dad's old tube AM radio. Still works! Great... but let's face it. It's a pretty basic device. You can build the same thing today on pretty much a single IC chip, and cram it into something the size of a ballpoint pen. Today's radios have a LOT more complexity. (For starters, you have that whole other band to receive called FM, and it does stereo. But you probably also want digital tuning so you're not fumbling around with a dial trying to get a station tuned in "just right", and loads of other things.) On top of that, I can see a repair sticker on the bottom of the tube radio too. So it did break down at least once before. (Most likely, needed new tubes.) You might just discard a broken radio today instead of having it fixed, but I bet the new replacement costs less than labor on a repair of ANY sort.
So I think we're not talking about a situation here that's helping drag down the net worth of current generations.
Umm... not really. My point was, businesses that one would assume are mass producing their products are reduced to doing nothing but helping someone prepare an overseas competitor to kick their butt at doing their job.
The prototyping and molds could be done overseas too, and at a much lower cost - *except*, it's still worth paying more to have someone you can easily contact, much closer to home, if you're working out glitches in the design. (It's not that often they get the mold done for you perfectly on the very first try.)
I'm glad the parent post was already modded +5 Insightful, because I think it basically is.
I'd have to say though, I've worked in I.T. for at least one company where a mix of lasers, inkjets, and a color laser were all used - and I think to pretty good effect.
The engineering people occasionally had a need to print off digital photos from one of several digital cameras that were loaned out, and I have yet to see a color laser that could print out 4x6 glossy photos that look like real photos. So for that specific purpose, the inkjet was useful for them.
In the main office building, we had another color inkjet; an old HP DeskJet 1600C, which was designed for workgroup/small office use. It was networked and had pretty large capacity ink cartridges. It sat next to a color laser printer, which was the only other "color" device in the building. For certain things like printing transparencies, labels, or on special types/thicknesses of card stock, sometime the inkjet was the better choice. (If you get labels peeling off inside your laser from the heat, you've got a big mess and jam to deal with, for example!)
It seems nobody here stopped to mention this yet, but it occurs to me that the big reason we've reached this "milestone" is thanks to slave labor!
The PC market has been depressed for a long time now. That new Dell PC with the latest generation of CPU and 512MB of RAM standard shouldn't really be selling for only $399.95. It only does because they can get Chinese workers to assemble the things for them for pennies per day.
And this carries over to ALL aspects of that PC, including the plastic molding process that makes the case! (A while back, I looked into getting a case made for a prototype product we were thiking of marketing. While there a a number of businesses in the U.S. that will do the injection molding process - they practically *all* informed me that I'd be wise to have the mass production of the end-result done in China or Taiwan. They simply couldn't compete at all on price for quantities. It seems they do most of their business helping someone get the very first sample done, and then selling you the molds that it was made with.)
I know many people say "So what? It's a global economy now!" and all that... But I'm not sure we can really preach and claim to be about such things as "freedom" or "individual rights" while letting our own economy slowly collapse. The U.S. doesn't seem like we export any technology anymore! (Heck, what do we export lately other than a lot of our jobs?!)
Being very much a "free market" proponent, it's almost hard to admit this. But right now, we're just not working on the same "playing field". I think the large nations of the world are going to have to get together and agree to add some steep tarriffs to goods imported from 3rd. world countries (and anyone using what amounts to slave labor practices to build their products).
Actually, I had a friend who worked at Radio Shack when the CueCat was being distributed free from them.
The deal was, they only had a limited number of CueCats with USB ports. The vast majority of the units they received to give out were PS/2 models. They had one or two specific models of PCs they sold (as I recall, certain Compaq Presario models) that only had USB ports - so they were instructed to only give away a USB CueCat to a customer who said he/she wanted to use it with one of those particular computers.
What some people seem to be overlooking is, *some* Mac evangelists were raving about the new G5s over Intel because the G5 seemed to be a better "bang for the buck" system than anything you could buy with Intel's processor in it AT THAT TIME.
Lots of Mac users I knew were primarily excited because the G5 running at up to 2Ghz seemed to just be the very beginning of a long, prosperous upgrade path. Intel's P4 had already been around a long time and they'd released a couple "flops" (way overpriced "Extreme" P4's for example). It wasn't looking like they were going to be in a better position than IBM was.
Jumping a whole year ahead now and saying "Hey, IBM didn't do what we all hoped... ramping up the G5 speeds quickly because of having a whole new architecture to work from." -- why would that really mean you're "eating crow" if you now agree that Intel ended up having the better roadmap?
Your list of suggestions make sense, but as a self-proclaimed "geek guy" who believes he already follows most of those, I'd still have to make a few counter-points.
1. I *do* complain (or whine; your pick how you wish to label it) a lot about things I observe in the world around me. If that's too "unattractive" for a woman to deal with, so be it. But I usually point such things out to spark a conversation. I'm typically upset at something I think needs to be pointed out and addressed, rather than just swept under the rug. All too often, I think women want to avoid confrontation or discussion that might not be of the "happy, happy - joy, joy" type. You know... the types that try to end all political discussion at a table as soon as it starts, with a "can't we just talk about something ELSE?!" plea?
2. I'm not too convinced many women really want a guy that seems very "into" them at all? Practically every time I've been in a new relationship that I was really excited about (felt those "sparks" from the first time we met and all that good stuff), the thing that seemed to immediately terminate it was expressing the fact that I felt so strongly about it! My theory is, women want to feel like they're the ones who "won the guy over" themselves... They want to be the one in the "driver's seat" after the guy makes that first move and does the initial "hitting on them" and they accept. No matter how much you're falling into "like", "love" or "lust" for the woman, the only thing she wants is for you to pay attention to her on her terms, and always drop what you're doing to come over there *if you're invited*, but NOT to start doing things on your own to show how much you care. It has to be HER show, played out the way SHE wants it to play out.
3. On the "balanced life" thing, sure - everyone needs to get out in public now and then. But if you're really into computers, you can use that to your advantage rather than it working against you here. The computer is the ultimate communications tool! Get into a local IRC chat room for your city or state and organize a "get together" for the people who congregate there. Use email to invite some people out for dinner or bowling or trivia night or whatever you think they'd all enjoy. Do some searches online for recommendations of interesting things to do or see in your area. Buy a cheap hand-held GPS and get into the new hobby of GeoCaching! (www.geocaching.com)
Possibly, except most people I think of as "power users" do things with their computers that the "average person" would find confusing and dificult to do. Their definition of "easy to use" is just worlds apart from other people.
(EG. A Unix "power user" might applaud the "ease and reliability" that comes with being able to use pipes and filters to strip the line-feed codes off of a text document from a single command on a command line interface. The "average user" would still be completely lost as to what "line feeds" are in the first place, and would find the whole business of typing out a rather cryptic-looking command on the command line to be VERY unfriendly and difficult.)
That's why, while I do agree that the "best of both worlds" approach of OS X is superior - I still maintain that people comfortable with something like an old "classic" version of MacOS may just feel like it's best to stick with what they've got and what they already know how to use. I've seen a few MS-DOS users like this too. They learned the ins and out of DOS over 10+ years of time, and they feel like most of it is "thrown out" if they upgrade to a current operating system. They can still get their work done in an ancient version of Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect, so they do.
I'd agree if you're talking about it causing loss of sales to inexperienced users who just want an "easy to use" computer.
But though that's been the supposed traditional Mac purchaser, I think that hasn't been nearly as accurate since the release of OS X 10.2. (10.1 was probably still too immature to get serious adoption.)
At this point, you've got a *lot* of long-time Windows users with piqued interest about the power and functionality of OS X. Many are on the fence, but seriously considering a Mac purchase in the near future, so they can "get in on the action". If these people can find a way to run a hacked OS X on their Intel-based Wndows boxes, I imagine most will do so rather than fork out the cash for a Mac. (Because frankly, these people are the "power users" who run at least 1 or 2 pirated apps for every legally owned one already. They just like trying out new things and can't afford to buy them all.)
Today's OS X user is just as likely an advanced, sophisticated "power user" as anything. Lots of the people who just wanted their "super easy to use, friendly computer" are still hanging onto their old MacOS 9.1 or earlier boxes and are afraid to move to OS X. That's one reason there's still a market for processor upgrades for vintage Macs. (NewerTech, Sonnet, PowerLogic, and others all sell G3 and G4 chips or logic boards you can drop in your PowerMac all the way back to 7100 or 7300/7500/7600 series systems.) A few people do this to try to get OS X working on those machines using xpostfacto software, but I'd say just as many do it because they're trying to squeeze more life and power out of their classic MacOS.
I think you're correct, but not so sure it's really outside the realm of what the original poster was trying to say?
Whether you choose to use your free time towards building a new product, or you use it to try to create important social or political change, you're doing something constructive.
Either would involve doing something that requires rejection of the typical ways people use all of their "free time" (for personal entertainment of an "escapist" nature like TV, movies, video gaming, etc., or trying to find a partner to increase one's personal happiness).
Dvorak's comments are interesting, but I think his predictions of OS X harming Linux would have been much more valid if this all played out back in the late 90's, when Linux was just starting to gain traction in corporate America, and more I.T. people were trying it out for the first time on their home machines.
At this point, I don't think it'll make too much difference. Any "harm" OS X was going to do to switching potential Linux users has already been done since the releases of OS X 10.2 and 10.3. (I'm sure some people who formerly were just trying to get a really nice, Linux-compliant PC laptop set up opted for Powerbooks or iBooks running OS X instead.)
There are, of course, a lot of "if's" here. For starters, Apple really doesn't have very strong offerings in the way of server hardware. Those XServe 1U rack systems aren't all that attractive for the majority of corporate businesses. Apple changes around product lines and ends support too quickly for their hardware/software for corporate America, generally. Coupling that with the fact that an XServe runs at a max. speed of 2.3Ghz right now, while the *workstation* G5 can do 2.7Ghz, and the fact that OS X apparently isn't well optimized for some server-type apps like SQL (according to a recent Slashdot story, even!) -- businesses would probably rather stick with Linux on an IBM or HP/Compaq rack server or something.
Now, *if* Apple could leverage their new Intel based Macs into really powerful multi-processor blade servers and get the next version of OS X handling some of these server apps more efficiently, that scenario might change.
Yep! I thought about that too! Honestly though, I can't see Apple using an Itel CPU in their hardware unless it's a specially designed model for them. I imagine they'd request custom versions of Itaniums for their PowerMac line, and custom Pentium-M's for everything else. That way, they'd be able to create a CPU that's "bound" to the Mac motherboard and OS X, so you couldn't just run out and buy OS X and install it successfully on any old PC.
On the flip-side though, perhaps the new Intel-based Macs would natively allow installations of Windows (dual boot being a likely scenario), or at least allow a new Virtual PC version to run with MUCH more speed than it has today.
As long as Apple is specifying a customized CPU just for them, they could put a "hold the DRM" order on it too.
You're generally correct about businesses.... but it really depends on where you work. I've been to a number of print shops in town, and almost all use about 50% Macs. Lots of newspapers use primarily Macs too. (Granted, our local paper seems to be migrating to PCs because of how cheap they can buy Dells and the like... but the writers still use primarily Macs as their notebooks and home desktops of choice, and they generally whine and gripe about the corporate change in course.)
I've also seen a few dentists and chiropractors who use all Macs in their offices. They're a minority, but they're out there. There are a few specialized packages for Mac OS X just for these fields.
Yep, agreed. Plus, you have so many people nowdays using 2 or 3 computers in their home - it's not that much of a stretch for an avid PC user to buy something like a Mac Mini as one of his/her "spares" - just to be able to have compatibility with a greater variety of software packages.
(In my own case, I bought a Mini as a spare machine in my basement, primarily so other people who come over/stay over a while can surf the net on it and play games, etc. on it without screwing up a more important system of mine. It's nice knowing when they get done, i don't have 50 spyware things to try to remove.)
That's good, but actually, when I read this - I wondered if it might also apply to those originsl Palm Pilots. I owned an original "Palm Pro" model which had this exact same issue... lost data any time the batteries were changed.
Seriously, I started reading their web site and this horrible "brrruzzztt!" sound came from my speakers. At first I thought it was some idiot on a CB radio broadcasting noise that leaked over into my system or something. Then it happened again, and as I scrolled down the page, I saw that lame-ass "swat the fly!" advertising on the left-hand side of the screen! I even swatted it once, hoping it'd just show me the stupid "you win a prize" page and shut up -- but nope. When I went back to the original page, the fly started buzzing again. I bailed out on it.
Actually, one of my good friends works a second job at a large electronics retailer, and he said they had a "large number of returns" of the 60GB model of the iPod photo. None of the other models were affected. He suspects they had a bad production run of the 60GB microdrives in them, and Apple hasn't openly acknowledged it yet (perhaps because it's such a limited issue).
I agree that just because someone actually presses a few keys on their cellphone while driving, it doesn't mean they're suddenly "UNSAFE!"
But I think the reasoning behind the "2 hands on the wheel" thing is the idea that if you need to quickly turn, you can do so more effectively using both hands than just one.
Honestly, the validity of this probably depends a lot on the turning radius of the car or truck you're driving though, and perhaps to a lesser extent whether or not it has power steering.
Whenever I drive older (say, 1970's) vehicles, I find that you have to crank the wheel around for as much as 1 or 2 complete turns to make anything resembling a sharp left or right turn. On most newer cars, however, as little as 1/4th. of a turn accomplishes almost the same thing.
I don't really see why it makes much difference if we charge the end user for disposal, or make the manufacturers cover it. If the manufacturers have to pay for this, they'll just figure the expense in to the price paid for the machine when it's new ... so in effect, the consumer pays anyway.
The thing I find slightly ironic/interesting is, we have all this concern and hype over PC recycling lately -- yet computers aren't really made of components any more hazardous in landfills than TV sets. And we've been trashing old TVs since what? The 1950's or so?
Also a bit interesting/ironic: By the time all 50 states enact legislation preventing people from just throwing out their old CRT's (lead in the glass you know, and all that!), we'll practically all be using LCD panels as our displays anyway. The vast majority of old CRTs people are ready to toss are 14" and 15" models that have been in service for 5-10 years already and are getting tossed out as we speak....
I've been working in the computer industry for about 14 years now, and to be honest - I don't see loads and loads of computers just getting thrown away after the original buyer is done using them (in say, 3-5 years). Probably 90% of the time, they either get held onto as a "spare" or "machine for the kids", or handed down/sold cheap to someone else to be re-used. By the time one hits the dumpster, it's really been used and re-used as many as 3 or 4 times. Much better lifespans than we're seeing out of cellphones.
Ok,so it's supposed to really be a question asked to stealthily find out someone's attitude/tolerance level towards homosexuals?
I suppose that works on a crude level... But honestly, I'm not even sure I know what "pro-gay" is supposed to mean? I'd argue that only gay people are "pro-gay". Everyone else either tolerates them or they don't.
I strongly believe in everyone's right to be themselves, whatever comes with it. That doesn't mean I'd actively expend my own time and energy in support of a specific "cause" that doesn't apply to me. (EG. I'm fine with my buddy telling me he's gay, and he's still going to be my friend for the same reasons he was my friend before he revealed this additional information to me. But I'm not going to go to the local "gay pride parade" or anything.)