I can't speak for Sidney airport, not knowing the situation. That said, it can be somewhat understandable.
I live next to a railroad track. Usually twice a week, about 10:00AM, a train comes past carrying supplies to the local Home Depot and will make a lot of noise--like you can't hear someone close-by talking. It's twice a week--always on a weekday, lasts maybe 30 seconds, and it's not a huge deal.
However, if the trains suddenly started coming by every hour between 6:00AM and midnight, I think I'd be more than a little upset.
Again, I don't know the Sidney situation. But as airports expand outward, the house you bought 15 years ago that was far enough away from the airport that the noise level wasn't too bad is suddenly unsellable and unlivable because the airport became bigger or planes became noisier or some such thing.
In the years between the last release of Duke Nukem, there's a new force in town called the ESRB. I'm going to be curious if we'll see it rated "Adults Only."
Actually, that seems like a fun idea. Make a "Mature" version and an "Adults Only" version. Sell the AO version exclusively through the website (since GameStops, etc. won't want to carry "Adults Only" games).
We've got a few people at work that have iPads and they amount to nothing but toys. They all crow about how wonderful they are, but all they do with them were things they already did with their laptops, and none of them have gotten rid of their laptops and kept just the tablet. That's all well and good, but it is quite clear tablets are not something that is allowing them to dump traditional computers.
So, to put this another way, these people are able to do everything they already did with their laptops with iPads. So the laptop is more a "security blanket."
As an analogy, I've always bought desktop computers. I prefer them because they are expandable--I can upgrade the hard drive, memory, graphics cards, etc. This lets me get a longer lifespan out of them. If something goes wrong with a component, I can buy a hardware card that does the same thing. But I always liked laptops because I can take them places. So for years, I've had two computers--a desktop and a laptop. It was finally time to replace my ol' desktop and I decided to finally drop the "security blanket" and buy myself a better laptop instead of a desktop. I figured that all I'd really done with the last desktop was upgrade the memory and hard disk, which I can do with a laptop.
So, arguably, the laptop is more of a "security blanket" for these users. As you say, they can do everything they want with their iPads. So why do they still have a laptop? Because it's comforting--"just in case I need to do something that I can't do with my iPad."
Eventually, they'll either drop the "security blanket" or get sick or carting around two machines "just in case" and decide to go with one or the other. My guess is they will go with the iPad...
The concept isn't necessarily that there's stuff up there and that's incredibly valuable (say, unobtainium). It's also that there's more common ores that are not stuck at the bottom of a deep gravity well.
The general idea is to build big spaceships in Earth orbit. But the raw materials still have to come from Earth, which means they're going to be expensive to get up into orbit (assuming you use rockets to get them up there). But you can get the same raw materials from the Moon, it's much less expensive to get them from the Moon to the Earth than it is to bring them up from the Earth.
I headed up a small group 4 developers. The boss, at one point, came over and noted we'd all been working our asses off and wanted to offer up a token of appreciation. I said, "I don't know. Let's find out what people would like." He didn't like the idea--he was concerned that there would be some infighting if somebody got something that was "worth more" than what someone else got. I told him, "These are all individuals who've put their individual lives on hold to get this done. They're going to want different things."
2 guys took cash. 1 guy got a very fancy new computer. And 1 guy said, "Give me an extra two weeks of vacation and let me take a month off."
My advice, in this case, would be to sit down with the people in question and see what they would like in return for 50 hour weeks and how they would like to try to do this. Would they rather do 10 hour days 5 days a week? Would they rather do 8 hour days 6 days a week? Would they like to see more in their paycheck? Would they prefer a bonus for milestones? Shares in the company? Dinners? Try to get some ideas of what people would want and take those back to the boss. Negotiate for your people and see what can be arranged.
Don't get me wrong, I somewhat agree with you. As I said above, I have a hard time believing that there are 96,000 government employees for whom it is worth paying $36 per month so that they can be contacted wherever they may happen to be.
As you mentioned, go back 10 years and cellphones were more rare and more exclusive. It was a "perk" to have a company-issued cellphone and it showed the world just how important you are. Of course, in the world of politics, everybody has to have a cellphone because they are more important than everyone else.
I'm sure it just exploded from there.
Meanwhile, prices came down so that, 10 years later, everybody and their dog can have a cellphone. It isn't quite so "exclusive" to have a cellphone.
So it's a good thing that this is being looked at--especially with the financial difficulties facing California. In the big picture, it's not going to make much of a difference. But to coin a phrase, $20 million here, $20 million there, after a little while you're talking about big money.
That's a fair statement. Here's another question, though I think it's more of a matter of opinion:
Suppose you want to lift 180,000 kg into orbit. You have a rocket with a liquid fueled engine which can lift 150,000 kg. Is it better to redesign the rocket so that it can lift 180,000 kg into orbit or is it better to stick a couple of SRBs onto the side?
I'd argue that, from the expense side, it would be better to stick a couple of SRBs on the side. But I'm far from an expert in such matters. You seem to know more about it than I do (this is a compliment--I'm not being facetious) so I'd be curious about your opinion.
From what I understand--and again, I may be wrong--the idea was Ares I would be used in combination with Ares V. Ares V would be used to get the lunar lander, etc. up into space and then an Orion spacecraft with people in it would be launched via an Ares I. I would think that putting crew and equipment all on one rocket would be a bad idea.
As I understand it, this was brought up during Apollo. Part of reason that Apollo did it with one rocket was that it was quicker to figure out how to make one huge rocket than it was to figure out how to make one big rocket and one small rocket and make sure that they could dock and everything else that would need to go on.
but perhaps the 8 working hours they do each day, are they going to have to use their personal cell phone? Are you going to cover those minutes? Would it be cheaper?
Remember that forty percent of government employees have taxpayer funded cell phones. I have a really hard time believing that 40% of employees of the state of California need to be on call 24/7 or are out of the office that often.
I use my personal cell phone for work. I give my employer a copy of the bill and highlight the calls that were work related and they write me a check. Even with personal calls, though, I have never gone over my 450 minutes of talk time even with company minutes added in. So in my case, it's definitely cheaper for my employer to compensate me for the time rather than pay for a cell phone.
The phones are already paid for if they were in use by the employees. You couldn't have just put in an order to NOT get new cell phones?
I'll agree that doing this is grandstanding. The deadline for this is actually in six months, when a new cellphone contract is to be set up, so it's not like Jerry Brown is walking through offices today and saying, "You! Give me that cellphone!" But, come June, 48,000 people who had government cellphones will be losing them.
Mea culpa. I meant 2GB. I don't know what AT&T's plan is because my iPhone 3GS still uses the old plan.
If Verizon has an unlimited plan (and really unlimited, not "unlimited"), I'm sure they'll extend that to the iPhone much the same way that they extend it Android phones.
I suppose my point is that I doubt they'll have some kind of special iPhone pricing. They'll offer whatever deals they have now. And the last time I was in a Verizon store discussing data (about 2 weeks ago), nobody mentioned anything about an unlimited plan. They had some plans that were and weren't available for different devices (I couldn't seem to get better than a 2GB plan for a phone, but I could get a 5GB plan for MiFi).
Verizon certainly does not want a bunch of data-sucking iPhones on their network unless they can make money off of them. So, yes, I could believe that Verizon my offer an unlimited plan for $20 more than what their 2MB/month plan costs. But I tend to doubt they're going to be offering unlimited for the same cost as AT&T 2MB/month plan.
Either you have to piss around comparing prices before you buy, or you find out after you bought the item that you could have bought it cheaper elsewhere.
I know people who are like that. I'm not one of them.
Personally, I go to a store. I see something I want to buy. I check the price. If I can afford it, I buy it. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. It's really pretty simple.
It comes from technology, I suppose. I know that if I wait another six months, the price will go down. But the reason the price goes down is that something better comes along and I'd rather have the better thing. So I wait another six months and, sure enough, the price goes down but now there's something even better that I would rather have. And so on and so on and so on.
So if you are one of those compulsive types who absolutely positively has to make sure you are paying the lowest price possible, I can see that having multiple stores to check would be a nuisance. My suggestion would be to consult a mental health professional. Unfortunately, there are lots of them to choose from so that could be a problem...
...because, lord knows, I hate the fact that I can buy the same thing at a different store for possibly a different amount of money. Life is so much easier when there's only one store and that's that.
Just in case you're missing it, this is sarcasm.
I don't see the problem, myself. If I prefer the Google store, I'll use the Google store. If I prefer the Amazon store, I'll use the Amazon store. You might also find features on the Amazon store (like buying an application as a gift for someone else) that don't exist in the Google store.
Well, if there's one thing Apple itself has proven, it's that there is a real market segment that will pay more for a better product and won't just go for the cheapest product in the niche.
Two words: iPod shuffle.
I somewhat agree with you--I would never expect Apple to create a "cheap iPhone." Instead, I could believe Apple will create an "inexpensive iPhone" which removes some capabilities in order to cut costs and "innovates" a way such that you don't necessarily miss them.
Make it Opt-In, not Opt-Out. Allow the user to Opt-Out (or Opt-In) at any time.
Show the user what will be sent and allow them to agree to it.
That said, this is a slippery slope. You're better off actually trying to talk to your customers and find out what they would like to see. Of course, according to Apple, they aren't your customers, they're Apple's customers. That might make this a little more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
But it'll be really shiny tinfoil.
Ooo...shiny...
I don't have a solution but I sure wish I did.
Laser guided missiles?
I can't speak for Sidney airport, not knowing the situation. That said, it can be somewhat understandable.
I live next to a railroad track. Usually twice a week, about 10:00AM, a train comes past carrying supplies to the local Home Depot and will make a lot of noise--like you can't hear someone close-by talking. It's twice a week--always on a weekday, lasts maybe 30 seconds, and it's not a huge deal.
However, if the trains suddenly started coming by every hour between 6:00AM and midnight, I think I'd be more than a little upset.
Again, I don't know the Sidney situation. But as airports expand outward, the house you bought 15 years ago that was far enough away from the airport that the noise level wasn't too bad is suddenly unsellable and unlivable because the airport became bigger or planes became noisier or some such thing.
So I first I try putting in an standard A/V plug to my TV. It works with my smart phone. Nope. No A/V on iPhone.
Well, duh! It's your fault for not having an AppleTV in your home!
This is sort of interesting...
In the years between the last release of Duke Nukem, there's a new force in town called the ESRB. I'm going to be curious if we'll see it rated "Adults Only."
Actually, that seems like a fun idea. Make a "Mature" version and an "Adults Only" version. Sell the AO version exclusively through the website (since GameStops, etc. won't want to carry "Adults Only" games).
how come it doesn't ask for permission to transmit (and detail what gets transmitted), like most modern smartphones require?
Maybe I'm not up on my modern smartphones, but that sounds like an annoying option that most people would turn off.
Which modern smartphone does that, just out of curiousity?
So, to put this another way, these people are able to do everything they already did with their laptops with iPads. So the laptop is more a "security blanket."
As an analogy, I've always bought desktop computers. I prefer them because they are expandable--I can upgrade the hard drive, memory, graphics cards, etc. This lets me get a longer lifespan out of them. If something goes wrong with a component, I can buy a hardware card that does the same thing. But I always liked laptops because I can take them places. So for years, I've had two computers--a desktop and a laptop. It was finally time to replace my ol' desktop and I decided to finally drop the "security blanket" and buy myself a better laptop instead of a desktop. I figured that all I'd really done with the last desktop was upgrade the memory and hard disk, which I can do with a laptop.
So, arguably, the laptop is more of a "security blanket" for these users. As you say, they can do everything they want with their iPads. So why do they still have a laptop? Because it's comforting--"just in case I need to do something that I can't do with my iPad."
Eventually, they'll either drop the "security blanket" or get sick or carting around two machines "just in case" and decide to go with one or the other. My guess is they will go with the iPad...
The concept isn't necessarily that there's stuff up there and that's incredibly valuable (say, unobtainium). It's also that there's more common ores that are not stuck at the bottom of a deep gravity well.
The general idea is to build big spaceships in Earth orbit. But the raw materials still have to come from Earth, which means they're going to be expensive to get up into orbit (assuming you use rockets to get them up there). But you can get the same raw materials from the Moon, it's much less expensive to get them from the Moon to the Earth than it is to bring them up from the Earth.
I, for one, welcome our new 34,000 year-old crystalline overlords...
Or 31,250,000 pings!
(Depending on the exact definition of GB)
It really depends on the individual programmer.
This is always a worthwhile note.
I headed up a small group 4 developers. The boss, at one point, came over and noted we'd all been working our asses off and wanted to offer up a token of appreciation. I said, "I don't know. Let's find out what people would like." He didn't like the idea--he was concerned that there would be some infighting if somebody got something that was "worth more" than what someone else got. I told him, "These are all individuals who've put their individual lives on hold to get this done. They're going to want different things."
2 guys took cash. 1 guy got a very fancy new computer. And 1 guy said, "Give me an extra two weeks of vacation and let me take a month off."
My advice, in this case, would be to sit down with the people in question and see what they would like in return for 50 hour weeks and how they would like to try to do this. Would they rather do 10 hour days 5 days a week? Would they rather do 8 hour days 6 days a week? Would they like to see more in their paycheck? Would they prefer a bonus for milestones? Shares in the company? Dinners? Try to get some ideas of what people would want and take those back to the boss. Negotiate for your people and see what can be arranged.
Now get the hell off of my lawn!
Don't get me wrong, I somewhat agree with you. As I said above, I have a hard time believing that there are 96,000 government employees for whom it is worth paying $36 per month so that they can be contacted wherever they may happen to be.
As you mentioned, go back 10 years and cellphones were more rare and more exclusive. It was a "perk" to have a company-issued cellphone and it showed the world just how important you are. Of course, in the world of politics, everybody has to have a cellphone because they are more important than everyone else.
I'm sure it just exploded from there.
Meanwhile, prices came down so that, 10 years later, everybody and their dog can have a cellphone. It isn't quite so "exclusive" to have a cellphone.
So it's a good thing that this is being looked at--especially with the financial difficulties facing California. In the big picture, it's not going to make much of a difference. But to coin a phrase, $20 million here, $20 million there, after a little while you're talking about big money.
That's a fair statement. Here's another question, though I think it's more of a matter of opinion:
Suppose you want to lift 180,000 kg into orbit. You have a rocket with a liquid fueled engine which can lift 150,000 kg. Is it better to redesign the rocket so that it can lift 180,000 kg into orbit or is it better to stick a couple of SRBs onto the side?
I'd argue that, from the expense side, it would be better to stick a couple of SRBs on the side. But I'm far from an expert in such matters. You seem to know more about it than I do (this is a compliment--I'm not being facetious) so I'd be curious about your opinion.
From what I understand--and again, I may be wrong--the idea was Ares I would be used in combination with Ares V. Ares V would be used to get the lunar lander, etc. up into space and then an Orion spacecraft with people in it would be launched via an Ares I. I would think that putting crew and equipment all on one rocket would be a bad idea.
As I understand it, this was brought up during Apollo. Part of reason that Apollo did it with one rocket was that it was quicker to figure out how to make one huge rocket than it was to figure out how to make one big rocket and one small rocket and make sure that they could dock and everything else that would need to go on.
The idiocy of using the solid rocket boosters on a new generation heavy lift vehicle is mind-boggling.
Why is this? I might agree with you regarding man-rated craft, but if the Ares V is for "cargo" only, why is this such a bad idea?
Technicians will reinforce the remaining struts as a safety precaution, using thin 6-inch strips of aluminum. [ap.org]
Aluminum?! What a waste of money! They should be using duct tape!
The Falcon 9 is a heavy lift vehicle. It can deliver 32000kg to LEO at a cost (supposedly) of $95M per launch.
Wikipedia says that the Ares V is supposed to carry 188,000kg to Low-Earth Orbit--more than 5X as much.
but perhaps the 8 working hours they do each day, are they going to have to use their personal cell phone? Are you going to cover those minutes? Would it be cheaper?
Well, let's try a thought experiment...
The LA Times reports that the average phone bill for government employees is $36 per month. I pay $40 per month for 450 minutes, or about 9 cents per minute. So if the government has to reimburse me more than 400 minutes in a month, it's worth it for them to give me a cell phone.
Remember that forty percent of government employees have taxpayer funded cell phones. I have a really hard time believing that 40% of employees of the state of California need to be on call 24/7 or are out of the office that often.
I use my personal cell phone for work. I give my employer a copy of the bill and highlight the calls that were work related and they write me a check. Even with personal calls, though, I have never gone over my 450 minutes of talk time even with company minutes added in. So in my case, it's definitely cheaper for my employer to compensate me for the time rather than pay for a cell phone.
The phones are already paid for if they were in use by the employees. You couldn't have just put in an order to NOT get new cell phones?
I'll agree that doing this is grandstanding. The deadline for this is actually in six months, when a new cellphone contract is to be set up, so it's not like Jerry Brown is walking through offices today and saying, "You! Give me that cellphone!" But, come June, 48,000 people who had government cellphones will be losing them.
Mea culpa. I meant 2GB. I don't know what AT&T's plan is because my iPhone 3GS still uses the old plan.
If Verizon has an unlimited plan (and really unlimited, not "unlimited"), I'm sure they'll extend that to the iPhone much the same way that they extend it Android phones.
I suppose my point is that I doubt they'll have some kind of special iPhone pricing. They'll offer whatever deals they have now. And the last time I was in a Verizon store discussing data (about 2 weeks ago), nobody mentioned anything about an unlimited plan. They had some plans that were and weren't available for different devices (I couldn't seem to get better than a 2GB plan for a phone, but I could get a 5GB plan for MiFi).
It's a fun rumor, but I'm not sure I believe it.
Verizon certainly does not want a bunch of data-sucking iPhones on their network unless they can make money off of them. So, yes, I could believe that Verizon my offer an unlimited plan for $20 more than what their 2MB/month plan costs. But I tend to doubt they're going to be offering unlimited for the same cost as AT&T 2MB/month plan.
Either you have to piss around comparing prices before you buy, or you find out after you bought the item that you could have bought it cheaper elsewhere.
I know people who are like that. I'm not one of them.
Personally, I go to a store. I see something I want to buy. I check the price. If I can afford it, I buy it. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. It's really pretty simple.
It comes from technology, I suppose. I know that if I wait another six months, the price will go down. But the reason the price goes down is that something better comes along and I'd rather have the better thing. So I wait another six months and, sure enough, the price goes down but now there's something even better that I would rather have. And so on and so on and so on.
So if you are one of those compulsive types who absolutely positively has to make sure you are paying the lowest price possible, I can see that having multiple stores to check would be a nuisance. My suggestion would be to consult a mental health professional. Unfortunately, there are lots of them to choose from so that could be a problem...
besides, who cares that much about native apps anymore?
That's a good question. I wonder if there's an app for that?
...because, lord knows, I hate the fact that I can buy the same thing at a different store for possibly a different amount of money. Life is so much easier when there's only one store and that's that.
Just in case you're missing it, this is sarcasm.
I don't see the problem, myself. If I prefer the Google store, I'll use the Google store. If I prefer the Amazon store, I'll use the Amazon store. You might also find features on the Amazon store (like buying an application as a gift for someone else) that don't exist in the Google store.
Competition is a good thing.
Well, if there's one thing Apple itself has proven, it's that there is a real market segment that will pay more for a better product and won't just go for the cheapest product in the niche.
Two words: iPod shuffle.
I somewhat agree with you--I would never expect Apple to create a "cheap iPhone." Instead, I could believe Apple will create an "inexpensive iPhone" which removes some capabilities in order to cut costs and "innovates" a way such that you don't necessarily miss them.
Suggestions:
That said, this is a slippery slope. You're better off actually trying to talk to your customers and find out what they would like to see. Of course, according to Apple, they aren't your customers, they're Apple's customers. That might make this a little more difficult.