Let's say you have $999 to spend on a MacBook. You have...oh...one choice: MacBook Air. That's it. You're getting an "Ultrabook," whether you want one or not, because that's the only thing Apple sells for $999. So if you wanted a laptop with more than two USB ports or a DVD drive, you'd better (a) spend more money or (b) suck it up.
Let's say I have $799 to spend on a "laptop" at Dell. You have much more for choices. From full sized laptops with ethernet, more than 1 USB ports, DVD burners, etc. down to little skinny and light Ultrabooks.
So it makes sense for the "price conscious consumer." Apple sells lots of MacBook Airs because they're the cheapest. Dell's sales are split between Ultrabooks and more conventional laptops.
One of the interesting differences, in my opinion, between the two is the concept of responsibility.
Take stop signs. Cars will "roll" through a stop sign, knowing full well that they shouldn't do it. When something happens, the driver will usually take responsibility. At the very least, there is a recognition that "I'm doing something wrong."
Bicyclists, conversely, don't believe they should have to stop. It isn't a, "I'm doing something wrong," it's a, "I should be able to go through Stop Signs because it's inconvenient for me to stop and everyone should be watching out for me."
If he really wants to know what incentive structure would be better for his IT staff, he should ask them to design one for him.
Actually, have each of them design it. People are individuals and what motivates one does not necessarily motivate another.
Years ago, my boss asked a similar question. I and my team had been working really hard to get a product shipped and he wondered what he could do for all of us. I suggested he do things for each of us.
For example, I like toys. Have the company buy me a nice big display and new computer and I'm happy. One of the other guys really liked time off--wanted to go spend time with his LDR. Another one liked money--a cash bonus to do with as he pleased. So if the boss had bought us all new toys, I'd've been psyched but everyone would have been "meh." Give us all an extra week off? One guy is psyched, everyone else? Meh. Same with the cash.
Ultimately, that's what he did and it worked out well.
The lame thing is that we're back to uncontrolled re-entry and disposable spacecraft. I personally consider the Orion a huge step backwards.
I understand. But there are other arguments.
I believe the idea behind Orion is to provide a place for humans to survive in pretty much any environment. Send it to the Moon. Send it to an L2 point. Send it to geosynchronous orbit. How do we get it to these places? Stick it on top of a rocket that goes there. Whether it's a NASA-built heavy lift vehicle or something from Space-X or whatever.
Don't get me wrong--Shuttle landings were always cool. But the shuttle was limited in a lot of ways by the "reusable" aspect that never really worked out. Personally, I'd rather have a more capable but less cool spacecraft with an Orion capsule attached than a cooler spacecraft that can't go anywhere interesting.
Apple has never had free navigation so even a crappy app is better than what they had before.
No, it isn't.
Look, you can throw in all the 3D spinny effects/voice activation/turn-by-turn/traffic you want. If I say I want to go from point A to point B and the app comes back and says, "Sorry, I can't find point B," it is not better than what I had before.
Like the Samsung commercial, Apple users are saying, "we'll get that fixed next time."
The fanbois will always say that. These are people that you will not get, no matter what. 5% of the world are Apple lovers. 5% of the world are Apple haters. The other 90% fall somewhere in-between.
Apple will survive and do quite well with their 5%. The problem is that to thrive and grow, Apple needs those other 90%. These aren't the people who say, "Look at the shiny Apple!" They expect things to "just work." When they don't, they'll look for something that does.
There are many other map applications in the App Store already including ones with turn-by-turn (Bing, TomTom, Mapquest, etc).
True. Let's see if any new ones are approved (ie, ones that weren't around before Apple introduced it in iOS 6). Let's see what happens when they start upgrading their apps...
Remember Kindle? Great app! Buy and read books! Then Apple comes out with iBooks. Suddenly, you can no longer buy books in the Kindle app. It can't even redirect you to a webpage where you can buy books! Sorry...
To turn regolith and rock into simple building supplies suitable for micro-g and airless environ, you need...considerably more.
Exactly. You need a whole infrastructure to support all that stuff and to support itself.
See, this is my minor gripe. Everybody's all about exploring. "We need to put astronauts on Mars! They'll accomplish more in a year than 50 years of Mars probes!" But, to me, this is just more of a circus.
I'd rather see us return to the Moon to stay. That means figuring out how to stay there without getting supplies every month. There's water which we can drink. There's water which we can turn into oxygen. Not sure about the nitrogen part. What will be needed to create a habitat? Above ground? Below ground? Inflatable? Solid? Some combination of the four? How will we handle electricity? Solar? Nuclear? Some combination of the two?
Can we add water to lunar soil and grow stuff in it? How will various tasty earth animals react to 1/6th G. Hell, how will human beings react to 1/6 G? Will we have more/less/the same problems we have with zero G? How can we turn lunar ores into useful metal which we could then use to build stuff?
These are all answerable questions. There's no unobtainium necessary to do any of this stuff. You build up the infrastructure on the Moon. It may take 50 years. But, in 50 years, I'd rather look up at the Moon and see a community. I think that would be much better than some flag sitting among a pile of junk on Mars.
2013: After a Software Update to the Curiosity Rover, the Rover begins acting independently of NASA's control. All attempts to reset the rover fail. 2035: The first manned mission to Mars lands successfully.
Curiosity has been waiting...
Okay, it's sort of a rip-off of Red Planet. Maybe add in a little Star Trek: The Motion Picture as Curiosity dismantles the various other landers on Mars for parts or something.
why can we not all have tires that yield not to trivial roadside rubbish?
We can. We just choose not to pay for them
The police, on the other hand, (a) don't have to pay for them--your tax dollars at work--and (b) have an arguably worthwhile need to not have to worry about flat tires.
Just out of curiosity, what do people around here think of "run flat" tires? A new car I'm considering getting comes with them standard and I'm curious...
Space-X has docked a test capsule to the ISS, and their first cargo delivery launches October 7th. Astronauts will follow on later flights.
And did Space-X build the ISS? No, We Built It!
(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)
Seriously, though, I'm all for Space-X. I'm all for getting NASA out of Low-Earth Orbit. I think Space-X does a wonderful job at what they're doing. But businesses don't do exploration. The risk is too great for the bottom line. You need government money for the research, development, testing, etc.
However, we're not sending 40,000 lbs of material to ISS. We're not sending seven people to ISS (figure, also, that two of those seats belong to NASA--the pilot and commander). We're sending a couple of people and some supplies. That's it.
Again, I'm a huge fan of the Space Shuttle. But it's a waste of money to run it for what we're doing. To use a car analogy, it's like using the Hummer SUV to drive to the grocery store down the block to pick up a load of bread. We don't need to carry the payload. We don't need to carry that many people. And whatever research is being done can be done on ISS. And, dare I say it, while I would love to increase NASA's budget and do more, I don't see a need to waste money keeping the shuttles running to perform such mundane tasks. Let the Russians do it for the next few years until SpaceX is ready to take over. Let NASA develop things that commercial companies aren't interested in doing--advancing the state of the art in space transportation beyond low earth orbit.
Well, would you rather be spending $500 million to send a few guys up to the ISS when you could be spending $50 million to do the same task?
I'm a huge fan of the Space Shuttle. But it's time is up. It's expensive to run and can't really do anything that can't be done on ISS. Dragging it out with more launches just to drop off a few astronauts and pick up the trash eats NASA's budget. I'd rather NASA spend the money on more interesting things in both the manned and unmanned realms. I mean, LEO? Been there, done that.
If it makes your jingoistic tendencies feel better, though, just wait a few years and an American company will be flying to ISS.
If you make threats, then it is reasonable to suspect you might follow up on those threats.
There's the magic word. So we're arresting people because they might commit a crime.
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Since people with lower levels of education tend to commit more crime, I propose that we arrest anyone who has below a C average upon graduating from high school. After all, they might commit a crime.
My impression is that you'll be able to get Google Maps as a separate app if you want it.
Possibly. Depends on whether Google decides to do it or not. Also, Apple has a problem with applications which duplicate existing functionality--such as their own Maps application. Remember that there are bunches of apps that provided turn-by-turn directions and the like. Now that Apple has their own version, what new Terms-and-Conditions will we see in the App store?
Think back to the Kindle app before and after Apple released iBooks.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind Apple's lack of choice.
Let's say you have $999 to spend on a MacBook. You have...oh...one choice: MacBook Air. That's it. You're getting an "Ultrabook," whether you want one or not, because that's the only thing Apple sells for $999. So if you wanted a laptop with more than two USB ports or a DVD drive, you'd better (a) spend more money or (b) suck it up.
Let's say I have $799 to spend on a "laptop" at Dell. You have much more for choices. From full sized laptops with ethernet, more than 1 USB ports, DVD burners, etc. down to little skinny and light Ultrabooks.
So it makes sense for the "price conscious consumer." Apple sells lots of MacBook Airs because they're the cheapest. Dell's sales are split between Ultrabooks and more conventional laptops.
One of the interesting differences, in my opinion, between the two is the concept of responsibility.
Take stop signs. Cars will "roll" through a stop sign, knowing full well that they shouldn't do it. When something happens, the driver will usually take responsibility. At the very least, there is a recognition that "I'm doing something wrong."
Bicyclists, conversely, don't believe they should have to stop. It isn't a, "I'm doing something wrong," it's a, "I should be able to go through Stop Signs because it's inconvenient for me to stop and everyone should be watching out for me."
Bad idea. Escape from Staten Island just doesn't have the same ring.
And if it's not sold in the US, it stays in the country it was sold in while lobbyists try to declare a "tax holiday" for repatriating these profits.
Long Distance Relationship.
If he really wants to know what incentive structure would be better for his IT staff, he should ask them to design one for him.
Actually, have each of them design it. People are individuals and what motivates one does not necessarily motivate another.
Years ago, my boss asked a similar question. I and my team had been working really hard to get a product shipped and he wondered what he could do for all of us. I suggested he do things for each of us.
For example, I like toys. Have the company buy me a nice big display and new computer and I'm happy. One of the other guys really liked time off--wanted to go spend time with his LDR. Another one liked money--a cash bonus to do with as he pleased. So if the boss had bought us all new toys, I'd've been psyched but everyone would have been "meh." Give us all an extra week off? One guy is psyched, everyone else? Meh. Same with the cash.
Ultimately, that's what he did and it worked out well.
The lame thing is that we're back to uncontrolled re-entry and disposable spacecraft. I personally consider the Orion a huge step backwards.
I understand. But there are other arguments.
I believe the idea behind Orion is to provide a place for humans to survive in pretty much any environment. Send it to the Moon. Send it to an L2 point. Send it to geosynchronous orbit. How do we get it to these places? Stick it on top of a rocket that goes there. Whether it's a NASA-built heavy lift vehicle or something from Space-X or whatever.
Don't get me wrong--Shuttle landings were always cool. But the shuttle was limited in a lot of ways by the "reusable" aspect that never really worked out. Personally, I'd rather have a more capable but less cool spacecraft with an Orion capsule attached than a cooler spacecraft that can't go anywhere interesting.
Uh...Alaska has some pretty inhospitable terrain.
As I keep saying, it's not that the maps are wrong. It's that the world is positioned wrong. People keep naming cities the wrong thing.
Apple has never had free navigation so even a crappy app is better than what they had before.
No, it isn't.
Look, you can throw in all the 3D spinny effects/voice activation/turn-by-turn/traffic you want. If I say I want to go from point A to point B and the app comes back and says, "Sorry, I can't find point B," it is not better than what I had before.
Like the Samsung commercial, Apple users are saying, "we'll get that fixed next time."
The fanbois will always say that. These are people that you will not get, no matter what. 5% of the world are Apple lovers. 5% of the world are Apple haters. The other 90% fall somewhere in-between.
Apple will survive and do quite well with their 5%. The problem is that to thrive and grow, Apple needs those other 90%. These aren't the people who say, "Look at the shiny Apple!" They expect things to "just work." When they don't, they'll look for something that does.
There are many other map applications in the App Store already including ones with turn-by-turn (Bing, TomTom, Mapquest, etc).
True. Let's see if any new ones are approved (ie, ones that weren't around before Apple introduced it in iOS 6). Let's see what happens when they start upgrading their apps...
Remember Kindle? Great app! Buy and read books! Then Apple comes out with iBooks. Suddenly, you can no longer buy books in the Kindle app. It can't even redirect you to a webpage where you can buy books! Sorry...
I can now ask for directions in the car, and get them. A week ago, I could not (and, yes, I tried mapquest and wares).
And they even have a 25% chance of being correct and not sending you to the wrong street in the wrong city!
Woohoo!
...as long as Apple allows the app.
Remember when Apple nixed Google Voice? Months of development time shot in the foot. You really think they want to go down that route with Maps?
To turn regolith and rock into simple building supplies suitable for micro-g and airless environ, you need...considerably more.
Exactly. You need a whole infrastructure to support all that stuff and to support itself.
See, this is my minor gripe. Everybody's all about exploring. "We need to put astronauts on Mars! They'll accomplish more in a year than 50 years of Mars probes!" But, to me, this is just more of a circus.
I'd rather see us return to the Moon to stay. That means figuring out how to stay there without getting supplies every month. There's water which we can drink. There's water which we can turn into oxygen. Not sure about the nitrogen part. What will be needed to create a habitat? Above ground? Below ground? Inflatable? Solid? Some combination of the four? How will we handle electricity? Solar? Nuclear? Some combination of the two?
Can we add water to lunar soil and grow stuff in it? How will various tasty earth animals react to 1/6th G. Hell, how will human beings react to 1/6 G? Will we have more/less/the same problems we have with zero G? How can we turn lunar ores into useful metal which we could then use to build stuff?
These are all answerable questions. There's no unobtainium necessary to do any of this stuff. You build up the infrastructure on the Moon. It may take 50 years. But, in 50 years, I'd rather look up at the Moon and see a community. I think that would be much better than some flag sitting among a pile of junk on Mars.
[...] Nasa has a propensity to tempt fate with unlucky symbols (Apollo 13, Challenger).
Apollo 13, okay. But Challenger?
I always thought Discovery wasn't the best choice of names...
2013: After a Software Update to the Curiosity Rover, the Rover begins acting independently of NASA's control. All attempts to reset the rover fail.
2035: The first manned mission to Mars lands successfully.
Curiosity has been waiting...
Okay, it's sort of a rip-off of Red Planet. Maybe add in a little Star Trek: The Motion Picture as Curiosity dismantles the various other landers on Mars for parts or something.
why can we not all have tires that yield not to trivial roadside rubbish?
We can. We just choose not to pay for them
The police, on the other hand, (a) don't have to pay for them--your tax dollars at work--and (b) have an arguably worthwhile need to not have to worry about flat tires.
Just out of curiosity, what do people around here think of "run flat" tires? A new car I'm considering getting comes with them standard and I'm curious...
Space-X has docked a test capsule to the ISS, and their first cargo delivery launches October 7th. Astronauts will follow on later flights.
And did Space-X build the ISS? No, We Built It!
(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)
Seriously, though, I'm all for Space-X. I'm all for getting NASA out of Low-Earth Orbit. I think Space-X does a wonderful job at what they're doing. But businesses don't do exploration. The risk is too great for the bottom line. You need government money for the research, development, testing, etc.
Actually, China's easy to find. It's everywhere else that's missing.
Yes. And, IRT Maps, "You're standing in the wrong place."
And that's great, if you want to do that.
However, we're not sending 40,000 lbs of material to ISS. We're not sending seven people to ISS (figure, also, that two of those seats belong to NASA--the pilot and commander). We're sending a couple of people and some supplies. That's it.
Again, I'm a huge fan of the Space Shuttle. But it's a waste of money to run it for what we're doing. To use a car analogy, it's like using the Hummer SUV to drive to the grocery store down the block to pick up a load of bread. We don't need to carry the payload. We don't need to carry that many people. And whatever research is being done can be done on ISS. And, dare I say it, while I would love to increase NASA's budget and do more, I don't see a need to waste money keeping the shuttles running to perform such mundane tasks. Let the Russians do it for the next few years until SpaceX is ready to take over. Let NASA develop things that commercial companies aren't interested in doing--advancing the state of the art in space transportation beyond low earth orbit.
Well, would you rather be spending $500 million to send a few guys up to the ISS when you could be spending $50 million to do the same task?
I'm a huge fan of the Space Shuttle. But it's time is up. It's expensive to run and can't really do anything that can't be done on ISS. Dragging it out with more launches just to drop off a few astronauts and pick up the trash eats NASA's budget. I'd rather NASA spend the money on more interesting things in both the manned and unmanned realms. I mean, LEO? Been there, done that.
If it makes your jingoistic tendencies feel better, though, just wait a few years and an American company will be flying to ISS.
If you make threats, then it is reasonable to suspect you might follow up on those threats.
There's the magic word. So we're arresting people because they might commit a crime.
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Since people with lower levels of education tend to commit more crime, I propose that we arrest anyone who has below a C average upon graduating from high school. After all, they might commit a crime.
My impression is that you'll be able to get Google Maps as a separate app if you want it.
Possibly. Depends on whether Google decides to do it or not. Also, Apple has a problem with applications which duplicate existing functionality--such as their own Maps application. Remember that there are bunches of apps that provided turn-by-turn directions and the like. Now that Apple has their own version, what new Terms-and-Conditions will we see in the App store?
Think back to the Kindle app before and after Apple released iBooks.
Here's some screenshots someone did comparing the Apple map with the Google map for his neighbourhood in London.
He's living in the wrong place.