What was that last article, US is now 24 in the list of nations for good broadband all over? Every year we keep dropping?
While I take no exception to most of your observations, I must ask if the ranking to which you refer is a fair comparison. Compared to most nations of the world (excluding Russia), we have a huge geographic dispersion of our population. Sure, we may have greater population densities on the coasts (where broadband has become ubiquitous), but you cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison of the United States to most other countries in such rankings. Most European nations are only as large as some American states (no offense intended to European/.ers), bringing to bear a greater population density which makes a broader deployment easier in many regards.
This is true for other MMOGs as well. I definately want to see this one asked. Could game producers issue take-down notices if they find ToS-restricted currency transactions (e.g., Guild Wars gold)?
Good point. I follow the logic. Oh, by the way, we just observed a new gamma burst from our dear neighbor 200 LY from here...[less than 18 hours later]...BOOM!
I still doubt that the matter would continue indefinately at that velocity or without its trajectory being affected by other bodies.
Simple mathematics reveal the time--100 LY (the distance light travels in one year) for something traveling just under the speed of light: just over 100 years, 8 hours, and 45 minutes.
Now, that simple calculations discount gravitational effects and friction, so the reality would be quite different. Still affected by the remaining mass of the black hole (or neutron star) that was left behind, the matter would decelerate. It is quite possible that much of it would eventually fall back toward the gravity source from which it was ejected. The matter would need to escape its own solar system (former solar system, in the case of a black hole), incurring gravitational effects from other orbiting bodies.
That's not even considering the odds that the trajectory would align it with our solar system.
I think the point here is that the bill that passed is nothing more than political positioning as we run up to a major election year. Why not focus more broadly--educating people about the good and the bad on the Internet? After all, not everyone is online, and many of those (thinking of my relatives and friends who will not use the Internet) have no clue what it really is. They've bought a heap-of-dung that tells them the Internet is something with little good to offer and plenty of bad. If our government is going to promote Internet education, it should be focused on being wise netizens, and not be reduced to a firey warning with one common denominator: fear.
I disagree. I find that teachers are usually wonderful to work with, and that they work well with parents who may have disagreements. The administrative beauracracy is where (from my perspective as a parent) all the problems arise.
There've been a few times my wife and I have disagreed with something going on in the classroom (when sixth graders spend more classroom time watching Star Wars than they do on literature, for example), but we've worked out reasonable solutions. One time, we had a teacher show a PG-13 rated flick to 4th graders without any prior notice to the parents. Had we been notified of the title, we would have checked the reviews and decided whether or not to allow it (we don't go strictly by rating, but consider the nature of the content--knowing what's in a flick lets us discuss the content with our kids when they see it). The teacher made a decision about what was appropriate content for our child--from my position, that is not a teacher's place, and it usurps my parental authority. We had another teach who drilled my son about his (and our!) personal beliefs because he told her he did not want to participate in a specific (non-academic) classroom activity. Instead of letting him sit out and not making a big deal about it, she continued pushing and questioning to the point where my son became quite upset. We made a simple request of the administration--to move him to a different classroom--but they refused. We had to fight the school and the school district (and threaten to move our other three students to another school in another district) just to get the situation resolved. What could have been solved simply was made into a fiasco and it wasted their time and ours.
I'm just thankful we have so many people in the United States who are willing to be teachers, serving long hours on (usually) low wages, often investing their own funds for supplies and materials, so our children may have a decent education. I have the greatest respect for them. Do they run into unreasonable parents from time to time? I'm sure they do! If parents are involved on a regular basis, or have labored to develop a good relationship with the teacher, most issues can be resolved with a quick chat and a common understanding.
Returning to this case, I believe that many parents were shocked and outraged when they learned that their kids saw pr0n in school (I would have been), but that no one took the time to really understand what happened. Had this happened in our kids' school, I would have waited to learn what happened. Upon hearing the teacher's account, I would have volunteered my time to help clean up and secure the school's PCs (whether the administration would allow it is another question). Then, add to the mix a prosecutor's office that saw this as a high-profile case... a case that would be prominent in the public memory when the next election cycle hits. It is sad to say, but once prosecutors get ahold of cases, they seem loathe to back down, thinking that "we're sorry, there was no real case here" would somehow be career suicide. I hope this woman is acquitted, and that she is able to win a civil counter-suit for defamation and damage to her career.
She did fight it. She did let them know that the pop-up pictures just kept coming. She did indicate she tried to shield the children once she saw what was happening. Evidence was suppressed that would have disclosed the amount and nature of malware on her system. That's why this was tossed back by the higher court.
Unfortunately, if you're technically literate, you might find it difficult to find a judge who understands the technology, even moreso a full jury of your peers. If you've ever worked a help desk, just imagine a random sampling of 10 of your users sitting on a jury. Do you think they'll be able to make head or tails of the technical arguments, even with lots of pictures and mono-syllabic definitions?
I'm just glad to see part of our justice system was able to restore some sanity to this debaucle. Yes, I think the original charges were bogus. This seems to be a way for the courts to allow the lower court and the prosecutors to "save face" rather than simply setting aside the conviction. I believe she will be acquitted this time around (providing they don't supress evidence again).
If she is convicted again, I'll be the first to help organize a national walkout by teachers. If we can close down the entire public school system (and maybe even some parochial/private schools) for a week, maybe we can draw enough attention to this misscarriage of justice.
I agree that educators should not be punnished for teaching young people (including, in an appropriate context, images) about the "very process that brought them into existence," but if you've ever had pop-up pictures grace your monitor, you know that most of them have nothing to do with educating people about procreation and have everything to do with simple gratification. Make a scientific argument that random pr0n images are beneficial. Many studies have concluded they are harmful (and sex education would not be included in that definition of pr0n).
Actually, one of Microsoft's strengths has been bullying and strong-arming anyone and anything that they perceive as a threat. Look at the recent patent fiasco--just another example where Microsoft made accusations in the broadest terms and then was not willing to back them up with specifics.
While there is truth in your argument, I believe that Putin is simply using this situation to bolster a rising nationalist tide by preying on the fears of his people (common in every nation, unfortunately). While Russia may have strategic reasons to fear the proposed missile shield sites in the long term, we have offered to bring them in on the technology and have provided them with numerous opportunities to work side-by-side with us during these deployments.
IMO, Putin does not know how to foster the long term growth and unity of his nation (which spans more time zones than any other, and a tremendous number of people groups) without resorting to the lever known as "primal fear."
They might get some great ideas, but some other undesirable ones as well. A list might look like:
1) Implanted identification chip for every person, worldwide at birth. This (if engineered correctly) would make administering a no-fly list much easier. It would also make it easier to track all fertilizer and ammonia purchases, because the chip would be required for commerce, too.
2) Remote control of the plane, so some RC hobbyist can fly it to the ground. Or, better yet, some child who is playing a flight simulator game (oops, I read Ender's Game recently).
3) Rig all planes for remote auto-destruct. Wait! There's a suspected terrorist on that plane? Blow it up now, so they cannot kill additional people. Then there are public service announcements lauding the innocent passengers who were heros to the motherland.
4) Require all passengers to be put into stasis before flying. Then you can load them in cargo tubes and eliminate the first-class/coach price disparity.
5) Use amusement park style restraints that are locked before take-off and unlocked only when approaching the destination terminal. Built-in porta-pottys would be a must.
6) Clear vast areas of ground as designated fly-way corridors. These would lead to massive airports away form major metropolitan areas and would have massive ground transport hubs. If any plane veers out of the approved flight corridors, they are shot down.
7) Permanently ground domestic flights and force people to take the train. We know terrorists would never successfully pull off an attack on a train, because people might actually converse. It would be relatively easy to spot the non-conversant-I'm-ready-to-die crowd among the other social riders [OK. Inside joke here.]
8) Revisit that implanted chip. It now includes circuitry that can be remotely triggered to induce a major coronary event. Wait! That guy in 16b is acting suspicious! I'm going to trip his chip.
9) Nuke the entire planet. With no people around, there are no terrorists.
10) Make Sesame Street mandatory in-flight viewing for all flights. The colorful, friendly characters and their message of sharing and caring will re-program the minds of all passengers toward a life of increased harmony and peace (especially after the government adds subluminal anti-terror messages every few frames)!
Just a clarification...If spoken, it's slander. If printed, it's libel. Also, a key component of libel is that it is published, not merely privately disclosed. If only the user got the notification as to why her page was removed, there is no case for libel. If they placed a warning on her former page that said "this user's page was removed because s/he was a registered sex offender", then the case would be clear.
At the same time, however (and if memory serves correctly), libel cases have been rare in recent years and have not had great success at trial.
Just to play devil's advocate: Unless we run a background check on the one who claims to be innocent, who can you be sure she is not a sex offender?
I'm not supporting MySpace's actions (either the handing-over of records, or the false positives that are bound to happen), but unless we are dealing with a registration/authentication process that requires a criminal background check, anyone can claim innocence.
You're spot on with your thinking here. Unless Dell is bulldoggish with Wal-Mart, their products will just replace the other PCs that are not on display at Wal-Mart. I'll admit I've seen a couple machines on display in recent years, and there are usually three laptop models under acryllic, but Wal-Mart's model with PCs is to stack them on a pallet in the middle of the isle and to slap their smiley-face price sign on the pallet. If you know what you want and it's in your price range, you'll buy them, but I doubt Wal-Mart will become a destination to shop Dell.
Actually, about 14 years ago, Wal-Marts actually had a lot of PCs on display. I bought my first home computer, an IBM PS/2 (x486, 16 Mb RAM, 200 Mb HDD if memory serves correctly) on clearance there for under $1,000 USD (when sub-$1k PCs were a dream). There were at least 5 models from which to choose. If anyone has the economies of scope to challenge Best Buy, it is Wal-Mart. I just wonder if this partnership will really benefit Dell, or if building negative consumer sentiment toward Wal-Mart will eventually impact Dell's image.
Wal-Mart will only be able to compete with Best Buy if the take more control of their product mix (especially in software) and not rely on third-parties to do it for them.
[I'll acknowledge that my knowledge of the underside of the Wally-beast is a few years old--they may have changed things today.]
Not that all staff at big box electronics stores are wizards, but even the least initiated there seem to know more than the typical associate at Wal-Mart. Then, watch their product cycles. Outdated products will sit on the shelf forever. When they try to sell them on clearance, their prices are so high that you can often buy newer technologies for the same price. Who wants to pay $140 for an 40 Gb external USB hard disk? That's something I saw just a few weeks ago--the same item, in the same store, at the same price, for almost a year. They seem to carry only one set of PC models until those are sold out. What you might buy new at Wal-Mart today might be technology 6-9 months past its production or introduction date. Plus, unless Wal-Mart is willing to segment its computer electronics from its other consumer electronics, the associates are going to end up spending their time with the people who can't operate the photo kiosks, opening the glass cases for MP3 players and game systems, and helping customers find the latest movie release in widescreen format.
BTW--the parent post is not a troll. I think it's a valid point that should have been left alone or flagged "interesting" or "insightful." My first thoughts were of "Dell==direct" too.
If they're not really hurting now, they may soon be...
Wal-Mart is known for brutally squeezing its suppliers for every possible reduction--year after year. Dell may only see a very small portion of its business through Wal-Mart, but it will become increasingly less profitable as they years go by.
While I understand the appeal of selling through Wal-Marts network of stores, I wonder if Dell ever considered that consumers who are just plain tired of Wal-Mart (I'm one of them--I think the whole place started to fail after Sam Walton died) and have a negative perception of the store will somehow carry over that opinion to their products. "It is a Dell, but Wal-Mart is selling it.--Ah, no thanks, I think I'll go to Best Buy..."
> Work 8-4, or maybe 7-4. Plus a few evenings a year for conferences. Plus hours of grading. Plus carrying your share of the extracurricular activities like chess club, sports, drama, forensics, etc.
> One week off for Christmas
> One week off in the spring
> Over lunch, oversee the cafeteria or use it to prep for your next class
> Pay union dues
> Be under threat from infantile adminstrators (unless you have tenure)
> Catch crap from parents who think you graded Johnny unfairly, and who refuse to believe Johnny never turned in the assignments that were due.
> Deal with child misbehavior on a daily basis in an environment where teachers cannot effectively discipline the offenders.
> Deal with kids whose parents seem to want nothing to do with the educational process (or, in some cases, their child).
> Curtail your personal activities (like MySpace pages) because you are under the constant scrutiny of parents who hold you to a gold standard under which they, themselves would fall flat.
> Deal with all the jokes from your friends about "working only 3/4 of the year" while you are working two part time jobs during the summer to make ends meet.
And where will people go to buy presents for birthdays, or Christmas, or [you name the holiday]? They'll go to some big box store, or local retailer, and they'll buy whatever game(s) are available and desired by the gift recipients. Until parents, grandparents, and friends can walk into a store and buy something that will run, users will remain (largely) content on Windows (don't even get started with downloads--can you picture mom or dad or grandma or grandpa signing a card and writing "Oh, I logged on to your linux box, purchased, and downloaded that awesome FPS shooter you wanted. Happy Birthday!!! xoxoxoxo).
I think all the comments regarding our techie biases are more true than we want to admit. Think of someone who has only ever known B/W TV (or perhaps only analog, non-HD TV today), and try to convince them that their current TV--the one that works and looks fine to them--needs to be replaced. If none of the networks were relasing content in color, do you think most people would have made the change? Once color TV was broadly available, and once people heard about the available color content (think "software"), they finally made the switch. There are probably a ton of TV viewers out there today who have heard that HD TV is far better than analog, but they have not seen it. As networks switch and the content is available, they upgrade their hardware. Albeit with the HD TV thing, it's hard to buy a TV now that does not support HD TV, so that technology change has some built in change factors.
Sure, keep up the grass roots movement, but you'll soon find that the majority of Windows users don't live their lives on the grass--they live on their patios (i.e., your grass roots movement may not reach the constituency you most need to reach).
Exactly. It's the same reason most people buy cars from dealers, rather than car kits. They just want something they can drive--now, not something they have to put together first. But for those hobbyists who love building kit cars, they'll tell you its like nothing else in the world. Being the builder of that which you drive brings a lot of cred, and an immense leve of personal satisfaction. If we pushed kit cars on the rest of the world, I think a lot more people would go back to biking or walking.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus, "blue sea of death"?
This is true for other MMOGs as well. I definately want to see this one asked. Could game producers issue take-down notices if they find ToS-restricted currency transactions (e.g., Guild Wars gold)?
Good point. I follow the logic. Oh, by the way, we just observed a new gamma burst from our dear neighbor 200 LY from here...[less than 18 hours later]...BOOM!
I still doubt that the matter would continue indefinately at that velocity or without its trajectory being affected by other bodies.
Simple mathematics reveal the time--100 LY (the distance light travels in one year) for something traveling just under the speed of light: just over 100 years, 8 hours, and 45 minutes.
Now, that simple calculations discount gravitational effects and friction, so the reality would be quite different. Still affected by the remaining mass of the black hole (or neutron star) that was left behind, the matter would decelerate. It is quite possible that much of it would eventually fall back toward the gravity source from which it was ejected. The matter would need to escape its own solar system (former solar system, in the case of a black hole), incurring gravitational effects from other orbiting bodies.
That's not even considering the odds that the trajectory would align it with our solar system.
I think the point here is that the bill that passed is nothing more than political positioning as we run up to a major election year. Why not focus more broadly--educating people about the good and the bad on the Internet? After all, not everyone is online, and many of those (thinking of my relatives and friends who will not use the Internet) have no clue what it really is. They've bought a heap-of-dung that tells them the Internet is something with little good to offer and plenty of bad. If our government is going to promote Internet education, it should be focused on being wise netizens, and not be reduced to a firey warning with one common denominator: fear.
I disagree. I find that teachers are usually wonderful to work with, and that they work well with parents who may have disagreements. The administrative beauracracy is where (from my perspective as a parent) all the problems arise.
There've been a few times my wife and I have disagreed with something going on in the classroom (when sixth graders spend more classroom time watching Star Wars than they do on literature, for example), but we've worked out reasonable solutions. One time, we had a teacher show a PG-13 rated flick to 4th graders without any prior notice to the parents. Had we been notified of the title, we would have checked the reviews and decided whether or not to allow it (we don't go strictly by rating, but consider the nature of the content--knowing what's in a flick lets us discuss the content with our kids when they see it). The teacher made a decision about what was appropriate content for our child--from my position, that is not a teacher's place, and it usurps my parental authority. We had another teach who drilled my son about his (and our!) personal beliefs because he told her he did not want to participate in a specific (non-academic) classroom activity. Instead of letting him sit out and not making a big deal about it, she continued pushing and questioning to the point where my son became quite upset. We made a simple request of the administration--to move him to a different classroom--but they refused. We had to fight the school and the school district (and threaten to move our other three students to another school in another district) just to get the situation resolved. What could have been solved simply was made into a fiasco and it wasted their time and ours.
I'm just thankful we have so many people in the United States who are willing to be teachers, serving long hours on (usually) low wages, often investing their own funds for supplies and materials, so our children may have a decent education. I have the greatest respect for them. Do they run into unreasonable parents from time to time? I'm sure they do! If parents are involved on a regular basis, or have labored to develop a good relationship with the teacher, most issues can be resolved with a quick chat and a common understanding.
Returning to this case, I believe that many parents were shocked and outraged when they learned that their kids saw pr0n in school (I would have been), but that no one took the time to really understand what happened. Had this happened in our kids' school, I would have waited to learn what happened. Upon hearing the teacher's account, I would have volunteered my time to help clean up and secure the school's PCs (whether the administration would allow it is another question). Then, add to the mix a prosecutor's office that saw this as a high-profile case... a case that would be prominent in the public memory when the next election cycle hits. It is sad to say, but once prosecutors get ahold of cases, they seem loathe to back down, thinking that "we're sorry, there was no real case here" would somehow be career suicide. I hope this woman is acquitted, and that she is able to win a civil counter-suit for defamation and damage to her career.
She did fight it. She did let them know that the pop-up pictures just kept coming. She did indicate she tried to shield the children once she saw what was happening. Evidence was suppressed that would have disclosed the amount and nature of malware on her system. That's why this was tossed back by the higher court.
Unfortunately, if you're technically literate, you might find it difficult to find a judge who understands the technology, even moreso a full jury of your peers. If you've ever worked a help desk, just imagine a random sampling of 10 of your users sitting on a jury. Do you think they'll be able to make head or tails of the technical arguments, even with lots of pictures and mono-syllabic definitions?
I'm just glad to see part of our justice system was able to restore some sanity to this debaucle. Yes, I think the original charges were bogus. This seems to be a way for the courts to allow the lower court and the prosecutors to "save face" rather than simply setting aside the conviction. I believe she will be acquitted this time around (providing they don't supress evidence again).
If she is convicted again, I'll be the first to help organize a national walkout by teachers. If we can close down the entire public school system (and maybe even some parochial/private schools) for a week, maybe we can draw enough attention to this misscarriage of justice.
I agree that educators should not be punnished for teaching young people (including, in an appropriate context, images) about the "very process that brought them into existence," but if you've ever had pop-up pictures grace your monitor, you know that most of them have nothing to do with educating people about procreation and have everything to do with simple gratification. Make a scientific argument that random pr0n images are beneficial. Many studies have concluded they are harmful (and sex education would not be included in that definition of pr0n).
Actually, one of Microsoft's strengths has been bullying and strong-arming anyone and anything that they perceive as a threat. Look at the recent patent fiasco--just another example where Microsoft made accusations in the broadest terms and then was not willing to back them up with specifics.
While there is truth in your argument, I believe that Putin is simply using this situation to bolster a rising nationalist tide by preying on the fears of his people (common in every nation, unfortunately). While Russia may have strategic reasons to fear the proposed missile shield sites in the long term, we have offered to bring them in on the technology and have provided them with numerous opportunities to work side-by-side with us during these deployments.
IMO, Putin does not know how to foster the long term growth and unity of his nation (which spans more time zones than any other, and a tremendous number of people groups) without resorting to the lever known as "primal fear."
They might get some great ideas, but some other undesirable ones as well. A list might look like:
1) Implanted identification chip for every person, worldwide at birth. This (if engineered correctly) would make administering a no-fly list much easier. It would also make it easier to track all fertilizer and ammonia purchases, because the chip would be required for commerce, too.
2) Remote control of the plane, so some RC hobbyist can fly it to the ground. Or, better yet, some child who is playing a flight simulator game (oops, I read Ender's Game recently).
3) Rig all planes for remote auto-destruct. Wait! There's a suspected terrorist on that plane? Blow it up now, so they cannot kill additional people. Then there are public service announcements lauding the innocent passengers who were heros to the motherland.
4) Require all passengers to be put into stasis before flying. Then you can load them in cargo tubes and eliminate the first-class/coach price disparity.
5) Use amusement park style restraints that are locked before take-off and unlocked only when approaching the destination terminal. Built-in porta-pottys would be a must.
6) Clear vast areas of ground as designated fly-way corridors. These would lead to massive airports away form major metropolitan areas and would have massive ground transport hubs. If any plane veers out of the approved flight corridors, they are shot down.
7) Permanently ground domestic flights and force people to take the train. We know terrorists would never successfully pull off an attack on a train, because people might actually converse. It would be relatively easy to spot the non-conversant-I'm-ready-to-die crowd among the other social riders [OK. Inside joke here.]
8) Revisit that implanted chip. It now includes circuitry that can be remotely triggered to induce a major coronary event. Wait! That guy in 16b is acting suspicious! I'm going to trip his chip.
9) Nuke the entire planet. With no people around, there are no terrorists.
10) Make Sesame Street mandatory in-flight viewing for all flights. The colorful, friendly characters and their message of sharing and caring will re-program the minds of all passengers toward a life of increased harmony and peace (especially after the government adds subluminal anti-terror messages every few frames)!
Just a clarification...If spoken, it's slander. If printed, it's libel. Also, a key component of libel is that it is published, not merely privately disclosed. If only the user got the notification as to why her page was removed, there is no case for libel. If they placed a warning on her former page that said "this user's page was removed because s/he was a registered sex offender", then the case would be clear.
At the same time, however (and if memory serves correctly), libel cases have been rare in recent years and have not had great success at trial.
Just to play devil's advocate: Unless we run a background check on the one who claims to be innocent, who can you be sure she is not a sex offender?
I'm not supporting MySpace's actions (either the handing-over of records, or the false positives that are bound to happen), but unless we are dealing with a registration/authentication process that requires a criminal background check, anyone can claim innocence.
So that means Microsoft is now the Professor, and Novell and SCO are Punch and Judy (not sure which is which)?
Either way, this is one legal case that will never (*should never*) end up as a made-for-TV movie!
You're spot on with your thinking here. Unless Dell is bulldoggish with Wal-Mart, their products will just replace the other PCs that are not on display at Wal-Mart. I'll admit I've seen a couple machines on display in recent years, and there are usually three laptop models under acryllic, but Wal-Mart's model with PCs is to stack them on a pallet in the middle of the isle and to slap their smiley-face price sign on the pallet. If you know what you want and it's in your price range, you'll buy them, but I doubt Wal-Mart will become a destination to shop Dell.
Actually, about 14 years ago, Wal-Marts actually had a lot of PCs on display. I bought my first home computer, an IBM PS/2 (x486, 16 Mb RAM, 200 Mb HDD if memory serves correctly) on clearance there for under $1,000 USD (when sub-$1k PCs were a dream). There were at least 5 models from which to choose. If anyone has the economies of scope to challenge Best Buy, it is Wal-Mart. I just wonder if this partnership will really benefit Dell, or if building negative consumer sentiment toward Wal-Mart will eventually impact Dell's image.
Wal-Mart will only be able to compete with Best Buy if the take more control of their product mix (especially in software) and not rely on third-parties to do it for them.
[I'll acknowledge that my knowledge of the underside of the Wally-beast is a few years old--they may have changed things today.]
Not that all staff at big box electronics stores are wizards, but even the least initiated there seem to know more than the typical associate at Wal-Mart. Then, watch their product cycles. Outdated products will sit on the shelf forever. When they try to sell them on clearance, their prices are so high that you can often buy newer technologies for the same price. Who wants to pay $140 for an 40 Gb external USB hard disk? That's something I saw just a few weeks ago--the same item, in the same store, at the same price, for almost a year. They seem to carry only one set of PC models until those are sold out. What you might buy new at Wal-Mart today might be technology 6-9 months past its production or introduction date. Plus, unless Wal-Mart is willing to segment its computer electronics from its other consumer electronics, the associates are going to end up spending their time with the people who can't operate the photo kiosks, opening the glass cases for MP3 players and game systems, and helping customers find the latest movie release in widescreen format.
BTW--the parent post is not a troll. I think it's a valid point that should have been left alone or flagged "interesting" or "insightful." My first thoughts were of "Dell==direct" too.
If they're not really hurting now, they may soon be...
Wal-Mart is known for brutally squeezing its suppliers for every possible reduction--year after year. Dell may only see a very small portion of its business through Wal-Mart, but it will become increasingly less profitable as they years go by.
While I understand the appeal of selling through Wal-Marts network of stores, I wonder if Dell ever considered that consumers who are just plain tired of Wal-Mart (I'm one of them--I think the whole place started to fail after Sam Walton died) and have a negative perception of the store will somehow carry over that opinion to their products. "It is a Dell, but Wal-Mart is selling it.--Ah, no thanks, I think I'll go to Best Buy..."
Try again:
> Work 8-4, or maybe 7-4. Plus a few evenings a year for conferences. Plus hours of grading. Plus carrying your share of the extracurricular activities like chess club, sports, drama, forensics, etc.
> One week off for Christmas
> One week off in the spring
> Over lunch, oversee the cafeteria or use it to prep for your next class
> Pay union dues
> Be under threat from infantile adminstrators (unless you have tenure)
> Catch crap from parents who think you graded Johnny unfairly, and who refuse to believe Johnny never turned in the assignments that were due.
> Deal with child misbehavior on a daily basis in an environment where teachers cannot effectively discipline the offenders.
> Deal with kids whose parents seem to want nothing to do with the educational process (or, in some cases, their child).
> Curtail your personal activities (like MySpace pages) because you are under the constant scrutiny of parents who hold you to a gold standard under which they, themselves would fall flat.
> Deal with all the jokes from your friends about "working only 3/4 of the year" while you are working two part time jobs during the summer to make ends meet.
And where will people go to buy presents for birthdays, or Christmas, or [you name the holiday]? They'll go to some big box store, or local retailer, and they'll buy whatever game(s) are available and desired by the gift recipients. Until parents, grandparents, and friends can walk into a store and buy something that will run, users will remain (largely) content on Windows (don't even get started with downloads--can you picture mom or dad or grandma or grandpa signing a card and writing "Oh, I logged on to your linux box, purchased, and downloaded that awesome FPS shooter you wanted. Happy Birthday!!! xoxoxoxo).
I think all the comments regarding our techie biases are more true than we want to admit. Think of someone who has only ever known B/W TV (or perhaps only analog, non-HD TV today), and try to convince them that their current TV--the one that works and looks fine to them--needs to be replaced. If none of the networks were relasing content in color, do you think most people would have made the change? Once color TV was broadly available, and once people heard about the available color content (think "software"), they finally made the switch. There are probably a ton of TV viewers out there today who have heard that HD TV is far better than analog, but they have not seen it. As networks switch and the content is available, they upgrade their hardware. Albeit with the HD TV thing, it's hard to buy a TV now that does not support HD TV, so that technology change has some built in change factors.
Sure, keep up the grass roots movement, but you'll soon find that the majority of Windows users don't live their lives on the grass--they live on their patios (i.e., your grass roots movement may not reach the constituency you most need to reach).
Exactly. It's the same reason most people buy cars from dealers, rather than car kits. They just want something they can drive--now, not something they have to put together first. But for those hobbyists who love building kit cars, they'll tell you its like nothing else in the world. Being the builder of that which you drive brings a lot of cred, and an immense leve of personal satisfaction. If we pushed kit cars on the rest of the world, I think a lot more people would go back to biking or walking.