I've upgraded three televisions to High Def (all three panels are Samsung) and while I do like high definition, the high def aspect was not the primary motivation. The motivation is that the televisions are not 200lbs behemoths that take up a lot of space, plus I gain HDMI/DVI and reduction of the typical home theater rat's nest. Most "high def" programming isupscaled, or through cable, overly compressed, often completely negating any improvement in clarity. OTA broadcasts are horrible - you either get a perfect picture or nothing, or completely unwatchable random MPEG blocking and stuttering in the sound stream. I LOVE high def on blu-ray though.
3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction, or red/blue glasses, which screws with color perception and is often not very convincing (and practically unwatchable without the glasses), or through shutter goggles which are cumbersome, prone to breaking, and expensive - or prototype models which feature prismatic screens similar to 3D photos, which depend heavily on being on-axis with the screen (sit to the side, for example, you will only see one side of the prism). For 3D TV to become mainstream, there really needs to be a monumental leap forward in display design. There needs to be a holographic or similar solution which isn't confined to a narrow field of view, doesn't require goggles, and doesn't become unwatchable (or degrade at all) when viewed on a conventional receiver.
Until then 3D TV is just a novelty only designed for early adopters to pay to be beta testers and lose out when a real standard is introduced (at which point your receiver proves incompatible) and to show off how you throw money away. IMHO of course.
I agree about the Mac Pro and iMac's as well. I never understood the point of owning a desktop that you couldn't upgrade the internal parts.
Mac mini: it is small, reduces clutter, and quiet. The tradeoff is older-generation processors, limited RAM, and limited hard drive space. It's also a pain in the butt to service without marring the case. Upgrade options (video, processor, etc) are practically nil.
iMac: It provides a large monitor without the rat's nest of cables you get with most tower PC/workstation designs. Tradeoff: expansion is primarily through USB and firewire, they are a pain in the butt to service, and good luck upgrading the video card.
There are pros and cons. The question is: which is the priority? We're changing some of our workstations to Mac Minis and iMacs - they offer decent performance for the size and reduce clutter. I'm sticking with PCs since I personally need expandability, but pick Hackintosh-compatible hardware. I am in need of a new notebook, but am not going Apple because my primary OS is Linux, and dealing with the "virtual" second mouse button and absent third mouse button is a PITA. The stupid one-button trackpad on the Macbook Pro is the deal killer for me, followed closely by the lousy 1440x900 resolution. Where is 1920x(1080|1200)? Also, where is the internal RAID option? Asus, Lenovo, Dell, and Sager all offer WUXGA options with internal RAID - with some of the notebook solutions costing less than a base 15" Macbook Pro.
When it comes to mobile phones, tablets, and the like Apple may be at the bleeding edge of innovation. However, when it comes to computer hardware (in terms of processors, video chipsets, hard drive capacities, and the like) they are on the trailing edge of obsolescence.
No kidding. Today I was behind some fool who was pulling onto Route 3 at 20mph, in a 60mph zone. So, I dropped it to second and whizzed by. The idiot wasn't even on the phone - he was having a "discussion" with his passenger.
Saab limits the torque in first and second gear in their cars (your tubocharger will never go to full boost on a stock program until third gear) for safety concerns, i.e., if a novice is driving and doesn't know how to deal with torque steer when ESP (electronic stability program) is turned off.
Read some of my other posts in the thread and you'll note I'm already aware of both BSR and Hirsch. There isn't any reason Saab can't get those power levels in a showroom-stock car. Heck, in the past they've offered factory-authorised Hirsch-tuned Saabs right off the showroom floor, with full factory warranty intact.
Now that AT&T is allowing this traffic over their network I don't want them to be whining about bandwidth usage - especially when the line item on the bill is "UNLIMITED DATA"
1. GM did it in the Cobalt with basically the same engine. What does the Saab 2.0T need to produce over 300hp? Downpipe, higher pressure wastegate (well, really, just ECU tweaking), different bypass valve, upgraded exhaust, upgraded downpipe, and upgraded airbox. It's all the same cost if you make it part of the car in the first place, rather than a tuner kit. You need a downpipe, you need a wastegate, you need an exhaust, and so forth. How much did the Cobalt SS go for? An independent Saab would not have all of the legacy GM UAW costs so they could easily cut the MSRP on Comfort, Touring, and even Sport Sedan to what the cars actually sell for (this will help bring more people into the showrooms), and upgrade both the Aero and Sport 2.0T at almost no additional cost (partner with BSR or Hirsch if they want to use existing parts - oh wait, they already partner with Hirsch) to compete with the 330i and 335i for almost no investment other than marketing.
2. 9-3 was designed for XWD from the get-go. Saab and Haldex engineered XWD together. GM cherry-picked XWD for Cadillac, Opel, and a couple of SUVs, and did not promote the Saab XWD anywhere near as much as they should have. Given that the 9-3 is designed to accomodate a driveshaft, they could easily offer an upscale RWD version. And yeah, it may cost money, but RWD would be more reliable than FWD plus Saab never sells cars for MSRP. Ever.
3. No, not more money. Research what people actually pay for new Saabs. A new 9-3 won't sell for $45K. It goes out the door for $30K to $35K. MSRP could be lowered to reflect that on Touring, Comfort, and Sport, and Aero and XWD could be upgraded (and still get great economy when driven conservatively!) for near-zero cost.
Saab has been "losing" money only due to cooking the books. Internal "sales" within GM shift money around for tax and stock advantages.
BMW and Audi were both destined for the scrap heap in the past, and now look at where they are; heck, Audi sells (what is essentially) a rebadged Lamborghini now, and BMW has been doing fantastic - and both were far worse off in the past than Saab is right now.
* GM is run by beancounters who landed GM where they were last winter
* Spyker can't produce enough cars and needs production facilties; which Saab factories provide in spades
* Saab needs passionate management, not an owner who will just take the best engineering Saab produces for other products, leaving Saab with crap to work with.
Given how badly GM has mismanaged Saab, it is amazing just how good the 9-3 and 9-5's track records are. They are extremely reliable (2003 9-3 teething issues aside; pretty much expected with any new car model), they are the best in their class for crash testing, are very comfortable, can achieve well over 30mpg(combined.. My best full tank to date is 36mpg) when driven conservatively. Handling is really good (the passive rear wheel steering helps!), it has the only stability control system and ABS I don't hate, and braking is incredible.
Saab can turn around. Look at what BMW and Audi have done; both have been at the brink of failure in the not so distant past.
Let Saab engineers put the powertains they designed in Saab models, not cherry pick Saab's best work and put it in other models, leaving Saab with lower-end crap (the XWD would be a great match for the I4 GM "borrowed" for the Cobalt, for example. I know, the current 2.0T is now a GM engine, but they used the best of Saab's induction designs for the one that went into the Cobalt. The 2.0T is good for over 300 reliable HP. PERFECT match for XWD! Also, GM "borrowed" XWD for Cadillac and other brands, and didn't pusj the Saab XWD nearly enough). They also need to not insist Saab use the cheap rubberized coating on interior panels, but use a higher-quality coating that is not prone to peeling. Lastly, they need to advertise Saab once in a while.
Saabs are only "quirky" because the advertising literature doesn't promote that the ergonomics are designed around performance driving and safety; the ergonomics are very natural. Try driving one sometime - even if you think you hate Saab, you will love the interior.
See, it's like if Saab were to be sold, and an exotic car manufacturer saw opportunity where GM pillaged and neglected the company for 20 years, and bought the company seeing that the "quirky" nature of the car is that the design makes sense, since the ergonomics are designed around performance-oriented driving and safety, which makes them different. How's that for an analogy?;)
Seriously though I'm excited this deal went through. GM bean counters held Saab back and it is rumored they used Saab to cook their books, by "over billing" Saab for GM-manufactured engines, shifting profits and losses around for tax and stock price advantages. It's disgusting that the Saab-designed engine's best configuration has not been allowed to go into the 9-3 and 9-5, but instead went into the Cobalt SS at 260hp (but the engine internals and turbocharger are good for >300hp reliably with minor mods). Also GM beancounters position it against BMW and Audi, and it would do well, except with power output (especially in the XWD models) and with GM's choice of interior coatings (the rubberized paint that peels all too easily) and the inflated MSRP (which no one ever pays for a Saab), why would anyone step into the showroom?
Here is what Spyker needs to do to turn Saab around:
1. Keep MSRPs where they are on the Turbo X, but fix Trionic 8 engine management and boost power output to compete with the 335i and 135i power output. 2. Go RWD and XWD in the new 9-3 3. Lower MSRP on the base "touring" and "comfort" sedans to what people actually pay for them (well under $30K) and institute "no haggle" pricing across the board 4. Improve the interior panel coatings (paint). Spend the extra few cents GM would not spend and get rid of GM's choice of prone-to-peeling coating. 5. Advertise the cars heavily. "Born from jets" needs to promote the ergonomics which are designed around the driver, safety, and better engine options GM bean counters would not allow need to be introduced to put some performance behind the implied promise "Born from jets" implies. Saabs are only "quirky" in that the ergonomics are unusual because they are more natural and centered around driving. 6. Shitcan the dealers with poor customer service. 7. Bring us Aero X!
I love my 9-3. I hated Saabs until last year when I had to drive a friend's (he insisted). I fell in love with it immediately and ended up buying one. Sure, the power output may be somewhat (read: a lot) lower than I'd like but the car is a blast to drive, and it performs a heck of a lot better in the real world than the numbers would imply, However, numbers sell cars, so they really need to bump up the HP and Torque output.
Spyker can do it. I hope they turn Saab around just like BMW turned around when BMW was about to tank.
I'll definitely be buying the new 9-3 if/when it comes out.
iPhones are not good at navigation yet, I own one, and have lots of problems. I've seen HTC tilt running TomTom software and is good, but hangs sometimes.
TomTom on the iPhone is better than my old Teletype GPS, and it is better than standalone TomTom and Garmins I have used. It doesn't drop due to incoming calls either, because I jailbroke my phone and installed backgrounder so I could force the phone to not suspend the app. It's by far the best street navigation GPS solution I've used.
with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group
Easy: best practices helps to avoid downtime which can cost thousands or more per hour.
It is all about risk/liability aversion: does your employer skimp on liability, fire, theft, etc. insurance? If not, then why not? Same thing with IT. Sure, it, like insurance, is a cost center, but IT infrastructure is so essential in modern business it had better be high quality and have a damn good uptime. Having decent servers and workstations in place increases productivity (or efficient slashdotting;)) so instead of paying employees to wait for the disk to stop thrashing they could be paying employees to actually get some work done.
The editorials are conservative - that is true. However the news articles are news and op-eds are not passed off as news, unlike in NYT and subsidiaries.
Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.
Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rate
On the other hand, Microsoft is at the top of the game economically. Microsoft never got the smartphone right, and they went five iterations of WinCE/Windows Mobile before they got the PDA right. For a PDA-only device I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone. For a "convergence" device (PDA + Phone) I prefer the iPhone.
However, Apple almost failed with the iPhone; they just didn't get it and initially released it with the intent of never offering an SDK, but making only web-based apps. It wasn't until the iPhone was jailbroken and apps were released through third-party sources that Apple realized that there was not only no threat nor stability issue by opening the phone, but a tremendous market, they released the SDK and opened the app store. The only thing Apple needs to do is open the phone further and allow flash, easy access to application files (for example, to allow users to share shopping list, task list, and other data), and so forth. I believe they will eventually do it but only as a defensive move against google. Also, some people bought the iPhone for utility, and jailbreak them to get the sort of apps Apple disapproves of (for example, a bash shell and openssh for creation of server monitoring and maintenance utilities, and to enable multitasking), or to customize the phone with themes.
I think Google is offering too little, too late with the android phones. Why? They initially indicated it would be open, which would achieve what openmoko attempted, but then did the same thing Apple did by locking the phone down. If they open it up then they will be a threat to Apple. The GUI is not nearly as good as the iPhone at this point, and the GUI is less responsive than even the 3G, let alone the 3G S. Multitasking is no better; in fact if you jailbreak the phone
Until google fixes a few key issues with android (GUI navigation, responsiveness, app availability) Apple has very little to fear.
I would not choose the iPhone if Bing were the default search engine though unless it could be changed to google; Google is by far the best search engine, and without the ability to change the search engine (without jailbreaking) why buy the most expensive mainstream cellphone when it provides inferior service?
ISO refers to how sensitive (or "fast" as photographers) put it. If you have a more sensitive (faster/higher ISO number) film, you can capture a given scene at the same (apparent) exposure with a faster shutter. Many high ISO films have a 'grainy' appearance. Most high ISO settings on digital cameras have a "snowy" appearance from noise. A higher ISO rating at a given shutter speed (e.g., 1/60) will (generally) produced a more exposed (or "brighter") picture. Too slow of a shutter speed for a given ISO rating will result in blowing out highlights (the digital analog is "clipping" an amplifier; the produced image is the same end result, with bright areas of a photo being #FFFFFF and having no recoverable detail)
Shutter speed: where you have a given ISO (and F/stop, or, aperture, which I won't get into here) if you make the shutter slower, the picture will become brighter, and if you speed up the shutter, your photo will be less exposed (underexposed). What digital cameras do is take several samples during a given shutter interval (higher end cameras actually have a physical shutter), but at a given sensitivity (the ISO rating).
Now, what does a high ISO rating give you? The ability to run a fast (1/320) or really fast (1/3200) shutter speed to "freeze" motion. This is important if you want to capture a high speed object (a pitcher, a race car, an interceptor at an air show) in full focus. Motion blur will be minimized (or eliminated) but at the expense of using a higher ISO, which in most cases results in more noise (or grain). A good quality sensor, a larger sensor, and better software in your camera will all help to minimize noise at higher ISO settings.
In dark scenes, good high ISO performance is required unless your subject is still and you're using a tripod.
This is why point & shoot cameras, even Canon's "bridge" models, all result in complaints about noise, noise, noise when used for dark indoor environments. You might say use a flash, but if at, for example, an art gallery or museum, play, or a concert, flashes are usually forbidden, or you may simply be too far away from the subject to reach with an internal flash.
Um, yeah. So, like previewing and reviewing images on a camera which uses a computerized display in place of a viewfinder isn't obvious to those skilled in the trade?
Slashdot Mirror
I've upgraded three televisions to High Def (all three panels are Samsung) and while I do like high definition, the high def aspect was not the primary motivation. The motivation is that the televisions are not 200lbs behemoths that take up a lot of space, plus I gain HDMI/DVI and reduction of the typical home theater rat's nest. Most "high def" programming isupscaled, or through cable, overly compressed, often completely negating any improvement in clarity. OTA broadcasts are horrible - you either get a perfect picture or nothing, or completely unwatchable random MPEG blocking and stuttering in the sound stream. I LOVE high def on blu-ray though.
3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction, or red/blue glasses, which screws with color perception and is often not very convincing (and practically unwatchable without the glasses), or through shutter goggles which are cumbersome, prone to breaking, and expensive - or prototype models which feature prismatic screens similar to 3D photos, which depend heavily on being on-axis with the screen (sit to the side, for example, you will only see one side of the prism). For 3D TV to become mainstream, there really needs to be a monumental leap forward in display design. There needs to be a holographic or similar solution which isn't confined to a narrow field of view, doesn't require goggles, and doesn't become unwatchable (or degrade at all) when viewed on a conventional receiver.
Until then 3D TV is just a novelty only designed for early adopters to pay to be beta testers and lose out when a real standard is introduced (at which point your receiver proves incompatible) and to show off how you throw money away. IMHO of course.
Mac mini: it is small, reduces clutter, and quiet. The tradeoff is older-generation processors, limited RAM, and limited hard drive space. It's also a pain in the butt to service without marring the case. Upgrade options (video, processor, etc) are practically nil.
iMac: It provides a large monitor without the rat's nest of cables you get with most tower PC/workstation designs. Tradeoff: expansion is primarily through USB and firewire, they are a pain in the butt to service, and good luck upgrading the video card.
There are pros and cons. The question is: which is the priority? We're changing some of our workstations to Mac Minis and iMacs - they offer decent performance for the size and reduce clutter. I'm sticking with PCs since I personally need expandability, but pick Hackintosh-compatible hardware. I am in need of a new notebook, but am not going Apple because my primary OS is Linux, and dealing with the "virtual" second mouse button and absent third mouse button is a PITA. The stupid one-button trackpad on the Macbook Pro is the deal killer for me, followed closely by the lousy 1440x900 resolution. Where is 1920x(1080|1200)? Also, where is the internal RAID option? Asus, Lenovo, Dell, and Sager all offer WUXGA options with internal RAID - with some of the notebook solutions costing less than a base 15" Macbook Pro.
When it comes to mobile phones, tablets, and the like Apple may be at the bleeding edge of innovation. However, when it comes to computer hardware (in terms of processors, video chipsets, hard drive capacities, and the like) they are on the trailing edge of obsolescence.
You read the article before commenting? You must be new here. ;)
Oh, you're with AT&T too?
No kidding. Today I was behind some fool who was pulling onto Route 3 at 20mph, in a 60mph zone. So, I dropped it to second and whizzed by. The idiot wasn't even on the phone - he was having a "discussion" with his passenger.
Saab limits the torque in first and second gear in their cars (your tubocharger will never go to full boost on a stock program until third gear) for safety concerns, i.e., if a novice is driving and doesn't know how to deal with torque steer when ESP (electronic stability program) is turned off.
Read some of my other posts in the thread and you'll note I'm already aware of both BSR and Hirsch. There isn't any reason Saab can't get those power levels in a showroom-stock car. Heck, in the past they've offered factory-authorised Hirsch-tuned Saabs right off the showroom floor, with full factory warranty intact.
Now that AT&T is allowing this traffic over their network I don't want them to be whining about bandwidth usage - especially when the line item on the bill is "UNLIMITED DATA"
I'll counter your "costs money"
1. GM did it in the Cobalt with basically the same engine. What does the Saab 2.0T need to produce over 300hp? Downpipe, higher pressure wastegate (well, really, just ECU tweaking), different bypass valve, upgraded exhaust, upgraded downpipe, and upgraded airbox. It's all the same cost if you make it part of the car in the first place, rather than a tuner kit. You need a downpipe, you need a wastegate, you need an exhaust, and so forth. How much did the Cobalt SS go for? An independent Saab would not have all of the legacy GM UAW costs so they could easily cut the MSRP on Comfort, Touring, and even Sport Sedan to what the cars actually sell for (this will help bring more people into the showrooms), and upgrade both the Aero and Sport 2.0T at almost no additional cost (partner with BSR or Hirsch if they want to use existing parts - oh wait, they already partner with Hirsch) to compete with the 330i and 335i for almost no investment other than marketing.
2. 9-3 was designed for XWD from the get-go. Saab and Haldex engineered XWD together. GM cherry-picked XWD for Cadillac, Opel, and a couple of SUVs, and did not promote the Saab XWD anywhere near as much as they should have. Given that the 9-3 is designed to accomodate a driveshaft, they could easily offer an upscale RWD version. And yeah, it may cost money, but RWD would be more reliable than FWD plus Saab never sells cars for MSRP. Ever.
3. No, not more money. Research what people actually pay for new Saabs. A new 9-3 won't sell for $45K. It goes out the door for $30K to $35K. MSRP could be lowered to reflect that on Touring, Comfort, and Sport, and Aero and XWD could be upgraded (and still get great economy when driven conservatively!) for near-zero cost.
Saab has been "losing" money only due to cooking the books. Internal "sales" within GM shift money around for tax and stock advantages.
BMW and Audi were both destined for the scrap heap in the past, and now look at where they are; heck, Audi sells (what is essentially) a rebadged Lamborghini now, and BMW has been doing fantastic - and both were far worse off in the past than Saab is right now.
Come to New England sometime; Saabs here are more commonplace here than BMW and Audi. I never had any idea Saabs were not as popular elsewhere.
Let's see:
* GM is run by beancounters who landed GM where they were last winter
* Spyker can't produce enough cars and needs production facilties; which Saab factories provide in spades
* Saab needs passionate management, not an owner who will just take the best engineering Saab produces for other products, leaving Saab with crap to work with.
Given how badly GM has mismanaged Saab, it is amazing just how good the 9-3 and 9-5's track records are. They are extremely reliable (2003 9-3 teething issues aside; pretty much expected with any new car model), they are the best in their class for crash testing, are very comfortable, can achieve well over 30mpg(combined.. My best full tank to date is 36mpg) when driven conservatively. Handling is really good (the passive rear wheel steering helps!), it has the only stability control system and ABS I don't hate, and braking is incredible.
Saab can turn around. Look at what BMW and Audi have done; both have been at the brink of failure in the not so distant past.
They need to do what GM refused to do for Saab:
Let Saab engineers put the powertains they designed in Saab models, not cherry pick Saab's best work and put it in other models, leaving Saab with lower-end crap (the XWD would be a great match for the I4 GM "borrowed" for the Cobalt, for example. I know, the current 2.0T is now a GM engine, but they used the best of Saab's induction designs for the one that went into the Cobalt. The 2.0T is good for over 300 reliable HP. PERFECT match for XWD! Also, GM "borrowed" XWD for Cadillac and other brands, and didn't pusj the Saab XWD nearly enough). They also need to not insist Saab use the cheap rubberized coating on interior panels, but use a higher-quality coating that is not prone to peeling. Lastly, they need to advertise Saab once in a while.
Saabs are only "quirky" because the advertising literature doesn't promote that the ergonomics are designed around performance driving and safety; the ergonomics are very natural. Try driving one sometime - even if you think you hate Saab, you will love the interior.
See, it's like if Saab were to be sold, and an exotic car manufacturer saw opportunity where GM pillaged and neglected the company for 20 years, and bought the company seeing that the "quirky" nature of the car is that the design makes sense, since the ergonomics are designed around performance-oriented driving and safety, which makes them different. How's that for an analogy? ;)
Seriously though I'm excited this deal went through. GM bean counters held Saab back and it is rumored they used Saab to cook their books, by "over billing" Saab for GM-manufactured engines, shifting profits and losses around for tax and stock price advantages. It's disgusting that the Saab-designed engine's best configuration has not been allowed to go into the 9-3 and 9-5, but instead went into the Cobalt SS at 260hp (but the engine internals and turbocharger are good for >300hp reliably with minor mods). Also GM beancounters position it against BMW and Audi, and it would do well, except with power output (especially in the XWD models) and with GM's choice of interior coatings (the rubberized paint that peels all too easily) and the inflated MSRP (which no one ever pays for a Saab), why would anyone step into the showroom?
Here is what Spyker needs to do to turn Saab around:
1. Keep MSRPs where they are on the Turbo X, but fix Trionic 8 engine management and boost power output to compete with the 335i and 135i power output.
2. Go RWD and XWD in the new 9-3
3. Lower MSRP on the base "touring" and "comfort" sedans to what people actually pay for them (well under $30K) and institute "no haggle" pricing across the board
4. Improve the interior panel coatings (paint). Spend the extra few cents GM would not spend and get rid of GM's choice of prone-to-peeling coating.
5. Advertise the cars heavily. "Born from jets" needs to promote the ergonomics which are designed around the driver, safety, and better engine options GM bean counters would not allow need to be introduced to put some performance behind the implied promise "Born from jets" implies. Saabs are only "quirky" in that the ergonomics are unusual because they are more natural and centered around driving.
6. Shitcan the dealers with poor customer service.
7. Bring us Aero X!
I love my 9-3. I hated Saabs until last year when I had to drive a friend's (he insisted). I fell in love with it immediately and ended up buying one. Sure, the power output may be somewhat (read: a lot) lower than I'd like but the car is a blast to drive, and it performs a heck of a lot better in the real world than the numbers would imply, However, numbers sell cars, so they really need to bump up the HP and Torque output.
Spyker can do it. I hope they turn Saab around just like BMW turned around when BMW was about to tank.
I'll definitely be buying the new 9-3 if/when it comes out.
The real damage:
24 songs * $.99 each = $23.76
TomTom on the iPhone is better than my old Teletype GPS, and it is better than standalone TomTom and Garmins I have used. It doesn't drop due to incoming calls either, because I jailbroke my phone and installed backgrounder so I could force the phone to not suspend the app. It's by far the best street navigation GPS solution I've used.
"Ideals" don't put food on the table, don't pay for a sportscar to impress women, and don't keep a roof over your head.
Income does.
However, if you can get someone to pay you to do what you love, what's wrong with that?
Answer: absolutely nothing.
Easy: best practices helps to avoid downtime which can cost thousands or more per hour.
It is all about risk/liability aversion: does your employer skimp on liability, fire, theft, etc. insurance? If not, then why not? Same thing with IT. Sure, it, like insurance, is a cost center, but IT infrastructure is so essential in modern business it had better be high quality and have a damn good uptime. Having decent servers and workstations in place increases productivity (or efficient slashdotting ;)) so instead of paying employees to wait for the disk to stop thrashing they could be paying employees to actually get some work done.
The editorials are conservative - that is true. However the news articles are news and op-eds are not passed off as news, unlike in NYT and subsidiaries.
The Wall Street Journal is a great alternative with much less bias.
Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.
On the other hand, Microsoft is at the top of the game economically. Microsoft never got the smartphone right, and they went five iterations of WinCE/Windows Mobile before they got the PDA right. For a PDA-only device I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone. For a "convergence" device (PDA + Phone) I prefer the iPhone.
However, Apple almost failed with the iPhone; they just didn't get it and initially released it with the intent of never offering an SDK, but making only web-based apps. It wasn't until the iPhone was jailbroken and apps were released through third-party sources that Apple realized that there was not only no threat nor stability issue by opening the phone, but a tremendous market, they released the SDK and opened the app store. The only thing Apple needs to do is open the phone further and allow flash, easy access to application files (for example, to allow users to share shopping list, task list, and other data), and so forth. I believe they will eventually do it but only as a defensive move against google. Also, some people bought the iPhone for utility, and jailbreak them to get the sort of apps Apple disapproves of (for example, a bash shell and openssh for creation of server monitoring and maintenance utilities, and to enable multitasking), or to customize the phone with themes.
I think Google is offering too little, too late with the android phones. Why? They initially indicated it would be open, which would achieve what openmoko attempted, but then did the same thing Apple did by locking the phone down. If they open it up then they will be a threat to Apple. The GUI is not nearly as good as the iPhone at this point, and the GUI is less responsive than even the 3G, let alone the 3G S. Multitasking is no better; in fact if you jailbreak the phone
Until google fixes a few key issues with android (GUI navigation, responsiveness, app availability) Apple has very little to fear.
I would not choose the iPhone if Bing were the default search engine though unless it could be changed to google; Google is by far the best search engine, and without the ability to change the search engine (without jailbreaking) why buy the most expensive mainstream cellphone when it provides inferior service?
Displaying evidence of independent thought.
ISO refers to how sensitive (or "fast" as photographers) put it. If you have a more sensitive (faster/higher ISO number) film, you can capture a given scene at the same (apparent) exposure with a faster shutter. Many high ISO films have a 'grainy' appearance. Most high ISO settings on digital cameras have a "snowy" appearance from noise. A higher ISO rating at a given shutter speed (e.g., 1/60) will (generally) produced a more exposed (or "brighter") picture. Too slow of a shutter speed for a given ISO rating will result in blowing out highlights (the digital analog is "clipping" an amplifier; the produced image is the same end result, with bright areas of a photo being #FFFFFF and having no recoverable detail)
Shutter speed: where you have a given ISO (and F/stop, or, aperture, which I won't get into here) if you make the shutter slower, the picture will become brighter, and if you speed up the shutter, your photo will be less exposed (underexposed). What digital cameras do is take several samples during a given shutter interval (higher end cameras actually have a physical shutter), but at a given sensitivity (the ISO rating).
Now, what does a high ISO rating give you? The ability to run a fast (1/320) or really fast (1/3200) shutter speed to "freeze" motion. This is important if you want to capture a high speed object (a pitcher, a race car, an interceptor at an air show) in full focus. Motion blur will be minimized (or eliminated) but at the expense of using a higher ISO, which in most cases results in more noise (or grain). A good quality sensor, a larger sensor, and better software in your camera will all help to minimize noise at higher ISO settings.
In dark scenes, good high ISO performance is required unless your subject is still and you're using a tripod.
This is why point & shoot cameras, even Canon's "bridge" models, all result in complaints about noise, noise, noise when used for dark indoor environments. You might say use a flash, but if at, for example, an art gallery or museum, play, or a concert, flashes are usually forbidden, or you may simply be too far away from the subject to reach with an internal flash.
Um, yeah. So, like previewing and reviewing images on a camera which uses a computerized display in place of a viewfinder isn't obvious to those skilled in the trade?
oooookay, then. This is a USPTO fail. Yet again.