I imagine you could unplug the shredder for an hour. Or even bring in your own splitter.
I don't know how anal your organization is about stuff like that but most wouldn't blink, even if they noticed, if all you were doing was charging your cellphone/ipod/pda/...
Not quite. I was mostly objecting to your "personal email" comment, especially since it's webmail, and therefore no special software on the machine.
Agreed. The issues with webmail 'the application' are fairly limited. However, given the percentage of malware and virii that spread via email, and things linked to in email, its a reasonable policy in many scenarios. webmail is a portal to unscreened attachments, and unscreened content. Its naive to rely on it staying inside the browser sandbox.
In 'secure' environments, its also a wide open portal for data to leak out of the network.
As for managements take on it, there are a number of issues:
webmail is a portal for "inappropriate content" -- your friends might not send pictures of that stripper you went to see to your corporate address, but won't hesitate to fill up your personal mail box with them, or perhaps some adult site you frequent sends you a newsletter... and having that stuff show up on your screen at work can lead to all kinds of problems -- offended customers, offended employees (harrassment lawsuits), etc, etc.
Yes, it can happen in your corporate mailbox too, but the frequency is frankly much lower; we all know 'IT/management' is potentially monitoring the corporate mail so we'll say 'don't send me that stuff at work', and we won't subscribe to porn sites using our corporate addresses, etc.
The second issue, is of course, the "time wasted" factor. Very little work related stuff should be coming in on your personal email, but it will likely be LOADED with crap from your personal life -- after all it IS your personal email. I think managment has a right to say, checking your personal email at work is crossing the line.
Do you also disallow all personal calls at work?
No, but that's purely a management decision, not an IT one.
However, it is a particularly good analagy for why management likes to ban personal webmail and IM. Consider this: Its one thing to make or take a personal call while at work. Its ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to setup your home phone to forward all incoming calls to your office number. So that every time some tom dick or harry tries you at home they disturb you at the office:
Would you like to save on long distance? Can jimmy come for a play date on thursday? Don't forget your dentist appointment Friday. Hi,its gramma calling... I'm lonely at the Home, can we chat. Hey, its your brother, want to golf this weekend?...
Personal webmail, and IM, in my opinion, can be a lot like call forwarding your home to your office. I can see why management wouldn't want you doing it!
Check cell phones at the door?
No, but that again is almost always a management decison, unless there is a genuine security threat to carrying a cellphone (worried about built in cameras, flash memory cards, etc, etc, etc).
The simple fact is most users think they know what they are doing, but the lack the skills to adequately assess the risks of their actions. That is why they need to have rules around acceptable use and security policies to protect them from their own idiocy.
Its worse than that. Its not that they can't assess risks, its that they aren't even aware of what is at stake. Nor do they understand the priorities of corporate IT in terms of cost and maintainability.
Examples:
We frequently rotate units and staff around. If there's "extra" software on a unit it that shouldn't be there, it has to be cleaned up. (And that takes time and costs money.) Its not that we don't want you to know the weather in tokyo, its that its not required, and it ultimately costs money. (Sure that's just a ghost image, plus updates, plus anything else that has been changed since the image was last updated... but on an 'unabused' machine we don't have to do even that. IT rightly tends to prioritize maintainability over frivolous functionality.
Another one would be a user who downloads software that is "shareware", or "free for personal use" because he likes it at home. Well, guess what, "free for personal use" does NOT usually mean its free to use in a commercial environment, and "shareware" isn't free at all beyond its trial period. Just because you can get away without paying and the software will still work doesn't mean its ok. WinZip is a classic example. There's a reason why IT is only using XP's built in compressed folder support, or 7-zip.
Another one would be one of those 'massive computing screen savers'; running the cpu at 100% all night instead of 'standby' x 100 PCs makes a substantial difference to the electrical bill. Its not that we think computing merseinne primes is somehow a security risk, but it costs a fair chunk of money, and potentially shortens the pc lifespan too. Do it at home if you like.
And gmail? You are provided a corporate email address for corporate email. If you want to check your personal mail, have it forwarded to your personal cellphone, and check it on your lunch break. There is no need or reason for it to be on your office desktop.
Do I feel deceived Jennifer C.'s tears were fake? Hmmmmm.... had she "acted" them, what would have made them any more real?
But it would cast any accolade, recognition, or award she receives for her acting into a different light, don't you think? After all, if she -didn't- act those tears, or that smile, or say those words 'just so', look sadly into the camera, limp convincingly, or... well what the heck did she actually do that a crash test dummy couldn't have done with enough editing??
Are actors of the future going to be the equivalent of popstars today, where most can't sing their way out of a cardboard box to save their lifes? Who are famous simply for being in the right place at the right time, having the right look, or perhaps they won on the "Who wants to be an A-list Actor" game show?
Long live the live stage production where you can still see good acting!
That's not at all like buying something, paying next to nothing for it, and then getting charged for it afterwards. Exploiting a pricing mistake is not fraud.
Its NOT a 'pricing mistake'. That occurs when something is mismarked, or misadvertised. And yes stores are required to honor those mistakes to prevent them from being tempted to deliberately make them to get customers into the store, where they then 'correct' the mistake at checkout.
The amazon error was completely different. It is like walking into a McDonalds with 2 "buy one big mac get the 2nd one free coupons". Then ordering 2 big macs, handing in two coupons, and getting the 2nd big mac discounted twice, and effectively getting both for free.
Contrary to what many here seem to think, THAT is not a "pricing error".
Amazon's system was essentially accepting double coupons due to a programming error. Deliberately exploiting a computer program error to get product for nothing -- Far below its advertised price, is clearly unethical and immoral. And quite possibly illegal too.
IHMO this is a straw man argument. I am not a store, and I think that this changes things.
Not in the slightest. Walmart's good name, the bbb, and us government presence make dealing a with walmart a comparatively safe transaction for YOU. As YOU are protected from all sorts of abuse that they might try and pull on you.
It seems to do very little to protect them from dishonest customers who would try to exploit THEM.
If I buy something from WalMart, then my problem is their problem, and their problem is their problem.
Bullshit. You are practically saying that if you figure out a way to rip off walmart then its walmarts fault for not catching you, that you are totally morally and ethically justified in doing it. That's ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but if you walk into a walmart and buy a broken toaster, than yeah Walmart has a moral and even legal obligation to help you, whether they exchange or refund you for the toaster...
But if you walk into a walmart and buy a pair of toasters on a 2 for 1 coupon, then return them one at a time without a receipt for a full refund on each of them -- that is just a plain old fashioned scam. Just because their flawed "customer service policies" let you get away with it doesn't make it a remotely moral thing to do.
And if you did this dozens of times before they figured it out, the police that work for the us government you mentioned earlier should be helping walmart track you down to recover their losses and then some, and maybe toss your deadbeat ass in the can too.
because they have a 90 DAY return policy with receipt
shrug... suppose it was a final sale item, no returns, no refunds, whatever. Use your imagination.
Yeah, Walmart, like any reputable business has generous refund with receipt, or even return for store credit without receipt policies... and they get horribly abused too.
I've seen people brag that they noticed walmart sells X for $10.00, and other store is having a sale on X for $5.00, so they go to the other store, buy 10 X's @$5 for $50 then go to walmart and return them @10.00 for store credit, and take home a $100 walmart gift card while being out of pocket only $50 bucks...
Those are probably the same jackasses that think they're somehow entitled to rip off amazon simply because the consumer protection laws are so one-sided to protect the consumer that amazon is almost helpless to protect itself from errors.
The point is that no retailer can charge you after the fact when they make a mistake. Why should Amazon be any different?
I think you are confused. Almost no retailer will BOTHER to even try to charge you after the fact when they make a mistake; its bad PR, its usually a relatively small mistake, and its rarely in their best interests. Walmart would never go after someone over a $45 sleeping bag, but if you'd ordered one diamond ring online, and they accidently drop-shipped you an entire case worth $500,000 you can bet your ass they'll go to considerable lengths to reclaim it.
And if they DO decide to go after their money or product, yes the consumer protection laws will confound their efforts to just "do it" (although they can still try -- after all if you don't dispute the chargeback visa will let it go through, and anyone with a shred of integrity probably won't dispute an honest charge-back), but if they choose to pursue you into the courts, I think you might be surprised to find out that they can win.
In amazon's case for example, especially for cases where individuals were placing dozens of orders, they were deliberately exploiting a flaw in the programming, not only that, it was for their own profit and causing amazon financial harm as a result.
Frankly we've all seen cases for 'hacking' and other 'computer crime' proceed on much thinner pretenses than this.
You go to WalMart and buy a sleeping bag that was mispriced at $500. (perhaps some toddler moved the sticker from some other product.) Perhaps you didn't even see the sticker, but you know from having looked previously that the price is around $50 bucks. However the clerk at the counter mindlessly rings you up for $500.00 instead of $50. And without paying attention you sign your cc slip and happily and walk out of the store. A few days later you realize you've paid $500, a clear mistake, and you take the bag and receipt back to Walmart and ask for your money back.
If walmart were to say, "its a completed sale, its got a $500 sticker on it, its wasn't advertised as less anywhere else in the store the day you bought it, so no refunds; you were clearly appraised of the price at checkout, and you even signed your credit card slip" you'd probably throw a SCREAMING FIT.
Why is it ok to screw amazon, but a dirty sin if you get screwed?
Fwiw, I think amazon probably doesn't have a much of a legal leg to stand on in reclaiming the funds. However, they are indisputably in the right morally, and anyone that deliberately took advantage of this is morally bankrupt, doubly so if they aren't willing to make amends.
Reminds of a law & order episode, where some girl agreed to be a surrogate mother for a childless couple in exchage for cash, and then acts depressed and threatens to have abortion in order to extract additional money and gifts from the couple... turned out there's nothing actually illegal about that either...
I guess its ok then.
Sociopaths.
(PS The "you" in the analagies above refers to the people who took advantage of amazon, not the parent poster.)
Allow them to take responsibility and they will gladly accept it -- and be much better people for it.
Thing is PARENTS need to teach kids responsibility by giving it to them, not SOCIETY.
Your parents made you responsible for your behaviour, and you stepped up to the plate. And that is as it should be. But if you'd fucked up, your parents would be responsible for dealing with it, meting out consequences to you, educating you, and so forth. And that is also as it should be.
The point is, for young adults, I agree they need to be treated like they can be held responsible for themselves, but its their parents that should be treating them like that, and society should defer to the parents handling of it.
Essentially, as young adults, you are on a learners permit to be an adult. You get to drive, but you are on their insurance, and they are responsible for what heppens. Parents should be using this stage to give you lots of driving practice, while teaching you, correcting you, and helping you avoid mistakes.
And unlike driving, where you take a test before you can drive on your own, with life, you hit 18 and you get an automatic pass ready or not... hopefully your parents got you ready.
Far too often parents don't or can't parent effectively and we as society should be looking to address that problem, rather than to simply assume responsibility for raising the kids directly, because society does an even worse job of that then parents do.
Actually no. I figure anyone who was 5-20 in the 80s would have them indelibly imprinted into their brains. And that the generation that came after, while they won't have played it, should be generally aware of it through pop-culture not to mention flash games, cellphone games, ipod games... which is where all the classics are being recycled right now.
So they look over to HP, Compaq, Toshiba, or some other brand where they can save a few hundred bucks by keeping the steak and losing the chocolate sprinkles.
You can sell a lot more laptops at $1200-$1500 than at $2000 if they actually compete with other models in that price range.
And that is where Apple has you over the barrel so to speak. There are no other models that compete in that price range on Apple's biggest feature: OS X.
If OS X is an important feature (and it probably is if you are looking at Macs in the first place) than HP, Toshiba et al aren't really even in the running. You are going to buy either an MB or an MBP. Its just a matter of choosing which.
The value of comparing an MBP to an HP is to validate the MBP price. The MBP is not over priced -- true, it may have a lot of features YOU might not be interested in, but any laptop with all those features, at that size and weight and quality are going to be the same price, and thus the price of the MBP is fair for what you get.
That you can get a 1500 HP with the hardware features you want, but you can't get a 1500 Apple with the hardware features you want doesn't really hurt apple. Because the HP can't match Apple's software feature: OS X -- and that feature is the biggest reason people buy a mac.
While I concede there is a group of people buying $1500 Dell/HP/etc who would have bought a $1500 mac I don't think they're that relevant. I think if they wanted a mac they got one, and usually anted-up. Moreover, as I said before, I think if a 15" $1500 MB existed, a LOT of people who bought the 2k+ ones would have scaled back, and that would have hurt Apple.
You see the same thing in car lots. If they bring in the base model and the fully loaded model, both sell well.
If they bring in the base model, a semi loaded model with the most popular options, and a fully loaded model. The semi loaded model ends up taking a lot sales from the fully loaded model, while not really adding to the total number of sales. Even if a customer only wants some of the features of the fully loaded car they generally ante-up for the fully loaded one if that's what is in stock. Few people walk out of the lot and buy a completely different model of car because the semi-loaded model wasn't in stock.
And yes, in the case of cars people -can- special order exactly the car they want with the options they want in the color they want etc but most people don't do that they buy from whats available on the lot(s). (Plus the cars on the lot are generally better value as the dealer is motivated to move inventory.) By choosing not to bring in semi-loaded cars with the most popular options the dealer can upsell more people into fully loaded ones.
I think Apple does the same with their product lineup, and I think it works for them. Despite how much it frustrates some of their customers (including me).
Great, how many packets per second is sent for streaming video? Downloading a Usenet posting?
Unless you download each packet from a different server I can't see how that would possibly be relevant.
Oh, they're probably talking about end-user computers emitting too many similar packets quickly.
No they're talking about a computer emitting too many CONNECTION REQUESTS to too many different computers. If you read the article you'd probably have a better idea of what was going on.;)
Two types of applications that could in theory trigger a quarantine that would be a mass-mailout, where you are directly delivering mail to thousands of recipient mail exchangers (instead of relaying through your ISP), or running a web-crawling robot of some sort that was traversing thousands of websites.
Typical use, from playing games, to browsing, to sending email, to streaming video... even p2p software wouldn't even register as a potential threat nevermind trigger quarantine. Nor would running a busy web server, as in that case all the connection requests are inbound, not outbound.
It only looks like an LED cartoon character if you're actually familiar with the character.
I'd say it would be pretty familiar to anyone who'd ever played "space invaders" too. (ie pretty much anyone under 40.)
Otherwise it just looks like a panel of randomly placed LEDs.
If by "random" you mean "a clear image of something giving you the finger" I suppose so.;)
I believe the people who mistakenly thought it could be a bomb did so with the most earnest of intentions.
True but we don't really have much use for people who report things that aren't bombs. How many innocent cardboard boxes, guitar cases, gymbags, abandoned Dells, old speakers, and other nondescript "potentially suspicious looking" debris is lying around Boston? They could shut the city down for an entire decade with earnest intentions.
People should know better. When I see a plane flying low I still assume its landing, not attacking the city...
I can understand how this got out of hand but it'll happen again. Around here Telus is putting up pink flamingos all around the city as part of its latest campaign... they're hollow and in public places and they weren't there yesterday... could be a bomb in there.
Seriously if the 'terrorists' were planting bombs everyone they'd make them look like run of the mill every day items like transformer boxes... hmm... wait... i saw a transformer box on one of the support columns in my parkade... i don't remember that being there before... excuse me...
slightly slower speed, dimensions plus ~0.5", weight plus ~0.5lb, no ambiant light detection, no fall detection, no magnetic battery cord, no firewire, no camera, no DVI port...
It all does add up, but not just the hardware, the dimensions are crucial. Doubly so given the MBP weighs LESS and INCLUDES all those extras, while the HP is bigger, heavier, yet doesn't.
Are you honestly trying to convince me that an MBP should be the same price as an inferior, heavier, larger laptop? Don't be absurd.
When you actually find a unit that matches what the MBP can do in the space and weight the MBP does it - and which costs $500 less too, let me know.
Ah yes. Perhaps they're a contestant on a game show, and they have to spend a million dollars as quickly as possible?
I'm sure you can do better than that.
A Porsche 911 Turbo is only about 1 second faster 0-60 than a 911 C4, yet costs over $50,000 more. You really think anyone thinks there's $50,000 worth of 'utility' to be able go 0-60 one second faster? And that's about it for differences. The two cars that are nearly indistinguishable otherwise in terms of appearance and overall driving experience. They are both 911s after all. For the average person who buys the T car the extra bit of performance isn't even tapped into, never mind "appreciated" in relation to its extra cost.
Here, let me get you started: Some people just want the best, regardless of price, and can afford it. Some people want the bragging rights. Some people are affected by salesmanship and marketing. Some people prefer having options even if they won't use them. Some people buy what their friends tell them to buy. Some people buy what is available.*...etc...
I suspect Apple is using this to drive sales of the MBP.
There are probably a lot of people out there who bought an MBP because the MB wasn't enough. If Apple had a middle product, say a 15" mb with fast video for 1500... it would probably GUT the sales of the MBP. And sure, it might be what you want... but is it really in Apple's best interest? Sure they'd lose a few sales to people who simply refuse to buy... but I expect overall profit from people ante-ing up to the MBP more than offsets that loss.
Why else would they pay four times as much for it?
Lots of reasons.
But wait, I thought it was features like BT and FireWire that made the MacBook Pro so much more expensive than other brands.
Get real. Features like BT and FW make the Mini $650 instead of $450 (not to mention that I have yet to see a Dell that even comes close to thinking about approaching the size of a Mini.
And I don't know what you are talking about with the MBP being more expensive than other brands... a similarly equipped Thinkpad or Sony Vaio are right there with it. Hell the Dell Precision line of laptops starts at 2500.00.
If HP can sell a 15" laptop for $1500 or less, why can't Apple?
I'm sure they could if they lowered their quality standards and hired a color blind moron to do their case design.
At the low end, its often hard to beat many of Dells "specials". I've seen many cases where my whitebox builders couldn't get within $100 of a Dell price, never-mind that dell was throwing in a free printer, and including shipping. (Granted the printer is little more than landfill fodder... but it fools many customers...)
but that doesn't mean I'm going to get 33% more utility or enjoyment out of the MBP
That's a bizarre way to calculate. A BMW costs 4x as much as a honda civic. I don't think anybody thinks they are ever going to get 400% "utility" out it.
Screen size is one of the main factors in a notebook's price,
Which is why the MB can do everything the MBP does for 40% less. If a MB was an MBP with the same video card and screen, but with BT and Firewire stripped out it would only be maybe $150 cheaper.
Most people don't want a 13" toy screen.
Personally I like my laptops small & portable. I have a 21" LCD on my desk and I use THAT most of the time. To me a 17" laptop is absurd, just barely big enough to be useful and just barely small enough to be portable. I much prefer having a truly small laptop, and plugging it into a truly big screen. To each their own.
Although, I'd agree (and I've already said as much) that I agree the gaps in Apples line up can be annoying.
Only if you think a Mac has to be expensive and filled with features most people will never use. In my experience, the main benefits of using a Mac are (1) OS X and (2) no driver headaches because all the hardware is standard. Those advantages would still be intact.
Unlike you, Apple believes a Mac is more than just OS X.
and whenever someone suggests Macs are expensive, the fanboys come out in droves to do semantic backflips, explaining that they're not really expensive because they do so much.
What is being explained is that they are good value for the price; that if you equipped a PC the same way, you'd find that it costs around the same. Demonstrating "good value" is not a semantic backflip.
Unlike, say, a $3400 Louis Vuitton bag (if you want to talk about a rip off), the sum and quality of the parts in a Mac easily justify the price. You aren't paying 30% extra for a logo, as some people claim.
the MacBook, for example, keeps most of the fluff from the MBP but has 40% less screen area and a crappy video chipset.
Or put another way. The MB can do everything the MBP can but costs 40% less. Its just not as big, or as fast, or as stylish. But it has all the features of its big brother and will get the job done. (Rather like the difference between an entry level Porsche Cayman and a Porsche 911 Turbo.)
"What's wrong with that? A lot of people don't need any of those things. Keep the DVD burner, make wifi an option, and design a nice looking yet still cheap case." What would be wrong with that? It wouldn't be premium product. It wouldn't be a Mac.
Just as BMW could make a deal with Honda to buy civics and replace the logo plates and call them BMWs. Likelwise Apple COULD make 'cheap' units, but Apple's are among the BMWs of computers, not the Kia's. Do you hear many people lamenting that "BMW is missing a lot of sales opportunities by not having a Kia product?" Of course not.
"You could probably get a used PC for that price running at 1 GHz or faster."
And how would that help someone looking for an inexpensive Mac exactly?
As for whether or its true. Yeah probably; I did say it was on par with a decent P3 after all. But you are missing the point. The question is not what kind of PC can I buy for $200. The question is "What kind of Mac can I get for $200 because I was told that to run OS X I have to spend at least $700..." And the answer is you can get a pretty solid OS X experience on 200 bucks.
"... I just priced a Dell Dimension E521 for $479..."
Well *I* just priced a Dell Dimension E521 with AMD sempron, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, DVDRW, wifi, and firewire... and it was 499.00... and I still didn't have BlueTooth or gigabit yet, and I'm not sure if it does TV-out either.
Granted the AMD sempron is a step above a 1.5GHz G4, but that's not the point:
It would be HARD to buid a a new dell that could do everything the 2 year old Mac Mini does for less than the Mac Mini costs today ($450-500).
The fact that you were able to put together a computer with a faster CPU, and more RAM, yet can't do everything the Mac Mini does proves what exactly? In terms of Hondas and BMWs all you've shown is that a cheap Honda civic with a Turbo kit is faster than an entry level 2 year old BMW... I doubt you'll find many BMW owners lining up to 'upgrade'.;)
So, yes, the AMD sempron will be faster than a 1.5GHz G4, though not nearly as much as the mhz difference might suggest... but the mac mini has more features for the same dollars, and even 2 years later is still a premium product that can turn heads on its styling and features.
The same will NEVER be said of a Dell E521.
Besides and after you drop in something like the Norton Antivirus Internet Protection Suite that windows pretty much needs installed to be run safely by a non-geek the Dell might not be that much faster either.;)
"Don't believe everything you hear on tv about waiting lists."
Agreed!
" If you need a bypass operation you're not going to die on the waiting list because it's too expensive to do it."
To be fair, people do sometimes die on the waiting lists. Its tragic when it occurs, and often makes the national news. Its certainly something that a lot of effort is spent on preventing, and that effort is largely successful. In the vast majority of cases people on long waiting lists are generally in pretty stable condition. And that is part of the "problem", deteriorating cases are prioritized over stable cases -- so if you are stable it can take a long time to reach the front of line, leading to the unbelievable long waiting lists you read about.
For a good analagy consider a combat medic performing triage - patients that are deemed stable may have to wait hours or days to get patched up while people in critical/deteriorating condition are processed immediately. If people are continually coming in off the field, the stable patients just get pushed back further, and are only finally tended to during lulls, or if their condition deteriorates. Its a terrible thing to have to go through, but it is the fairest and most just approach in the situation.
Thus the main problem with the waiting lists in Canada isn't that you are likely to die while you wait, but rather that you have to deal with the condition (and associated pain and inconvenience) WHILE you wait, and that is admittedly terribly terribly frustrating, especially if its disabling in any manner.
But despite the waiting lists and issues associated with them, I suspect that Canada's health care is more effective than the US's is, when measured in terms of how many people live vs die due to availability of care. (Whether its waiting "too long" in Canada, or not being able to afford care in the States.) For the simple reason that a national-scale system of triage seems far more effective at saving the largest number of people vs hoping that only people who can afford care will need it. (the only way the US system could reliably care for more patients.)
Naturally there is pressure from the well-to-do to desire to 'queue-jump' by spending some of that money to avoid time spent in pain. Currently that is disallowed, and that is controversial. I don't have a problem with the rich spending money to get out pain faster; I have a problem with the fact that the more they are allowed to queue jump, the longer the poor have to wait.
The argument that if they queue jump to a 2nd tier in a two-tier system so the poor actually get served faster if the rich can 'pay to get out of the way' doesn't hold water for the simple reason that supply is relatively inelastic. I.e. the doctors and nurses that will staff that 2nd tier are going to come from the first tier. So the poor will have to wait longer. Worse, the more profitable tier will be more attractive, and will be where you find the 'best and brightest', further disadvantaging the poor.
Because of our proximity to the US we essentially have the two-tier system NOW, and the problems with it are apparent.
Wealthy Canadians willing to pay go to the states to "queue jump", and Canada loses doctors and nurses to the states due to the greater earnings potential. I think Canada's socialized medical system suffers overall as a result.
"Apple is missing out on a lot of sales by not offering anything in these price ranges. If you want to spend $300 for a desktop, you can get a PC, but you can't get a Mac. If you want to spend $1500 for a 15" laptop, you can get a PC, but you can't get a Mac."
Ok... but what would a $300 Mac look like? I mean, Apple would have to gut it down to the same specs -- meaning a Celeron, CDRW (no DVD), 10/100 instead of gigabit, drop the bluetooth, drop the wifi, drop the firewire, drop dvi, switch to a paper-thin aluminum case with a $10 power supply, etc
Sure they could get the price to $300 but what would be the point? Half of iLife would be seriously crippled, half of the available peripherals wouldn't work, etc. On some level it wouldn't really deserve to be called a new Mac. BMW could make a car to compete with a Honda civic too, but it really wouldn't be a BMW anymore, imho. For those who want a BMW on a budget, buy a used one.
And, in that vein, the 2ndary and refurbished market for Macs has always been robust, and a great way for students to save some cash, and get a Mac at whatever price point they want.
You can get a "slow as molasses" G3-233Mhz tower, with 512MB RAM, running Panther. It won't blow your mind, but it will be alright for email, web, office apps, and itunes -- for as little as $25 bucks. It'll bog down on complex web pages, apps will take 30 seconds to start, and youtube won't play smoothly, but it will get the job done. And I'd rather have one of these than a PentiumII with windows 98 from the same era at the same price point. (In fact, I got a couple for free, dropped some spare RAM into them, and gave them to some family members and friends who didn't have computers; they're quite thrilled with them)
Or you could get 450Mhz g4 tower "sawtooth" era, with 500Mhz, 1GB ram, Tiger, combodrive, firewire for as little as $200. Comparable to a decently loaded pentium III, and perfectly serviceable for most tasks.
Or a 1.5Gz G4 Mac Mini with 512MB RAM, bluetooth, wifi, dvdrw, Tiger, etc etc for $500. On par with an older decently loaded P4, and likely better than what you'd get from dell at that price.
etc, etc...
Granted its a bit of a downer if you want an intel based mac, but those will cycle into the 2ndary market soon enough.
It would likely be easier by far to just drive around. You'd see the houses from more angles, see how visible the various entrances are from the street, be able to better assess how busy the area was, see how people dress, their cars, etc etc etc... and the 'data' would be much more up to date.
Search for pretty young girls in the yard to kidnap/rape/murder.
Do you also live in fear of tall buildings? I mean someone could stand on one of those with a telescope and peep yards for miles... FOR MILES!!
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine you could unplug the shredder for an hour. Or even bring in your own splitter.
I don't know how anal your organization is about stuff like that but most wouldn't blink, even if they noticed, if all you were doing was charging your cellphone/ipod/pda/...
-cheers
Not quite. I was mostly objecting to your "personal email" comment, especially since it's webmail, and therefore no special software on the machine.
Agreed. The issues with webmail 'the application' are fairly limited. However, given the percentage of malware and virii that spread via email, and things linked to in email, its a reasonable policy in many scenarios. webmail is a portal to unscreened attachments, and unscreened content. Its naive to rely on it staying inside the browser sandbox.
In 'secure' environments, its also a wide open portal for data to leak out of the network.
As for managements take on it, there are a number of issues:
webmail is a portal for "inappropriate content" -- your friends might not send pictures of that stripper you went to see to your corporate address, but won't hesitate to fill up your personal mail box with them, or perhaps some adult site you frequent sends you a newsletter... and having that stuff show up on your screen at work can lead to all kinds of problems -- offended customers, offended employees (harrassment lawsuits), etc, etc.
Yes, it can happen in your corporate mailbox too, but the frequency is frankly much lower; we all know 'IT/management' is potentially monitoring the corporate mail so we'll say 'don't send me that stuff at work', and we won't subscribe to porn sites using our corporate addresses, etc.
The second issue, is of course, the "time wasted" factor. Very little work related stuff should be coming in on your personal email, but it will likely be LOADED with crap from your personal life -- after all it IS your personal email. I think managment has a right to say, checking your personal email at work is crossing the line.
Do you also disallow all personal calls at work?
No, but that's purely a management decision, not an IT one.
However, it is a particularly good analagy for why management likes to ban personal webmail and IM. Consider this: Its one thing to make or take a personal call while at work. Its ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to setup your home phone to forward all incoming calls to your office number. So that every time some tom dick or harry tries you at home they disturb you at the office:
Would you like to save on long distance? Can jimmy come for a play date on thursday? Don't forget your dentist appointment Friday. Hi,its gramma calling... I'm lonely at the Home, can we chat. Hey, its your brother, want to golf this weekend?...
Personal webmail, and IM, in my opinion, can be a lot like call forwarding your home to your office. I can see why management wouldn't want you doing it!
Check cell phones at the door?
No, but that again is almost always a management decison, unless there is a genuine security threat to carrying a cellphone (worried about built in cameras, flash memory cards, etc, etc, etc).
You have a problem with management, not IT.
The simple fact is most users think they know what they are doing, but the lack the skills to adequately assess the risks of their actions. That is why they need to have rules around acceptable use and security policies to protect them from their own idiocy.
Its worse than that. Its not that they can't assess risks, its that they aren't even aware of what is at stake. Nor do they understand the priorities of corporate IT in terms of cost and maintainability.
Examples:
We frequently rotate units and staff around. If there's "extra" software on a unit it that shouldn't be there, it has to be cleaned up. (And that takes time and costs money.) Its not that we don't want you to know the weather in tokyo, its that its not required, and it ultimately costs money. (Sure that's just a ghost image, plus updates, plus anything else that has been changed since the image was last updated... but on an 'unabused' machine we don't have to do even that. IT rightly tends to prioritize maintainability over frivolous functionality.
Another one would be a user who downloads software that is "shareware", or "free for personal use" because he likes it at home. Well, guess what, "free for personal use" does NOT usually mean its free to use in a commercial environment, and "shareware" isn't free at all beyond its trial period. Just because you can get away without paying and the software will still work doesn't mean its ok. WinZip is a classic example. There's a reason why IT is only using XP's built in compressed folder support, or 7-zip.
Another one would be one of those 'massive computing screen savers'; running the cpu at 100% all night instead of 'standby' x 100 PCs makes a substantial difference to the electrical bill. Its not that we think computing merseinne primes is somehow a security risk, but it costs a fair chunk of money, and potentially shortens the pc lifespan too. Do it at home if you like.
And gmail? You are provided a corporate email address for corporate email. If you want to check your personal mail, have it forwarded to your personal cellphone, and check it on your lunch break. There is no need or reason for it to be on your office desktop.
I just wanted a place to dock my iPod for charging so I can listen to it throughout the day.
Uh. They make an ipod ac adapter so you can plug it right into the wall.
Do I feel deceived Jennifer C.'s tears were fake? Hmmmmm.... had she "acted" them, what would have made them any more real?
... well what the heck did she actually do that a crash test dummy couldn't have done with enough editing??
But it would cast any accolade, recognition, or award she receives for her acting into a different light, don't you think? After all, if she -didn't- act those tears, or that smile, or say those words 'just so', look sadly into the camera, limp convincingly, or
Are actors of the future going to be the equivalent of popstars today, where most can't sing their way out of a cardboard box to save their lifes? Who are famous simply for being in the right place at the right time, having the right look, or perhaps they won on the "Who wants to be an A-list Actor" game show?
Long live the live stage production where you can still see good acting!
Gosh, maybe Stallman is pitching GNU/Linux to Osama bin Laden in his cave right now, and we can bring the War on Terror into this.
;)
It -would- demonstrate the 'power of opensource', or at least the power of Stallman.
After all, it would imply he at least could find Osama's cave.
That's not at all like buying something, paying next to nothing for it, and then getting charged for it afterwards. Exploiting a pricing mistake is not fraud.
Its NOT a 'pricing mistake'. That occurs when something is mismarked, or misadvertised. And yes stores are required to honor those mistakes to prevent them from being tempted to deliberately make them to get customers into the store, where they then 'correct' the mistake at checkout.
The amazon error was completely different. It is like walking into a McDonalds with 2 "buy one big mac get the 2nd one free coupons". Then ordering 2 big macs, handing in two coupons, and getting the 2nd big mac discounted twice, and effectively getting both for free.
Contrary to what many here seem to think, THAT is not a "pricing error".
Amazon's system was essentially accepting double coupons due to a programming error. Deliberately exploiting a computer program error to get product for nothing -- Far below its advertised price, is clearly unethical and immoral. And quite possibly illegal too.
IHMO this is a straw man argument. I am not a store, and I think that this changes things.
Not in the slightest. Walmart's good name, the bbb, and us government presence make dealing a with walmart a comparatively safe transaction for YOU. As YOU are protected from all sorts of abuse that they might try and pull on you.
It seems to do very little to protect them from dishonest customers who would try to exploit THEM.
If I buy something from WalMart, then my problem is their problem, and their problem is their problem.
Bullshit. You are practically saying that if you figure out a way to rip off walmart then its walmarts fault for not catching you, that you are totally morally and ethically justified in doing it. That's ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but if you walk into a walmart and buy a broken toaster, than yeah Walmart has a moral and even legal obligation to help you, whether they exchange or refund you for the toaster...
But if you walk into a walmart and buy a pair of toasters on a 2 for 1 coupon, then return them one at a time without a receipt for a full refund on each of them -- that is just a plain old fashioned scam. Just because their flawed "customer service policies" let you get away with it doesn't make it a remotely moral thing to do.
And if you did this dozens of times before they figured it out, the police that work for the us government you mentioned earlier should be helping walmart track you down to recover their losses and then some, and maybe toss your deadbeat ass in the can too.
because they have a 90 DAY return policy with receipt
... suppose it was a final sale item, no returns, no refunds, whatever. Use your imagination.
shrug
Yeah, Walmart, like any reputable business has generous refund with receipt, or even return for store credit without receipt policies... and they get horribly abused too.
I've seen people brag that they noticed walmart sells X for $10.00, and other store is having a sale on X for $5.00, so they go to the other store, buy 10 X's @$5 for $50 then go to walmart and return them @10.00 for store credit, and take home a $100 walmart gift card while being out of pocket only $50 bucks...
Those are probably the same jackasses that think they're somehow entitled to rip off amazon simply because the consumer protection laws are so one-sided to protect the consumer that amazon is almost helpless to protect itself from errors.
The point is that no retailer can charge you after the fact when they make a mistake. Why should Amazon be any different?
I think you are confused. Almost no retailer will BOTHER to even try to charge you after the fact when they make a mistake; its bad PR, its usually a relatively small mistake, and its rarely in their best interests. Walmart would never go after someone over a $45 sleeping bag, but if you'd ordered one diamond ring online, and they accidently drop-shipped you an entire case worth $500,000 you can bet your ass they'll go to considerable lengths to reclaim it.
And if they DO decide to go after their money or product, yes the consumer protection laws will confound their efforts to just "do it" (although they can still try -- after all if you don't dispute the chargeback visa will let it go through, and anyone with a shred of integrity probably won't dispute an honest charge-back), but if they choose to pursue you into the courts, I think you might be surprised to find out that they can win.
In amazon's case for example, especially for cases where individuals were placing dozens of orders, they were deliberately exploiting a flaw in the programming, not only that, it was for their own profit and causing amazon financial harm as a result.
Frankly we've all seen cases for 'hacking' and other 'computer crime' proceed on much thinner pretenses than this.
cheers
Here's another analogy. But in reverse.
You go to WalMart and buy a sleeping bag that was mispriced at $500. (perhaps some toddler moved the sticker from some other product.) Perhaps you didn't even see the sticker, but you know from having looked previously that the price is around $50 bucks. However the clerk at the counter mindlessly rings you up for $500.00 instead of $50. And without paying attention you sign your cc slip and happily and walk out of the store. A few days later you realize you've paid $500, a clear mistake, and you take the bag and receipt back to Walmart and ask for your money back.
If walmart were to say, "its a completed sale, its got a $500 sticker on it, its wasn't advertised as less anywhere else in the store the day you bought it, so no refunds; you were clearly appraised of the price at checkout, and you even signed your credit card slip" you'd probably throw a SCREAMING FIT.
Why is it ok to screw amazon, but a dirty sin if you get screwed?
Fwiw, I think amazon probably doesn't have a much of a legal leg to stand on in reclaiming the funds. However, they are indisputably in the right morally, and anyone that deliberately took advantage of this is morally bankrupt, doubly so if they aren't willing to make amends.
Reminds of a law & order episode, where some girl agreed to be a surrogate mother for a childless couple in exchage for cash, and then acts depressed and threatens to have abortion in order to extract additional money and gifts from the couple... turned out there's nothing actually illegal about that either...
I guess its ok then.
Sociopaths.
(PS The "you" in the analagies above refers to the people who took advantage of amazon, not the parent poster.)
Allow them to take responsibility and they will gladly accept it -- and be much better people for it.
Thing is PARENTS need to teach kids responsibility by giving it to them, not SOCIETY.
Your parents made you responsible for your behaviour, and you stepped up to the plate. And that is as it should be. But if you'd fucked up, your parents would be responsible for dealing with it, meting out consequences to you, educating you, and so forth. And that is also as it should be.
The point is, for young adults, I agree they need to be treated like they can be held responsible for themselves, but its their parents that should be treating them like that, and society should defer to the parents handling of it.
Essentially, as young adults, you are on a learners permit to be an adult. You get to drive, but you are on their insurance, and they are responsible for what heppens. Parents should be using this stage to give you lots of driving practice, while teaching you, correcting you, and helping you avoid mistakes.
And unlike driving, where you take a test before you can drive on your own, with life, you hit 18 and you get an automatic pass ready or not... hopefully your parents got you ready.
Far too often parents don't or can't parent effectively and we as society should be looking to address that problem, rather than to simply assume responsibility for raising the kids directly, because society does an even worse job of that then parents do.
Don't you mean anyone *over* 40?
Actually no. I figure anyone who was 5-20 in the 80s would have them indelibly imprinted into their brains. And that the generation that came after, while they won't have played it, should be generally aware of it through pop-culture not to mention flash games, cellphone games, ipod games... which is where all the classics are being recycled right now.
cheers
So they look over to HP, Compaq, Toshiba, or some other brand where they can save a few hundred bucks by keeping the steak and losing the chocolate sprinkles.
You can sell a lot more laptops at $1200-$1500 than at $2000 if they actually compete with other models in that price range.
And that is where Apple has you over the barrel so to speak. There are no other models that compete in that price range on Apple's biggest feature: OS X.
If OS X is an important feature (and it probably is if you are looking at Macs in the first place) than HP, Toshiba et al aren't really even in the running. You are going to buy either an MB or an MBP. Its just a matter of choosing which.
The value of comparing an MBP to an HP is to validate the MBP price. The MBP is not over priced -- true, it may have a lot of features YOU might not be interested in, but any laptop with all those features, at that size and weight and quality are going to be the same price, and thus the price of the MBP is fair for what you get.
That you can get a 1500 HP with the hardware features you want, but you can't get a 1500 Apple with the hardware features you want doesn't really hurt apple. Because the HP can't match Apple's software feature: OS X -- and that feature is the biggest reason people buy a mac.
While I concede there is a group of people buying $1500 Dell/HP/etc who would have bought a $1500 mac I don't think they're that relevant. I think if they wanted a mac they got one, and usually anted-up. Moreover, as I said before, I think if a 15" $1500 MB existed, a LOT of people who bought the 2k+ ones would have scaled back, and that would have hurt Apple.
You see the same thing in car lots. If they bring in the base model and the fully loaded model, both sell well.
If they bring in the base model, a semi loaded model with the most popular options, and a fully loaded model. The semi loaded model ends up taking a lot sales from the fully loaded model, while not really adding to the total number of sales. Even if a customer only wants some of the features of the fully loaded car they generally ante-up for the fully loaded one if that's what is in stock. Few people walk out of the lot and buy a completely different model of car because the semi-loaded model wasn't in stock.
And yes, in the case of cars people -can- special order exactly the car they want with the options they want in the color they want etc but most people don't do that they buy from whats available on the lot(s). (Plus the cars on the lot are generally better value as the dealer is motivated to move inventory.) By choosing not to bring in semi-loaded cars with the most popular options the dealer can upsell more people into fully loaded ones.
I think Apple does the same with their product lineup, and I think it works for them. Despite how much it frustrates some of their customers (including me).
Great, how many packets per second is sent for streaming video? Downloading a Usenet posting?
;)
Unless you download each packet from a different server I can't see how that would possibly be relevant.
Oh, they're probably talking about end-user computers emitting too many similar packets quickly.
No they're talking about a computer emitting too many CONNECTION REQUESTS to too many different computers. If you read the article you'd probably have a better idea of what was going on.
Two types of applications that could in theory trigger a quarantine that would be a mass-mailout, where you are directly delivering mail to thousands of recipient mail exchangers (instead of relaying through your ISP), or running a web-crawling robot of some sort that was traversing thousands of websites.
Typical use, from playing games, to browsing, to sending email, to streaming video... even p2p software wouldn't even register as a potential threat nevermind trigger quarantine. Nor would running a busy web server, as in that case all the connection requests are inbound, not outbound.
It only looks like an LED cartoon character if you're actually familiar with the character.
;)
I'd say it would be pretty familiar to anyone who'd ever played "space invaders" too. (ie pretty much anyone under 40.)
Otherwise it just looks like a panel of randomly placed LEDs.
If by "random" you mean "a clear image of something giving you the finger" I suppose so.
I believe the people who mistakenly thought it could be a bomb did so with the most earnest of intentions.
True but we don't really have much use for people who report things that aren't bombs. How many innocent cardboard boxes, guitar cases, gymbags, abandoned Dells, old speakers, and other nondescript "potentially suspicious looking" debris is lying around Boston? They could shut the city down for an entire decade with earnest intentions.
People should know better. When I see a plane flying low I still assume its landing, not attacking the city...
I can understand how this got out of hand but it'll happen again. Around here Telus is putting up pink flamingos all around the city as part of its latest campaign... they're hollow and in public places and they weren't there yesterday... could be a bomb in there.
Seriously if the 'terrorists' were planting bombs everyone they'd make them look like run of the mill every day items like transformer boxes... hmm... wait... i saw a transformer box on one of the support columns in my parkade... i don't remember that being there before... excuse me...
slightly slower speed, dimensions plus ~0.5", weight plus ~0.5lb, no ambiant light detection, no fall detection, no magnetic battery cord, no firewire, no camera, no DVI port...
...etc...
It all does add up, but not just the hardware, the dimensions are crucial. Doubly so given the MBP weighs LESS and INCLUDES all those extras, while the HP is bigger, heavier, yet doesn't.
Are you honestly trying to convince me that an MBP should be the same price as an inferior, heavier, larger laptop? Don't be absurd.
When you actually find a unit that matches what the MBP can do in the space and weight the MBP does it - and which costs $500 less too, let me know.
Ah yes. Perhaps they're a contestant on a game show, and they have to spend a million dollars as quickly as possible?
I'm sure you can do better than that.
A Porsche 911 Turbo is only about 1 second faster 0-60 than a 911 C4, yet costs over $50,000 more. You really think anyone thinks there's $50,000 worth of 'utility' to be able go 0-60 one second faster? And that's about it for differences. The two cars that are nearly indistinguishable otherwise in terms of appearance and overall driving experience. They are both 911s after all. For the average person who buys the T car the extra bit of performance isn't even tapped into, never mind "appreciated" in relation to its extra cost.
Here, let me get you started:
Some people just want the best, regardless of price, and can afford it.
Some people want the bragging rights.
Some people are affected by salesmanship and marketing.
Some people prefer having options even if they won't use them.
Some people buy what their friends tell them to buy.
Some people buy what is available.*
I suspect Apple is using this to drive sales of the MBP.
There are probably a lot of people out there who bought an MBP because the MB wasn't enough. If Apple had a middle product, say a 15" mb with fast video for 1500... it would probably GUT the sales of the MBP. And sure, it might be what you want... but is it really in Apple's best interest? Sure they'd lose a few sales to people who simply refuse to buy... but I expect overall profit from people ante-ing up to the MBP more than offsets that loss.
cheers
Why else would they pay four times as much for it?
Lots of reasons.
But wait, I thought it was features like BT and FireWire that made the MacBook Pro so much more expensive than other brands.
Get real. Features like BT and FW make the Mini $650 instead of $450 (not to mention that I have yet to see a Dell that even comes close to thinking about approaching the size of a Mini.
And I don't know what you are talking about with the MBP being more expensive than other brands... a similarly equipped Thinkpad or Sony Vaio are right there with it. Hell the Dell Precision line of laptops starts at 2500.00.
If HP can sell a 15" laptop for $1500 or less, why can't Apple?
I'm sure they could if they lowered their quality standards and hired a color blind moron to do their case design.
Note: Dell also charges a price premium.
At the low end, its often hard to beat many of Dells "specials". I've seen many cases where my whitebox builders couldn't get within $100 of a Dell price, never-mind that dell was throwing in a free printer, and including shipping. (Granted the printer is little more than landfill fodder... but it fools many customers...)
-cheers
but that doesn't mean I'm going to get 33% more utility or enjoyment out of the MBP
That's a bizarre way to calculate. A BMW costs 4x as much as a honda civic. I don't think anybody thinks they are ever going to get 400% "utility" out it.
Screen size is one of the main factors in a notebook's price,
Which is why the MB can do everything the MBP does for 40% less. If a MB was an MBP with the same video card and screen, but with BT and Firewire stripped out it would only be maybe $150 cheaper.
Most people don't want a 13" toy screen.
Personally I like my laptops small & portable. I have a 21" LCD on my desk and I use THAT most of the time. To me a 17" laptop is absurd, just barely big enough to be useful and just barely small enough to be portable. I much prefer having a truly small laptop, and plugging it into a truly big screen. To each their own.
Although, I'd agree (and I've already said as much) that I agree the gaps in Apples line up can be annoying.
Only if you think a Mac has to be expensive and filled with features most people will never use. In my experience, the main benefits of using a Mac are (1) OS X and (2) no driver headaches because all the hardware is standard. Those advantages would still be intact.
Unlike you, Apple believes a Mac is more than just OS X.
and whenever someone suggests Macs are expensive, the fanboys come out in droves to do semantic backflips, explaining that they're not really expensive because they do so much.
What is being explained is that they are good value for the price; that if you equipped a PC the same way, you'd find that it costs around the same. Demonstrating "good value" is not a semantic backflip.
Unlike, say, a $3400 Louis Vuitton bag (if you want to talk about a rip off), the sum and quality of the parts in a Mac easily justify the price. You aren't paying 30% extra for a logo, as some people claim.
the MacBook, for example, keeps most of the fluff from the MBP but has 40% less screen area and a crappy video chipset.
Or put another way. The MB can do everything the MBP can but costs 40% less. Its just not as big, or as fast, or as stylish. But it has all the features of its big brother and will get the job done. (Rather like the difference between an entry level Porsche Cayman and a Porsche 911 Turbo.)
cheers
"What's wrong with that? A lot of people don't need any of those things. Keep the DVD burner, make wifi an option, and design a nice looking yet still cheap case."
... and I still didn't have BlueTooth or gigabit yet, and I'm not sure if it does TV-out either.
;)
;)
What would be wrong with that? It wouldn't be premium product. It wouldn't be a Mac.
Just as BMW could make a deal with Honda to buy civics and replace the logo plates and call them BMWs. Likelwise Apple COULD make 'cheap' units, but Apple's are among the BMWs of computers, not the Kia's. Do you hear many people lamenting that "BMW is missing a lot of sales opportunities by not having a Kia product?" Of course not.
"You could probably get a used PC for that price running at 1 GHz or faster."
And how would that help someone looking for an inexpensive Mac exactly?
As for whether or its true. Yeah probably; I did say it was on par with a decent P3 after all. But you are missing the point. The question is not what kind of PC can I buy for $200. The question is "What kind of Mac can I get for $200 because I was told that to run OS X I have to spend at least $700..." And the answer is you can get a pretty solid OS X experience on 200 bucks.
"... I just priced a Dell Dimension E521 for $479..."
Well *I* just priced a Dell Dimension E521 with AMD sempron, 512MB RAM, 80GB HD, DVDRW, wifi, and firewire... and it was 499.00
Granted the AMD sempron is a step above a 1.5GHz G4, but that's not the point:
It would be HARD to buid a a new dell that could do everything the 2 year old Mac Mini does for less than the Mac Mini costs today ($450-500).
The fact that you were able to put together a computer with a faster CPU, and more RAM, yet can't do everything the Mac Mini does proves what exactly? In terms of Hondas and BMWs all you've shown is that a cheap Honda civic with a Turbo kit is faster than an entry level 2 year old BMW... I doubt you'll find many BMW owners lining up to 'upgrade'.
So, yes, the AMD sempron will be faster than a 1.5GHz G4, though not nearly as much as the mhz difference might suggest... but the mac mini has more features for the same dollars, and even 2 years later is still a premium product that can turn heads on its styling and features.
The same will NEVER be said of a Dell E521.
Besides and after you drop in something like the Norton Antivirus Internet Protection Suite that windows pretty much needs installed to be run safely by a non-geek the Dell might not be that much faster either.
cheers
"Don't believe everything you hear on tv about waiting lists."
Agreed!
" If you need a bypass operation you're not going to die on the waiting list because it's too expensive to do it."
To be fair, people do sometimes die on the waiting lists. Its tragic when it occurs, and often makes the national news. Its certainly something that a lot of effort is spent on preventing, and that effort is largely successful. In the vast majority of cases people on long waiting lists are generally in pretty stable condition. And that is part of the "problem", deteriorating cases are prioritized over stable cases -- so if you are stable it can take a long time to reach the front of line, leading to the unbelievable long waiting lists you read about.
For a good analagy consider a combat medic performing triage - patients that are deemed stable may have to wait hours or days to get patched up while people in critical/deteriorating condition are processed immediately. If people are continually coming in off the field, the stable patients just get pushed back further, and are only finally tended to during lulls, or if their condition deteriorates. Its a terrible thing to have to go through, but it is the fairest and most just approach in the situation.
Thus the main problem with the waiting lists in Canada isn't that you are likely to die while you wait, but rather that you have to deal with the condition (and associated pain and inconvenience) WHILE you wait, and that is admittedly terribly terribly frustrating, especially if its disabling in any manner.
But despite the waiting lists and issues associated with them, I suspect that Canada's health care is more effective than the US's is, when measured in terms of how many people live vs die due to availability of care. (Whether its waiting "too long" in Canada, or not being able to afford care in the States.) For the simple reason that a national-scale system of triage seems far more effective at saving the largest number of people vs hoping that only people who can afford care will need it. (the only way the US system could reliably care for more patients.)
Naturally there is pressure from the well-to-do to desire to 'queue-jump' by spending some of that money to avoid time spent in pain. Currently that is disallowed, and that is controversial. I don't have a problem with the rich spending money to get out pain faster; I have a problem with the fact that the more they are allowed to queue jump, the longer the poor have to wait.
The argument that if they queue jump to a 2nd tier in a two-tier system so the poor actually get served faster if the rich can 'pay to get out of the way' doesn't hold water for the simple reason that supply is relatively inelastic. I.e. the doctors and nurses that will staff that 2nd tier are going to come from the first tier. So the poor will have to wait longer. Worse, the more profitable tier will be more attractive, and will be where you find the 'best and brightest', further disadvantaging the poor.
Because of our proximity to the US we essentially have the two-tier system NOW, and the problems with it are apparent.
Wealthy Canadians willing to pay go to the states to "queue jump", and Canada loses doctors and nurses to the states due to the greater earnings potential. I think Canada's socialized medical system suffers overall as a result.
"Apple is missing out on a lot of sales by not offering anything in these price ranges. If you want to spend $300 for a desktop, you can get a PC, but you can't get a Mac. If you want to spend $1500 for a 15" laptop, you can get a PC, but you can't get a Mac."
Ok... but what would a $300 Mac look like? I mean, Apple would have to gut it down to the same specs -- meaning a Celeron, CDRW (no DVD), 10/100 instead of gigabit, drop the bluetooth, drop the wifi, drop the firewire, drop dvi, switch to a paper-thin aluminum case with a $10 power supply, etc
Sure they could get the price to $300 but what would be the point? Half of iLife would be seriously crippled, half of the available peripherals wouldn't work, etc. On some level it wouldn't really deserve to be called a new Mac. BMW could make a car to compete with a Honda civic too, but it really wouldn't be a BMW anymore, imho. For those who want a BMW on a budget, buy a used one.
And, in that vein, the 2ndary and refurbished market for Macs has always been robust, and a great way for students to save some cash, and get a Mac at whatever price point they want.
You can get a "slow as molasses" G3-233Mhz tower, with 512MB RAM, running Panther. It won't blow your mind, but it will be alright for email, web, office apps, and itunes -- for as little as $25 bucks. It'll bog down on complex web pages, apps will take 30 seconds to start, and youtube won't play smoothly, but it will get the job done. And I'd rather have one of these than a PentiumII with windows 98 from the same era at the same price point. (In fact, I got a couple for free, dropped some spare RAM into them, and gave them to some family members and friends who didn't have computers; they're quite thrilled with them)
Or you could get 450Mhz g4 tower "sawtooth" era, with 500Mhz, 1GB ram, Tiger, combodrive, firewire for as little as $200. Comparable to a decently loaded pentium III, and perfectly serviceable for most tasks.
Or a 1.5Gz G4 Mac Mini with 512MB RAM, bluetooth, wifi, dvdrw, Tiger, etc etc for $500. On par with an older decently loaded P4, and likely better than what you'd get from dell at that price.
etc, etc...
Granted its a bit of a downer if you want an intel based mac, but those will cycle into the 2ndary market soon enough.
Search for easy homes to rob.
It would likely be easier by far to just drive around. You'd see the houses from more angles, see how visible the various entrances are from the street, be able to better assess how busy the area was, see how people dress, their cars, etc etc etc... and the 'data' would be much more up to date.
Search for pretty young girls in the yard to kidnap/rape/murder.
Do you also live in fear of tall buildings? I mean someone could stand on one of those with a telescope and peep yards for miles... FOR MILES!!