I find this interesting because it opens up the possibility of being able to track not only individuals, but teams. Knowing where a dominant rider is in relation to the supporting members of his team is vitally important in understanding the overall situation. I envision an applet that continuously checks the positional data and would allow me to watch the relative positions of riders from various teams using color coding.
Sometimes events inside the peloton go unwatched by commentators who are paying more attention to the leaders who have broken away from the main group. It would be nice to be able to see the jockeying that occurs between teams and individuals.
The data feed could also be used to help keep track of riders as they go after the green (points) jersey. This is a really exciting part of the Tour de France that never really gets as much attention as it deserves.
Let's hope this data gets put to good use. Kudos to the ESA!
Does anyone else but the US call their combat rations MREs? But I digress. The taste of rations is definitely a matter of opinion. I traded for a few French rations and found them too rich for my taste. BTW, the French and Belgians were anxious to trade for MREs. It seems variety is the real scourge of combat rations. Eat enough of them and you'll crave anything else that provides variety.
The fact that you have to actually use flame to heat the Franch rations (don't know if this is still true) is a serious mitigating factor in real tactical situations. It means that you wind up eating the damned thing cold. MREs are lighter and can be stripped down more easily, heated in your cargo pocket while you're on the move, and are more practical in general for grunts.
But then I've never been a huge fan of French food anyway, so take my comparison for what it's worth. If only I could have met some Italians and traded with them. Anyone know how their combat rations taste?
MREs are certainly not haute cousine. But I ate a lot of MREs back in the day, and they taste pretty damned good, particularly when you actually *need* energy. Most of the time when Americans eat, it's out of habit, not because we truly need the energy. But when you've been running around doing Uncle Sam's work in the jungle, desert, frozen tundra, or wherever, an MRE hits the spot.
MREs have gotten steadily better over the years. The first meals were pretty bad. I remember dehydrated chicken & ham loaf (I'm not kidding) with horror. But by the early 1990s they were really good, and they've continued to improve over the years.
Just ask anyone who had to endure C-rations. They'll tell you about truly crappy combat rations.
As for the US Army's attempt to come up with a way to use dirty water or urine, the primary goal is to allow soldiers to use dirty water. Don't get too wrapped up in weird urine scenarios. Believe it or not, much of the world drinks water that's hazardous to the health of Americans. Delivery of potable water is a major constraint on the American way of war. We put immense logistical effort into making sure our soldiers get bottled water. This contributes to our outrageously bad tooth to tail ratio, and it makes the military more beholden on civilian contractors to provide logistics support.
Americans have shown time and time again that we prefer to win wars with logistics, and our enemies know this. Any flexibility, however small, that allows us to reduce our logistics dependency is good in my opinion.
Check it out. MT generates clean XHTML coupled with CSS. I know everyone thinks of it as a blogging tool, but I've already used it on two commercial sites and clients LOVE it because it is easy to use, and I love it because I can easily manipulate the CSS outside the CMS and drop it in. It's a great example of why separation of content and presentation is so valuable.
I don't see why everyone thinks it's so noteworthy that Hawking admitted he's wrong. That's the way most people should behave. That's the way most respected scientists behave. Unfortunately that's exactly the opposite of the way our current preeminant politicians behave.
Sure, most people should behave that way, but as often as not they don't. So it is noteworthy that Hawking is displaying class. Politicians have been lying since before you and I were born, so it's no surprise when they do it. Captains of industry have caught lying more often of late. Athletes are doping and lying about it. It's difficult to find true "class act" eminent figures in American society.
Hawking is acting the way we all should, but since he's one of a small cadre of public figures who is willing to unequivocally admit when he's wrong, I think this act is worthy of respect and support.
I think the real question is this: "Would Mark Twain have prefered KDE or Gnome?" Maybe we can start a flamewar around that. I say he would have used Gnome. No question about it, dammit! And I stand by my statement!
Indeed. I was thinking the very same thing about my own response. I think we're all basically responding to this thread out of sheer boredom. Let's just finish Friday already! I say that not as an insensitive American clod, and I understand that many of you have already finished your work day. I despise you all for that fact.
Simply put, Mac users are, for the most part, academics, artsy or literary types who have spent a lot more time in rhetoric and literature classes while slashdotters spent their time in geeky technical (useful) pursuits. Writing style is not the main interest of the/. crew, although some argument could be made that better style can result in better communication.
This may not have been intended to be humorous but it sure came across that way to me. You first make a blanket statment about those who use Macs, then you make an even broader statement, comparing academics, artsy, and literary types on the one hand, and geeky technical people (all of which Slashdotters are supposed to be according to your broad brush portrayal).
Then you get even more reductionist by saying that these geeky technical pursuits are useful, by opposition implying that academic pursuits (you know, learning and stuff), arts (you know, self-expression and stuff), and literature (did an electrician write the Lord of the Rings?) are useless. Who is that Twain guy in your sig, anyway?
Finally, as an aside, you mention that better writing style might be handy in communication. You may be on to something there. Believe it or not, people who write for a living have to put a lot of work into it, because conveying information effectively is not something that just occurs spontaneously.
There are millions of Windows and Linux users who are creative, artsy types. There are millions of Mac users who are hard core technical types. There are even *gasp!* millions of technical geeks who are also artistic, and vice-versa. I know, it sounds like dogs and cats sleeping together, but it's really true!
You definitely make some good points, and I think we can agree on several conclusions, one of which is that Apple needs to make the G5 iMac a winner. I welcome the opportunity to compare notes once the new iMac is released.
I don't understand your comment about developer support not being as good as it was 10-15 years ago. My feeling is that the real nadir for Mac developers occurred about 5-10 years ago, but that in particular since the shift to OS X, developers have more opportunities with the Mac than they did before.
In particular, I see two major trends.
The first is the rise of small developers creating very polished new apps that leverage OS X. Omni Group, Stone Design, Panic, Freshly Squeezed, Ambrosia, et. al. fit in this catogory. Many of the apps created by these companies have no real qualitative counterpart in the Windows world. These companies are thriving even though the overall size of the Mac software market is obviously far smaller than the Windows market.
The second is the exposure of many Open Source/*NIX developers to OS X. I've encountered many UNIX geeks who are doing development work on their PowerBooks. The fact that so much of what used to be stand-alone application development has now been replaced by server-side Web apps means that developers can work on OS X, deploy on Linux, and everyone gets to use the resulting Web app. Add to that the portability of *NIX apps to OS X and in many ways OS X now has a much greater stable of code for server and database development than Windows does.
I'm also not really sure how "flat" sales translates into destruction. Flat sales is still sales year after year. As long as application developers can make money on Mac development, they will do so. You don't have to become the next Macromedia in order to thrive as a software development company. If the size of the market were shrinking in absolute terms, I'd agree that Mac software publishers are in trouble.
My point about marketshare figures is that the same "the sky is falling" rationale has been used literally ever since the Mac was first rolled out. In my opinion even though the Mac's marketshare (based on sales, not on machines in use) is at around 3%, now is really about the best time to be a Mac user in the 18 years I've been one. There are a lot of great apps, the hardware is excellent, the company is in great financial health, UNIX geeks are no longer snorting at the Mac, Windows users are starting to realize that the Mac is moving forward while Microsoft continues to have missteps with ongoing Windows development, and the Mac more easily fits in with Windows and UNIX environments than ever before.
I solidly agree with you about the lack of an iMac being a Bad Thing. In fact, I nearly got my virtual ass shot off in a Mac forum a while back for pointing out that Apple had screwed up plain and simple. The G5 problems are the sorts of things that happen in the computer industry, but that doesn't excuse Apple. The iMac is a critical product for them, and the positive response Windows users have had to the iPod means that Apple should have a flexible, well-priced consumer desktop ready for people who are interested in trying a Mac.
I'm definitely with you on not wanting the Mac to turn into a Be/Amiga type of platform. But I stuck with the Mac through the really tough mid to late 1990s, and I really do think that Apple is a much smarter, much more focused, much more capable company than it was then, and the Macintosh platform is in much better shape now.
One last note, then I'll leave you alone.;-) Apple's comparative cost/performance strength has always been on their high end machines, and I don't think that will change any time soon. For consumer products, people expect to pay a premium for a better overall computing experience. Some customers will pay this premium, while most will not. But competing with Dell on the price of low end boxes is a losing proposition for Apple. They can never win in a commoditized market, particularly against a competitor whose entire business model was built around reducing production and distribution costs, rather than on creating better technology.
If the new iMac is positioned and priced the same as the G4 iMac, I have to take it as a sign that Apple sees no chance of ever seriously being an alternative to Wintel.
Actually, Apple has been a serious alternative to Wintel for... well, longer than there's even been a "Wintel". Just ask the millions of people who have used Macs at homes, schools, and businesses for the last 21 years.
The demise of the Mac and Apple has been predicted pretty much like clockwork over all of those 21 years. No amount of good fiscal or technology news for Apple can seem to dislodge the legions of doomsayers who see Apple's immenent destruction.
Just because Apple does not dominate the personal computer operating system market does not mean that it is going to die. The PC market as a whole has grown, and the Mac is a solid niche platform with a very active developer base (which has been greatly stimulated by OS X and the excellent programming tools given to developers by Apple). The Mac is making a strong comeback in higher education, has extended its reach in professional creative markets, reached into supercomputing, and even made forays into the business world.
I doubt that the Mac is going to "disappear slowly into the night."
"I hear that MiG-29s get shot down by missiles. However, I never heard that Boeing 757s get shot down by missiles. However, Boeing 757s fly a lot more hours, and there are more of them flying than MiG-29s. Therefore, the Boeing 757 must be more secure against missiles."
Ahh... very nice. Your analogy has a lot more impact than mine. Maybe if we can use an analogy that involves MiG-29s to open the minds of enough MS-addicted gamers, they'll spread the meme to the larger population.
it is an unfair (and in my opinion, too common) comparison to make to say that non-MS is MORE secure than MS, just because we hear about more exploiting of MS software
That's exactly the argument that Microsoft apologists have been using for years. But just because Microsoft products are more pervasive does not mean that they are just as secure as Linux, OS X, et. al..
In point of fact operating systems are not all the same. Some sacrifice security for flexibility or features (ex: Windows). Some eschew clever new features and integration in favor of security (ex: OpenBSD).
Microsoft's development methodology for years was built around increasing the featureset of the Windows OS and Office suite. Marketing drove development of the OS, and development priorities were established accordingly.
Are Yugos as safe as Volvos? Do MiG-29s carry as many passengers as 757s? Software is designed, and in any design process you have to make trade-offs. Microsoft has repeatedly shown us what their design priorities are, and the fact that Microsoft products are ubiquitous doesn't mean that some competing OSes are not inherently easier to secure.
Sure, Linux, OS X, et. al. aren't completely secure. But I often wonder why Linux vendors and Apple don't directly attack the numerous security shortfalls of Microsoft products. I understand the inherent danger in such an approach (launch an ad campaign, crackers launch their own initiative to exploit your OS), but security is Microsoft's Achilles Heel.
Yes, Microsoft gets attacked because they're the biggest target. No, I don't buy the argument that all OSes are inherently just as secure or insecure as other OSes. Just compare Windows 98 to Windows XP, or OpenBSD to Windows ME. All OSes are not the same, and marketshare is not the only factor.
You make an excellent point, but were grammatically correct, I wouldn't be a good representative of the average ill-informed and uneducated American. Thus the staggering humor of my post would have been lessened, and we would all be worse off.
The above comment contains attempted humor, and I apologize in advance for any errors in spelling, grammor, or thinking.
Gotta love that Headline News. Ever since the merger they avoid any type of real news like the plague. And the average age of the news presenters is, what, 13?
I grew up in the United States. What is this "real news" you speak of?
Am I alone among Slashdotters in not being addicted to first person shooters? I'm not saying that this story is not a worthy one, or that everyone should be like me, or anything like that. I sincerely am curious if I represent a miniscule minority, or if anyone else here finds FPS games unappealing.
Does anyone have any idea what's next after FPS games? Massively multiplayer games are obviously staking their claim, and casual games that rehash offline games are bringing in big money, but when are we going to see an innovative new game format?
just use the Starbucks Wi-Fi connection to log in to iTunes (or some other online music store) to snag the music they want?
It seems to me that the target demographic are the same sort of people who are slightly ahead of the general population in tech adoption and are also the same people who would eschew CDs as being passe.
I'm sure these guys have done their homework, but this sounds to me like a project that was initiated before the iTunes music store showed that pay-per-download music really could work.
because the next time my wife accuses me of being a geek, all I'll have to do is show her the article and accomanying Slashdot comments and say, "You think I'm a geek? Check this out!"
Agreed. The Economist is excellent. Even when I don't agree with the Economist, at least they don't assume that I'm a 5th grader, the way most of the American newsweeklies do. There's far less of that, "A Nation Mourns" sort of sweeping generalization that Newsweek and Time live by.
As others have mentioned, The Atlantic is a bright spot on the American media landscape. It's impressive in that it shows a lot of the deeper trends, and it isn't afraid to explore ideas. Instead of focusing on controversy, the articles tend to be more about getting past the shrill argument and down to the real matter at hand. William Langeweische and James Fallows write brilliantly. It's worth noting that the Atlantic has offered perhaps the best overall coverage of 9/11 and its aftermath of any American magazine.
For those who complain about supporting advertising, check out The New Republic. It gets right down to business. The pages don't have much advertising. Excellent coverage of a wide variety of topics make it a worthy suppliment to the Economist, and proof that not all American publishers underestimate the average American's brain power.
It can be very worthwhile to read The New Republic and then read The National Review. Also not aimed at children, the National Review is solidly right-wing Catholic. The experience of reading both magazines one after another can be incredibly jarring. But for me it reveals a lot about why American politics is dominated by polarization and controversy. It also forces me to confront a world-view that overlaps with my own only infrequently.
If you're like me and you find yourself using your laptop at client locations all the time, plugged into their network via Ethernet or a WiFi connection, Rendezvous is great.
Several times I've had the need to print something while in an unfamiliar network. It takes just a few seconds to find and send a job to a printer using Rendezvous. At first it seems ludicrously easy, like it won't actually work. But it does.
In a laptop-centric world, Rendezvous makes life a lot easier.
Really, most of those people who won't switch are just plain afraid to do it.
Very well put. I have to (sadly) agree. Most non-geeks are simply overwhelmed by what is supposed to be easy but is truly annoying and difficult.
But I'm starting to notice that normal folks are starting to realize that Microsoft can't be trusted. The avalange of security problems, etc., are starting to slowly blunt the notion that "Microsoft makes it, so it must be good."
Much of the problem is that the computer industry is rife with overpromising and underdelivering products. In the US at least, they can make all kinds of vague marketing claims, so people think that they're stupid if their Windows computer isn't running glitch-free.
But now people are starting to talk amongst themselves. I've noticed a lot more of my relatives and friends no longer look at me like I'm a freak when I tell them that I don't have malware or constant security problems with my Macs. They usually still don't have enough wherewithall to break away from Windows, but their perception of Windows as the gold standard seems to be eroding.
Perhaps as Linux continues to advance, OS X continues to advance, and Longhorn continues to languish while Windows users suffer, a few more cracks in the wall will appear and the Windows desktop hegemony. I think malware and virus-riddled email may actually be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Obviously you've never worked in a government agency. The rule of thumb in the government IT department at the agency I once worked for was this: "If it's inexpensive (or free) it can't be good. If it's not made my Microsoft or Oracle, it can't be good. If it contributes to a heterogeneous environment in any way, it can't be good. If you came up with a solution to a vexing problem on your own and it doesn't cost millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to complete, you're fired."
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes events inside the peloton go unwatched by commentators who are paying more attention to the leaders who have broken away from the main group. It would be nice to be able to see the jockeying that occurs between teams and individuals.
The data feed could also be used to help keep track of riders as they go after the green (points) jersey. This is a really exciting part of the Tour de France that never really gets as much attention as it deserves.
Let's hope this data gets put to good use. Kudos to the ESA!
Does anyone else but the US call their combat rations MREs? But I digress. The taste of rations is definitely a matter of opinion. I traded for a few French rations and found them too rich for my taste. BTW, the French and Belgians were anxious to trade for MREs. It seems variety is the real scourge of combat rations. Eat enough of them and you'll crave anything else that provides variety.
The fact that you have to actually use flame to heat the Franch rations (don't know if this is still true) is a serious mitigating factor in real tactical situations. It means that you wind up eating the damned thing cold. MREs are lighter and can be stripped down more easily, heated in your cargo pocket while you're on the move, and are more practical in general for grunts.
But then I've never been a huge fan of French food anyway, so take my comparison for what it's worth. If only I could have met some Italians and traded with them. Anyone know how their combat rations taste?
MREs have gotten steadily better over the years. The first meals were pretty bad. I remember dehydrated chicken & ham loaf (I'm not kidding) with horror. But by the early 1990s they were really good, and they've continued to improve over the years.
Just ask anyone who had to endure C-rations. They'll tell you about truly crappy combat rations.
As for the US Army's attempt to come up with a way to use dirty water or urine, the primary goal is to allow soldiers to use dirty water. Don't get too wrapped up in weird urine scenarios. Believe it or not, much of the world drinks water that's hazardous to the health of Americans. Delivery of potable water is a major constraint on the American way of war. We put immense logistical effort into making sure our soldiers get bottled water. This contributes to our outrageously bad tooth to tail ratio, and it makes the military more beholden on civilian contractors to provide logistics support.
Americans have shown time and time again that we prefer to win wars with logistics, and our enemies know this. Any flexibility, however small, that allows us to reduce our logistics dependency is good in my opinion.
Sure, most people should behave that way, but as often as not they don't. So it is noteworthy that Hawking is displaying class. Politicians have been lying since before you and I were born, so it's no surprise when they do it. Captains of industry have caught lying more often of late. Athletes are doping and lying about it. It's difficult to find true "class act" eminent figures in American society.
Hawking is acting the way we all should, but since he's one of a small cadre of public figures who is willing to unequivocally admit when he's wrong, I think this act is worthy of respect and support.
This may not have been intended to be humorous but it sure came across that way to me. You first make a blanket statment about those who use Macs, then you make an even broader statement, comparing academics, artsy, and literary types on the one hand, and geeky technical people (all of which Slashdotters are supposed to be according to your broad brush portrayal).
Then you get even more reductionist by saying that these geeky technical pursuits are useful, by opposition implying that academic pursuits (you know, learning and stuff), arts (you know, self-expression and stuff), and literature (did an electrician write the Lord of the Rings?) are useless. Who is that Twain guy in your sig, anyway?
Finally, as an aside, you mention that better writing style might be handy in communication. You may be on to something there. Believe it or not, people who write for a living have to put a lot of work into it, because conveying information effectively is not something that just occurs spontaneously.
There are millions of Windows and Linux users who are creative, artsy types. There are millions of Mac users who are hard core technical types. There are even *gasp!* millions of technical geeks who are also artistic, and vice-versa. I know, it sounds like dogs and cats sleeping together, but it's really true!
In particular, I see two major trends.
The first is the rise of small developers creating very polished new apps that leverage OS X. Omni Group, Stone Design, Panic, Freshly Squeezed, Ambrosia, et. al. fit in this catogory. Many of the apps created by these companies have no real qualitative counterpart in the Windows world. These companies are thriving even though the overall size of the Mac software market is obviously far smaller than the Windows market.
The second is the exposure of many Open Source/*NIX developers to OS X. I've encountered many UNIX geeks who are doing development work on their PowerBooks. The fact that so much of what used to be stand-alone application development has now been replaced by server-side Web apps means that developers can work on OS X, deploy on Linux, and everyone gets to use the resulting Web app. Add to that the portability of *NIX apps to OS X and in many ways OS X now has a much greater stable of code for server and database development than Windows does.
I'm also not really sure how "flat" sales translates into destruction. Flat sales is still sales year after year. As long as application developers can make money on Mac development, they will do so. You don't have to become the next Macromedia in order to thrive as a software development company. If the size of the market were shrinking in absolute terms, I'd agree that Mac software publishers are in trouble.
My point about marketshare figures is that the same "the sky is falling" rationale has been used literally ever since the Mac was first rolled out. In my opinion even though the Mac's marketshare (based on sales, not on machines in use) is at around 3%, now is really about the best time to be a Mac user in the 18 years I've been one. There are a lot of great apps, the hardware is excellent, the company is in great financial health, UNIX geeks are no longer snorting at the Mac, Windows users are starting to realize that the Mac is moving forward while Microsoft continues to have missteps with ongoing Windows development, and the Mac more easily fits in with Windows and UNIX environments than ever before.
I solidly agree with you about the lack of an iMac being a Bad Thing. In fact, I nearly got my virtual ass shot off in a Mac forum a while back for pointing out that Apple had screwed up plain and simple. The G5 problems are the sorts of things that happen in the computer industry, but that doesn't excuse Apple. The iMac is a critical product for them, and the positive response Windows users have had to the iPod means that Apple should have a flexible, well-priced consumer desktop ready for people who are interested in trying a Mac.
I'm definitely with you on not wanting the Mac to turn into a Be/Amiga type of platform. But I stuck with the Mac through the really tough mid to late 1990s, and I really do think that Apple is a much smarter, much more focused, much more capable company than it was then, and the Macintosh platform is in much better shape now.
One last note, then I'll leave you alone. ;-) Apple's comparative cost/performance strength has always been on their high end machines, and I don't think that will change any time soon. For consumer products, people expect to pay a premium for a better overall computing experience. Some customers will pay this premium, while most will not. But competing with Dell on the price of low end boxes is a losing proposition for Apple. They can never win in a commoditized market, particularly against a competitor whose entire business model was built around reducing production and distribution costs, rather than on creating better technology.
Actually, Apple has been a serious alternative to Wintel for... well, longer than there's even been a "Wintel". Just ask the millions of people who have used Macs at homes, schools, and businesses for the last 21 years.
The demise of the Mac and Apple has been predicted pretty much like clockwork over all of those 21 years. No amount of good fiscal or technology news for Apple can seem to dislodge the legions of doomsayers who see Apple's immenent destruction.
Just because Apple does not dominate the personal computer operating system market does not mean that it is going to die. The PC market as a whole has grown, and the Mac is a solid niche platform with a very active developer base (which has been greatly stimulated by OS X and the excellent programming tools given to developers by Apple). The Mac is making a strong comeback in higher education, has extended its reach in professional creative markets, reached into supercomputing, and even made forays into the business world.
I doubt that the Mac is going to "disappear slowly into the night."
Ahh... very nice. Your analogy has a lot more impact than mine. Maybe if we can use an analogy that involves MiG-29s to open the minds of enough MS-addicted gamers, they'll spread the meme to the larger population.
I know, I'm a hopeless optimist. :-)
I should have written, "why Linux vendors and Apple don't use Microsoft's security weaknesses as a marketing point when trying to sell Linux or OS X."
I reread my first post and got this image of guys in their cubicles in Cupertino trying to crack into servers in Redmond... . ;-)
That's exactly the argument that Microsoft apologists have been using for years. But just because Microsoft products are more pervasive does not mean that they are just as secure as Linux, OS X, et. al..
In point of fact operating systems are not all the same. Some sacrifice security for flexibility or features (ex: Windows). Some eschew clever new features and integration in favor of security (ex: OpenBSD).
Microsoft's development methodology for years was built around increasing the featureset of the Windows OS and Office suite. Marketing drove development of the OS, and development priorities were established accordingly.
Are Yugos as safe as Volvos? Do MiG-29s carry as many passengers as 757s? Software is designed, and in any design process you have to make trade-offs. Microsoft has repeatedly shown us what their design priorities are, and the fact that Microsoft products are ubiquitous doesn't mean that some competing OSes are not inherently easier to secure.
Yes, Microsoft gets attacked because they're the biggest target. No, I don't buy the argument that all OSes are inherently just as secure or insecure as other OSes. Just compare Windows 98 to Windows XP, or OpenBSD to Windows ME. All OSes are not the same, and marketshare is not the only factor.
The above comment contains attempted humor, and I apologize in advance for any errors in spelling, grammor, or thinking.
I grew up in the United States. What is this "real news" you speak of?
Does anyone have any idea what's next after FPS games? Massively multiplayer games are obviously staking their claim, and casual games that rehash offline games are bringing in big money, but when are we going to see an innovative new game format?
Any ideas? Or am I totally off in left field?
It seems to me that the target demographic are the same sort of people who are slightly ahead of the general population in tech adoption and are also the same people who would eschew CDs as being passe.
I'm sure these guys have done their homework, but this sounds to me like a project that was initiated before the iTunes music store showed that pay-per-download music really could work.
As others have mentioned, The Atlantic is a bright spot on the American media landscape. It's impressive in that it shows a lot of the deeper trends, and it isn't afraid to explore ideas. Instead of focusing on controversy, the articles tend to be more about getting past the shrill argument and down to the real matter at hand. William Langeweische and James Fallows write brilliantly. It's worth noting that the Atlantic has offered perhaps the best overall coverage of 9/11 and its aftermath of any American magazine.
For those who complain about supporting advertising, check out The New Republic. It gets right down to business. The pages don't have much advertising. Excellent coverage of a wide variety of topics make it a worthy suppliment to the Economist, and proof that not all American publishers underestimate the average American's brain power.
It can be very worthwhile to read The New Republic and then read The National Review. Also not aimed at children, the National Review is solidly right-wing Catholic. The experience of reading both magazines one after another can be incredibly jarring. But for me it reveals a lot about why American politics is dominated by polarization and controversy. It also forces me to confront a world-view that overlaps with my own only infrequently.
Several times I've had the need to print something while in an unfamiliar network. It takes just a few seconds to find and send a job to a printer using Rendezvous. At first it seems ludicrously easy, like it won't actually work. But it does.
In a laptop-centric world, Rendezvous makes life a lot easier.
Very well put. I have to (sadly) agree. Most non-geeks are simply overwhelmed by what is supposed to be easy but is truly annoying and difficult.
But I'm starting to notice that normal folks are starting to realize that Microsoft can't be trusted. The avalange of security problems, etc., are starting to slowly blunt the notion that "Microsoft makes it, so it must be good."
Much of the problem is that the computer industry is rife with overpromising and underdelivering products. In the US at least, they can make all kinds of vague marketing claims, so people think that they're stupid if their Windows computer isn't running glitch-free.
But now people are starting to talk amongst themselves. I've noticed a lot more of my relatives and friends no longer look at me like I'm a freak when I tell them that I don't have malware or constant security problems with my Macs. They usually still don't have enough wherewithall to break away from Windows, but their perception of Windows as the gold standard seems to be eroding.
Perhaps as Linux continues to advance, OS X continues to advance, and Longhorn continues to languish while Windows users suffer, a few more cracks in the wall will appear and the Windows desktop hegemony. I think malware and virus-riddled email may actually be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Obviously you've never worked in a government agency. The rule of thumb in the government IT department at the agency I once worked for was this: "If it's inexpensive (or free) it can't be good. If it's not made my Microsoft or Oracle, it can't be good. If it contributes to a heterogeneous environment in any way, it can't be good. If you came up with a solution to a vexing problem on your own and it doesn't cost millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to complete, you're fired."