In response to my wish for an iBook Nano, reader Ivan Kirigin emails:
Just thought I'd comment on the desire for a "flash" laptop. There are some significant technical problems.
Firstly, the processor, screen, and battery taken together comprise the bulk of the weight of a laptop. It is hard to have a fast processor and a good screen and a big enough battery to power them both for a long time, without having a pretty heavy laptop (when compared to the weight of an iPod nano).
Secondly, you probably don't notice for your gadgets, but flash is VERY slow. For the constant reading & writing needed for any good operating system, this is very bad.
There are going to be some major advancements soon which should change this. Firstly flash is becoming faster and larger (the larger is important because computer makers assume people don't want less than 20GB in a computer). More importantly, there is a huge push to get lower-power processors. Also, new OLED displays draw far less power. Both mean that the battery can be smaller. Finally, fuel-cells are going to be more common in 2006 gadgets. The energy density is so much higher, that you can expect both high capacity and lighter weight.
All in all, I would venture to guess that in early 2007, you'll find an ultra-light almost-desktop-replacement laptop. The weight of an large iPod today, the footprint of a small qwerty, and pencil thin.
As for me, I'm about to buy a 9lb Dell, wishing I could afford to drop another grand on a 15lb Alienware beast.
Ivan, who is obviously less sensitive to laptop weight than I am, also sends links to these stories on Samsung's recent advances in flash memory for laptops.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 23, 2005 • Comments
And apparently does quite well by it. He is a "six-figure blogger"--and deservedly so.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 22, 2005 • Comments
Apple's much-praised iPod Nano isn't selling that fast, at least in its white version. The black version is apparently outselling its pale partner by 5-to-1. (Via Good Morning Silicon Valley.)
I'm waiting for the iBook Nano--a superlight laptop that uses flash memory rather than a hard drive.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 22, 2005 • Comments
Six years ago, at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting I blogged about recently, Professor Postrel got into a discussion of privatizing Social Security with José Piñera, the charming creator of Chile's privatized program and an indefatigable campaigner for expanding that model internationally. Steve likes the idea, but he's an MIT-trained economist with a critical mind, and he knows the obvious arguments that opponents are bound to make. So he raised them: What about transition costs? What about Peter Diamond's argument that a pay-as-you-go public program makes economic sense? Alas, there was no answer--then, when it didn't matter, or later, when it did. As a reader emails in response to my comments on think tanks:
Social Security is a great example of the practical problems with this model. The conservative think tanks put reform on the map, but it was through a very unsophisticated argument: "Social Security returns 2 percent, stocks return 7 percent, let's make the switch." This made a lot of politicians favor accounts, but it didn't say anything about transition costs or market risk (which reduce/eliminate the benefits of accounts). If you tried to write about those issues you were the skunk at the garden party. The problem is that not writing about these issues doesn't make them go away. They rear their heads when you build policy, so practical reform plans are seen as a bait and switch versus what was originally offered. ("You said the accounts would solve the problem; now we need to cut benefits, maybe raise taxes??") Politicians on the right, as well as the Republican base, weren't prepared for what was really involved with Social Security reform, in large part because no one told them. And we are where we are.
Indeed.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 21, 2005 • Comments
Joseph Vranich, who helped found Amtrak and now wants to get rid of it, blogs his praise of a new report from the Republican Study Commission, which calls for cuts in the budgets for Amtrak and for completely eliminating the Essential Air Service Program.
The RSC noted that travelers have many other modes of transportation available and significant savings could be achieved by ceasing to operate very expensive long-distance routes that serve a limited ridership. Savings: $2.5 billion over ten years ($1.3 billion over five years)....
Note that the savings from cutting back Amtrak are more significant than the complete elimination of an aviation program.
The post includes a link to the report, and the blog has more on transportation policy. Vranich is the author of End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 21, 2005 • Comments
For the two or three regular readers who haven't already bought The Substance of Style, let me note that the supercheap paperback version now selling on Amazon is exactly the same as the regular paperback version except for a "bargain book" sticker on the back. I wouldn't give it as a gift, but for your own reading--or your students!--it's fine. I've seen the books because I ordered 10 for my own supplies.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 21, 2005 • Comments
Reader Joseph Britt, who recently joined Pejman Yousefzadeh's new ChequerBoard group blog, emails some think tank thoughts:
Just a note to say that I read your comments on think tanks the other day, the replies to them on Drezner and other sites, and your replies to the replies. I think you are absolutely right on the substance, and agree that this is a useful conversation to have.
About three years ago when the farm bill was going through Congress I noticed the same kind of thing from the major conservative think tanks that I had noticed years before when I worked in agriculture policy in Congress myself. Heritage and Cato would come up with some quickie analyses and quotes for the Post after the legislation cleared committee, by which time farm bills are pretty much set in concrete; a few Congressmen entirely unacquainted with the subject would quote them in one-minute floor statements; and the legislation would breeze through to enactment as if the think tanks didn't exist. I thought to myself, here I've been gone from Washington for a good decade, and nothing has changed.
For my money -- and I'll grant this was some time ago -- the "think tank" that churned out the most consistently useful papers was the Congressional Research Service. All the others produced such a high ratio of chaff to wheat that, like you, I was strongly tempted to ignore anything they sent me.
The chaff-to-wheat ratio raises an important point. Think tankers can always point to some good work. But what percentage of their output are they actually proud of? What percentage makes a difference, if not in changing immediate policy then in raising new, sophisticated arguments, answering new objections, and swaying public opinion? What percentage is interesting? What percentage will people who really know the issues take seriously?
These are all important, if subjective, judgments that people in think tanks are well-qualified to make (and do make, at least in their own heads). Unfortunately, they are not the criteria rewarded by supporters who, as far as I can tell from their complete lack of response, have absolutely no interest in this discussion.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 21, 2005 • Comments
I'm all for taking pork out of the federal budget, with or without Katrina, but the big money is elsewhere. How about delaying the Medicare prescription drug benefit? (Canceling it is too much to hope for.) I know that pharmacies have been spending big bucks to promote it, but it's not exactly an enthusiatically anticipated program.
Another potential source of bucks, on the revenue side, is the zillions of acres of western land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Particularly around Las Vegas, which is rapidly running out of land for people, its market value would be quite high. (How high?--ed. That would require research. Do I look like a think tank?) But, of course, the western mining and grazing interests who enjoy subsidized rights today would object mightily to privatization. And while some environmental groups might love a chance to buy and preserve western land, in places like Las Vegas where the land is really valuable, we could expect them to squawk about the evils of sprawl, development, and human habitation.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 21, 2005 • Comments
In honor InstaPundit and N.Z. Bear's Porkbusters campaign, I went looking for local pork that could be zeroed out to fund hurricane recovery. It was certainly easy to find: Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson put out a press release bragging about $60 million for local projects in the highway bill. (I'm highly skeptical that Rep. Johnson, a Democrat, had much to do with actually obtaining the pork.) As I've said many times on this blog, I'd love to have gorgeous Calatrava-designed bridges over the Trinity River, but I just can't see why people in the rest of the country should pay for them.
I was going to note that even the Dallas Morning News recognized the porkbarrel nature of those bridges in an editorial yesterday, suggesting that funding might at least be delayed to help pay for Katrina recovery. But in today's paper, the editorial board took that back. Today's mea culpa said the bridges "and the Trinity Project will be a huge economic engine for the revitalization of downtown, which supplies the oxygen for much of the rest of North Texas. They are critical to resolving this area's transportation challenges and to enhancing our most important waterway." Of course, even if that argument is true, it has nothing to do with the national interest. I guess Belo higher-ups, conscious of the value of their downtown real estate, objected.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 21, 2005 • Comments
One good thing think tanks do is offer forums for authors and other public intellectuals, like this Cato event next Wednesday, with Ron Bailey and others discussing his new book, Liberation Biology. Of course, the value of the think tank forum depends almost entirely on whether it grabs the attention of C-Span and other media. Even a large think tank auditorium only holds 100 or so people.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on September 19, 2005 • Comments