Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

[kosmo vinyl]

yes to both... what you need in the first case is a wireless router which is compatible with your dsl modem and most are... instead of plugging your computer to the dsl modem, you instead connect the wireless router which serves as the access point to your modem.  most wireless routers also include wired connections as well.. beyond that you'll need to have computer with wireless network capability.. there are plenty of wireless routers vendors and technologies, i can't say if one is better than the other.
 
 same deal applies to the work setup, you could get away with just using non wireless router, but there isn' much price difference to go wireless..
 
 especially at work make sure that you have security setup on the router

[sweetcell]

walkonby:
 
 1.  yes you can haz wireless.  wireless can be used to redistribute any internet connection, even dial-up (although it would be predictably slow).  the only thing you need is a wireless router.  they're pretty easy to set up.
 
 2. any multi-port router will allow you to do this.  to the internet, routers make it look like you have only one IP address, i.e. looks like only device is attached.  but behind the router, you can have several devices.  you already have broadband in the office - if it's fast enough, just split that with a router.  routers have become commodities, not real diff between them.  i'd recommend the linksys brand b/c they're easy to set up and their instructions are relatively clear.

[walkonby]

3.  should i buy dark knight on blu ray, or wait for a year or so when you just know they'll attempt to release all the films in a box set mousetrap (in time to promote the next film, i'm sure)?
 
 i watched iron man blu ray, and wow . . . wow.

[kosmo vinyl]

a uber fancy boxset being released at some point is almost guaranteed these days with any kinda of movie franchise... my suggestion would be to either rent it, pick it up used, or wait until it drops in price which most dvds seem to do these day... then again it's possible they have milked the extras for the film in it's current dvd release... wait now thats just crazy talk.

[Venerable Bede]

smackie, would you generally agree with  greg mankiw?

[vansmack]

DELL MINI 9 - the official Smackie review
 
 There�??s no doubt that this Netbook craze is going to take over the market for laptops in no time (I suspect this will be THE xmas gift for techies), so let me tell you about my first couple weeks with the Dell Mini 9.
 
 I love my new Dell.  It�??s tiny (you really won�??t believe how tiny it is until you see it), but for comparison purposes, I�??ll assume you all bought the hard back version of Thomas Friedman�??s new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded.  If I set the laptop on top of that book, it�??s about the same size length wise and width wise, but it�??s about a third as thick.  The laptop also weighs a lot less than the book (around 2 lbs).  It fits nicely in a Timbuktu Metro bag (only 10 inches wide), which was the standard I was keeping.  In my paperless world, I wanted a bag where I COULD NOT bring a folder home from the office so I bought the smallest Timbuktu bag that wouldn�??t hold and 8.5x11 piece of paper to force me to live paperless.
 
 My specs: I didn�??t care about the color, although mine is black and a fingerprint magnet, I wanted an Atom Processor for power and energy savings, 1 gig of RAM (soon to be cheaply upgraded to 2 Gigs, so I would order it/buy it with 512mb and buy a 2 Gig chip for $30), I wanted an SSD because I carry this thing everywhere so I opted for the biggest, affordable SSD which in my eyes was 16 GB, at least 3 hours battery life so a 4 cell battery, wireless g w/ bluetooth, Win XP SP3 and no camera.  It was slightly over my $400 threshold, but you can get new ones in the outlet store for under $400 (more on that later).  If I would have been patient, I could have ordered the Ubuntu (Linux) version and been under the threshold.
 
 From the get go, you�??ll be impressed by the tiny size of everything, but the tiny keyboard will be the hardest thing to get used to.  If you�??ve got chubby fingers this is not the netbook for you.  I�??ve gotten used to everything on the keyboard except the location of the apostrophe, which really breaks my flow of writing.  On the other hand, when taken into consideration of my longer battery life (almost 4 hours) and the ease of transport, it more than makes up for any delay in my writing.  I used it on a plane and had the Mini 9, my iPod, a glass of wine and a snack all on the tray and it never felt cramped.
 
 Performance on the machine has been great �?? but not right out of the box.  Dell left a few things checked in the standard Win XP that should never be checked when using a solid state disk (like file indexing) that slow performance, but with a few small and easy tweaks, you can really get this thing humming.  For those that don�??t know, a Solid State Disk (SSD) is essentially a flash memory card that is large enough to use instead of a hard disk drive (HDD).  The iPhone, the iPod Touch and the Nano use versions of this memory, for example, and the iPod classic uses an HDD, which is why you shouldn�??t run with those (and will never see Nike+ on those either).  In some tests, the performance of an SSD will beat an HDD and in others it won�??t.  For the most basic computer needs though (web, email, word docs) the SSD should be comparable if not better than an HDD.  The real advantage to the SSD is that there are no moving parts on an SSD so the risk of banging your laptop around and ruining a hard drive is lost.  The give and take though, is that SSD�??s storage capacity is currently as large as an HDD (16GB is about the affordable max right now).  With no moving parts, my Dell Mini 9 is as quiet a computer I have ever used �?? no disk drive spinning and no fan needed to keep it cool.  You don�??t even know it�??s on really.
 
 The screen is bright and not too small.  Dell is about to release a 12 inch version and there are many 10 inch versions out there from other manufacturers, but I have been fine with the 9 inch screen.  Again, these are gadgets with a specific purpose, so if it�??s your only machine, the 9 inch may not be the best choice.  Netbooks have no CD/DVD drive, aren�??t really for gaming, and have limited storage, so it won�??t be your primary computer.  But if you like to surf the web, check your email and do some occasional writing away from home, these are the thing for you.  Heavy travelers should also take note.
 
 My biggest problems with the Mini 9 were actually getting one (Dell delayed my computer for well over a month to the point that we are no longer on speaking terms) and the placement of the apostrophe on the keyboard, otherwise I have no regrets.  I can�??t use this thing anywhere without being asked about it.  If I were to do it again, however, I would probably get the HP Mini 1000 for approximately the same price.  They offer a 10 inch version of their netbook with a 92% size keyboard (about 20% larger than the Dell Mini 9) which I�??m sure most folks would barely notice the difference between the HP keyboard and their regular computer.  It�??s a little heavier and the battery life is a little shorter, but I think it would be worth it to the non-gadget crazed or Dell lover.  The 12 inch Dell is slightly over-priced right now in my opinion.    
 
 Now, Dell�??s shipping problems caused a lot of folks to cancel their order (there was also a software licensing problem for those that ordered Sept 12-14, like me, that I won�??t get into, but a lot of folks who ordered then simply ordered another one to see which would show up sooner). Therefore, there were a lot of new Dell Mini 9�??s in the Dell Outlet that could save you at least $50, maybe more.  If you�??re looking for a portable laptop, I�??d keep an eye out there, hit HP and see how long until a Mini 1000 is available (Nov 26 is what I�??m hearing), and then, lastly, build your own Dell.  You won�??t be disappointed.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  smackie, would you generally agree with  greg mankiw?

Only on point one: Listen to your Economists.
 
 Point two no longer exists as Republican's are no lnoger the party of ideas.  Listen to sensible idea's?  Sure, but let's no longer call them Republican.  And the Health Care example he cites is the worst one to use.  I won't bog this discussion down with health care, but I can DESTROY McCain's health care plan, regardless of who's idea it was originally.
 
 On point three, I would tell the President elect to be patient, but not to renege.  And I most certainly won't have someone who first told me to embrace Republican ideas and then recommends that we issue fiscal restraint after the money wasted in the last 8 years.
 
 And point four is simply to make the author feel better about himself.  Think he feels better getting that off his chest?

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  smackie, would you generally agree with  greg mankiw?

Only on point one: Listen to your Economists.
 
 Point two no longer exists as Republican's are no lnoger the party of ideas.  Listen to sensible idea's?  Sure, but let's no longer call them Republican.  And the Health Care example he cites is the worst one to use.  I won't bog this discussion down with health care, but I can DESTROY McCain's health care plan, regardless of who's idea it was originally. [/b]

funny thing about the health care- it's not even a republican idea. . .i think someone in mccain's campaign got a hold of furman's plan and read a bunch of jason furman's stuff and thought, hey, that's a great idea, even if i don't understand or could even possibly explain it to anyone.  even if republican's had control of congress and mccain won, no way that policy would be implemented.  i think mankiw just liked to bring up the irony of it all. ....
 
 as for free trade. . .i will not let that go. . .everyone here knows that.  i suspect that as long as larry summers or bob rubin (and austan goolsbee, who has been retrieved from under the bus) are around, there will be some people around arguing for the overall benefits of free trade agreements- it's when he starts listening to congress and unions (and greenies) that i will get worried.  i suspect, however, that the one union he's prepared to take on is the teachers union. . .finally, someone in the democratic party will, hopefully, stand up to their nonsense.

[vansmack]

If I were you, I would expect trade that is about as free trade as our market is a free market.  The reality is all things are not equal, thus nothing will be absolutely free.  Seems everybody but Libertarians get this, which is why they will always be a third party without someone really looking out for their interests.  Is he going to repeal NAFTA?  No.  Is NAFTA going to be modified to make it more fair to the American worker?  You betcha (and yes I winked when I typed that).
 
 In all seriousness, is free trade what you should really be worried about, or is it this:
 
 

 The last New England Republican in the House lost, as did a moderate Republican senator in Oregon, Gordon Smith, who had even run a television advert associating himself with Mr Obama. Some conservatives even cheered these losses, hoping that the party could be cleared of insufficiently zealous dead wood and begin anew.
 
 Doubts now exist about the make-up of the party. The broad Republican coalition made sense in the Reagan era, and was held together in part by the threat of communism. Stitching together religious moralists, low-tax business types, leave-me-alone libertarians and �??national greatness�?� conservatives is now much harder to do. Nor is any of the groupings, alone, large enough to form a solid base for the party as a whole.
 
 Lost in the Wilderness

I know I should be nicer about this, especially with you, but I worked my ass off to help make it happen and damn it, I'm going to enjoy it for a while before I start taking hits on what the President Elect should and shouldn't be doing in the second week of November.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  If I were you, I would expect trade that is about as free trade as our market is a free market.  The reality is all things are not equal, thus nothing will be absolutely free.  Seems everybody but Libertarians get this, which is why they will always be a third party without someone really looking out for their interests.  Is he going to repeal NAFTA?  No.  Is NAFTA going to be modified to make it more fair to the American worker?  You betcha (and yes I winked when I typed that).
 
 In all seriousness, is free trade what you should really be worried about, or is it this:
 
   

 The last New England Republican in the House lost, as did a moderate Republican senator in Oregon, Gordon Smith, who had even run a television advert associating himself with Mr Obama. Some conservatives even cheered these losses, hoping that the party could be cleared of insufficiently zealous dead wood and begin anew.
 
 Doubts now exist about the make-up of the party. The broad Republican coalition made sense in the Reagan era, and was held together in part by the threat of communism. Stitching together religious moralists, low-tax business types, leave-me-alone libertarians and �??national greatness�?� conservatives is now much harder to do. Nor is any of the groupings, alone, large enough to form a solid base for the party as a whole.
 
 Lost in the Wilderness

I know I should be nicer about this, especially with you, but I worked my ass off to help make it happen and damn it, I'm going to enjoy it for a while before I start taking hits on what the President Elect should and shouldn't be doing in the second week of November. [/b]

re-negotiating nafta will be a huge mistake if obama goes through with it. . .and you need to re-read your friedman- the american consumer is a huge beneficiary of free trade agreements, like nafta, because it keeps prices low....canada and mexico are ready to take away their energy if the u.s. wants to re-negotiate....and american consumers will be the worse off if nafta gets re-negotiated.
 
 as for the future of the gop. . .i have two thoughts- 1) smith and shays (and chaffee in 06) lost, not because of their individual policies or politics, they lost simply because there's an R next to their name.  the individual politician has become lost in this modern political play, to the detriment of us all.  2) the libertarian still has no home in either party. . .while the libertarian may find comfort with the democrats on social issues, they are repulsed by the democrats belief in government, government, government; for the republicans, it's the exact opposite.  since nixon, social policies were able to be contained in favor of economic programs and foreign policy.  when bush the elder lost to clinton, the social conservates went crazy at the thought that a philandering, hippy, draft-dodger could become president, and vowed to moralize him out of existence.  however, the economy prospered as government stepped aside, and the old bargain began to give way. . .the libertarian, content that with 20+ years of experience that government should stay out of the economy, moved to social issues and limited government. . .which the republicans have blown.  
 
 that's where the country sits- economically conservative/socially moderate to liberal. . .i place a higher value on the free markets and government out of my way, others place a higher value on social issues and government stepping in to help others along.  as george will told colbert earlier this year- �??Conservatives tend to favor freedom and are willing to accept inequalities of outcome from the free market, liberals are for equality of outcome and are willing to sacrifice and circumscribe freedom in order to get it.�?�
 
 i have no doubt that quick wits amongst thee will note that the current make-up of the republican party, in the guise of pres. bush and the corresponding 6 years of republican control of congress showed no linkage to small government conservatism. . .all true.  yet, for all that i may agree with liberals on social issues, albeit for different reasons, the democratic party holds no place for me.  i do believe that free trade is an important piece for republicans in moving on, especially if in the next 2 years congress begins to hinder free trade in favor of populist and protectionist policies.  i still believe that the 10 most dangerous words in the english language are "hi, i'm from the government, and i'm here to help."  and i still believe that "as government expands, liberty contracts."  the party needs a messenger, and while i have simply used old reagan quotes, the party needs to find not simply another reagan, but their next bringer of good news.  
 
 ok, that sounded way more religious than i meant it to be.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  canada and mexico are ready to take away their energy if the u.s. wants to re-negotiate....and american consumers will be the worse off if nafta gets re-negotiated.

Bluffs.   And I'd call them on it too.  Oil at $74 a barrel means Canada's shale oil is too expensive (the right price for them STARTS at $90 a barrel). I'm not even going to discuss how much Mexico relies on our market more than we rely on their oil.
 
 And I'm pretty sure the American consumer without a job could care less about how little something costs, but that's just me.  
 
 He's not talking about wholesale changes, but yes, there is some parity required in NAFTA.
 
 Lastly, be careful not to confuse the President Elects stance on NAFTA and mine.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  1) smith and shays (and chaffee in 06) lost, not because of their individual policies or politics, they lost simply because there's an R next to their name.  the individual politician has become lost in this modern political play, to the detriment of us all.  

That's not what should worry you.  It's the fact that elements of the right cheered their loss.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Bluffs.   And I'd call them on it too.  Oil at $74 a barrel means Canada's shale oil is too expensive (the right price for them STARTS at $90 a barrel). I'm not even going to discuss how much Mexico relies on our market more than we rely on their oil.
 
 And I'm pretty sure the American consumer without a job could care less about how little something costs, but that's just me.  
 
 He's not talking about wholesale changes, but yes, there is some parity required in NAFTA.
 
 Lastly, be careful not to confuse the President Elects stance on NAFTA and mine.

au contraire, they have even more incentive for prices to be low in order to further their dollar.  what american's have a job, will have a harder time purchasing goods, increasing the threat of inflation.  requiring unneeded restrictions in countries that desperately need access to our markets, and new markets where our goods would have greater access, especially in economic times like these, hurts both american competitiveness and the american consumer.
 
 i would suggest not to underestimate the desire of canada to take on the u.s. on renegotiating nafta. . .canada is not the writers union, although it did make an amusing allegory in south park.

[godsshoeshine]

oh you two

[vansmack]

Damn...I wish I had thought of this.
 
 Meet Martin Eisenstadt, fake McCain advisor and fake fellow at a fake institute.