Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #2  
    a couple of observations -

    even a relatively small percentage of folks who ARE interested represents a large actual number of phones/potential customers

    years ago people did not know what they would do with a computer, then they did not know what they would do with always-on web access. i would not want to be without either. they don't yet know why they would want a smartphone. that will gradually change.
    Change is a challenge to the adventurous, an opportunity to the alert, a threat to the insecure.
  2. PHO
    PHO is offline
    PHO's Avatar
    Posts
    33 Posts
    #3  
    Originally posted by Iceman6
    http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/3867.html
    bastards, none of you damn manufacturers listen to that crap (ok its the truth) there are still 6 of us here that still wnat these things.



    fact is, if they really lost $$, they wouldn't have 4 models per-carrier. just because most poeple don't buy them, doesn't mean you can't find the nitch that would and make enough just for them, and put enough effort into it to make it profitable, . . . Crap -= thats why i have been waiting so long for a decent product, there are no peeps out there to back up the demand
    Hmm, Possible Treo Convert?
  3. #4  
    URGGGH! What drivel! I really hope the manufactuers don't pay attention to this line of crap. Any one who's traveled around the world knows that we the good ole us of a are technologically step children from a consumer stand point (no wonder the T600 will be available in Italy Germany et al first!) Is it our own ignorance to the wonders or the carriers charging us out the ying yang for everything from minutes to data that makes us balk at the possibilities. OR is it the ease of use and we're to stoopid to figure out how to send a text message w/o qwerty? I do know in asia, the average teenager is shooting around way more im's from thier phones than here in the states not to mention the use of on board cameras. Same goes for europe.. Come to think of it, the average teenagers there can also speak 4-5 langages where it's a feat for us to master english here.... (sorry for the rant!)
  4. #5  
    Korea, Japan, and Philippines are haven of mobile services. Specifically, Philippines is the SMS capital of the world. We even brought down a President by sending out millions of SMS calling everyone to join the movement.

    My Aussie friend when he saw my Treo, figured I bought that because of SMS!
  5. #6  
    What's interesting about that aricle is how much different American consumers view convergence or smartphone devices from their European counterparts. According to this recently release study by Canalys Research, Europeans sales of smartphones are exploding, up 239% over the same quarter a year ago. In fact, the overall shipments of smartphones easily outnumber those of traditional pdas:

    Nokia continues to dominate the voice-centric part of the market (smart phones and feature phones), with 78% share of that segment, followed by Sony Ericsson on 15%, and Orange, with the Microsoft OS powered SPV in third on 5%. The sustained shipments of the two smart phone leaders make this the first quarter where more than 1 million devices running the Symbian OS were shipped in EMEA.
    I think this study, more or less, shows how much more advanced and developed the European mobile market is when compared to the US. That really stinks for those of us in NA, and I hope manufacters can deliver products in the future (like the Treo600) to change this mindset...
    Last edited by Gaurav; 07/23/2003 at 02:20 AM.
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  6. #7  
    Originally posted by cque
    URGGGH! What drivel! I really hope the manufactuers don't pay attention to this line of crap. Any one who's traveled around the world knows that we the good ole us of a are technologically step children from a consumer stand point (no wonder the T600 will be available in Italy Germany et al first!) Is it our own ignorance to the wonders or the carriers charging us out the ying yang for everything from minutes to data that makes us balk at the possibilities. OR is it the ease of use and we're to stoopid to figure out how to send a text message w/o qwerty? I do know in asia, the average teenager is shooting around way more im's from thier phones than here in the states not to mention the use of on board cameras. Same goes for europe.. Come to think of it, the average teenagers there can also speak 4-5 langages where it's a feat for us to master english here.... (sorry for the rant!)
    Warning!! RANT MODE IN EFFECT:

    I know what you mean. While I was in Germany last year (on business), I was amazed at how much more consumers were taking REAL advantage of smartphones. People were buying stuff in the grocery store using their phones. I stood there in amazement.

    It's a shame, really. The U.S. is supposed to be a technological leader in the world, yet we are so resistant to change that we stifle and suppress technology that would make our lives easier.

    The whole debate over smartphones reminds me of years ago when high-definition television was developed. It was invented in the U.S., but the guy that came up with it couldn't get any U.S. companies (or the U.S. government) to back him so he could bring it to market.

    So, he went to the people that would listen (Japan). They bought the technology, developed it, and brought it to market. Now we're buying it from Japan.

    When it comes to adopting new technology, the U.S. is the worst. It takes years for something to get to the consumer. Smartphones have been around for years and widely adopted by people in Europe and Asia. For many people in those places, their cell phone is their ONLY phone because it's economically and technologically superior to any other offering.

    In Finland, people don't even bother to carry coins any more. They buy snacks and soft drinks from vending machines using BlueTooth and secure transaction processing from their cell phones. It didn't take half a decade for it to happen, either. They saw the technology, saw that it was viable, developed the infrastructure, and implemented it. No fuss, no muss. What do we do? Bury it in a bunch of beauracracy so that every Tom, ****, and Harry can figure out how to get his cut. By the time it makes it through the gauntlet of greed, it's too high-priced to appeal to the consumer--and we're years behind everyone else in implementing it.

    I really don't understand why we can't get our act together. We're so short-sighted and greedy. "If I can't turn a profit by next quarter with this new-fangled widget, I'm not going to back the technology." --Stupid!

    Why is it that everyone else's cell phones work everywhere else in the world, but have such limited support in the U.S.? Can you say world-wide standards? GSM has been around for a LONG time. What did we do? Came up with our own standards. Hmmm. The rest of the world uses the metric system (except the UK). Not us. We have to do it the hard way.

    I see why the rest of the world considers the U.S. to be full of arrogant people. Nothing's good enough for us and we won't change with the times. When we do change, it's because we've finally figured out a way to get rich from the change...Never mind that people's quality of life would benefit, or that it would be easier for others to relate to us. We seem to have the attitude: "We'll make our own standard...The rest of the world will follow us." ARROGANT.

    Money, money, money.

    RANT MODE OFF

    Okay, I feel better now. Well, not really, but it helped a little.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  7. #8  
    Originally posted by Iceman6
    http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/3867.html
    What's totally invalid about this article is that they were basically surveying people who went out to buy a cellphone. If people are just out to buy a cellphone, why would they want to spend extra money for something they don't need.

    The better survey would be to survey those who were set out to buy a PDA. I think a lot more people would be willing to spend the small amount of extra money on a PDA to have a cellphone on it in addition.

    If fact, maybe that is why Handspring hasn't sold it's products better in the past. They are marketing it all wrong. How many of you go into a cellphone store to look around for a PDA. First of all, the salemen drive you nuts, so that's one deterrent already. If I'm looking for a PDA, I usually go to Best Buy or Office Depot, etc. Sure, some of those electronics stores sell phones too, but the smartphones are always located in the cellphone area, not the PDA section.

    Handspring, are you listening?
    Last edited by wcarlson40; 07/23/2003 at 06:50 AM.
  8. #9  
    Originally posted by wcarlson40


    What's totally invalid about this article is that they were basically surveying people who went out to buy a cellphone. If people are just out to buy a cellphone, why would they want to spend extra money for something they don't need.

    The better survey would be to survey those who were set out to buy a PDA. I think a lot more people would be willing to spend the small amount of extra money on a PDA to have a cellphone on it in addition.

    If fact, maybe that is why Handspring hasn't sold it's products better in the past. They are marketing it all wrong. How many of you go into a cellphone store to look around for a PDA. First of all, the salemen drive you nuts, so that's one deterrent already. If I'm looking for a PDA, I usually go to Best Buy or Office Depot, etc. Sure, some of those electronics stores sell phones too, but the smartphones are always located in the cellphone area, not the PDA section.

    Handspring, are you listening?
    They need to put them in both locales. The typical cellphone buyer may not know about the extra functions that a smartphone can give them (ala the article's point). So a cellphone buyer may not be looking for a smartphone, but might consider it if shown the benefits. That goes into marketing and training of the sales staff so they know how to sell a smartphone. Many simply don't know how to sell one.

    A PDA buyer might consider a smartphone if it can match (or at least come close to) the capabilities of a dedicated PDA. As with just about every converged device, compromises are often made between usability, form, and function.

    To expand market share, you need to speak to BOTH markets. PDAs are a different market from cellphones. Both markets are potential pools of buyers for smartphones. It's just a matter of the right marketing and pricing (and of course the device has to be good).
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  9. njchris's Avatar
    Posts
    459 Posts
    Global Posts
    475 Global Posts
    #10  
    Originally posted by Insp_Gadget

    It's a shame, really. The U.S. is supposed to be a technological leader in the world, yet we are so resistant to change that we stifle and suppress technology that would make our lives easier.
    It's the corporations that are afraid of change. They see they are making money with method A. They don't want to try Method B because they may not make as much. So they don't innovate. They don't progress. They stay at a stand-still because all they can see is the short term profits. And if they do try something different, if it isn't a HUGE success, the reactive stock market tanks on them. You can't drop a pin without it affecting the company stock.

    So many inventions and change came out of the US .. but that was a LONG LONG LONG LONG time ago... it's not like that any longer, IMHO.
  10. #11  
    Originally posted by njchris


    ...snip...So many inventions and change came out of the US .. but that was a LONG LONG LONG LONG time ago... it's not like that any longer, IMHO.
    I agree. It's a shame...because as vocal and demanding as the American population can be, you'd think we would be pushing the envelop in every area of technology. Yet we lag behind.

    As we've both alluded to: Greed and lack of vision are a bad combination in the business world. A company might have a measure of success with one of those items weighing it down, but not with both.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  11. #12  
    Originally posted by Insp_Gadget

    RANT MODE OFF
    You mentioned briefly trouble getting the US gov't to support the HD standard. I for one don't want to see the gov't dictating standards better decided by the markets and collective will of the people. Sure there may be some whiz-bang features out there, but I don't want Uncle Sam telling me I have to use them.
  12. #13  
    I think the block to wide adoption of smartphones, and really cell phones overall as the US trails mightily in cell phone adoption too, is the hodge podge of networks and standards here. As I understand it, Europe and Asia have a standard network that covers pretty much everywhere. That is simply not the case here. In all fairness, the US is a big place with a widely dispersed population, but the fact you can not rely on a phone to work wherever you go is a big obstacle for phone adoption here.

    I think once you get the overall cellphone adoption rate to 90+% in the US, like it is in Europe and Asia (as opposed to the about 60-65% it is now I believe), you will see smartphones take off. Once literally everyone is carrying a cellphone, people will start seeking ways to use them more and demand for advanced features and services will dramatically increase.

    Gargoyle
  13. #14  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You mentioned briefly trouble getting the US gov't to support the HD standard. I for one don't want to see the gov't dictating standards better decided by the markets and collective will of the people. Sure there may be some whiz-bang features out there, but I don't want Uncle Sam telling me I have to use them.
    HD was merely an example, but since you say that, what do you think already happens in the U.S.? The Treo had to get FCC approval or it wouldn't have seen the light of day in the U.S.

    HDTV in the U.S. was delayed because of the U.S. government AND not-so-free enterprise--as are many of our technologies that deal with communication. Uncle Sam wanted to see how he could regulate it and the networks (including cable and satalite companies) wanted to see how much they could charge for it.

    Instead of worrying about what "Big Brother" might "force" you to use, I'd be more concerned about what you have NOT been permitted to use (at least not to its potential).

    I agree that it would be nice to have standards decided by the markets and collective will of the people. However, as long as that is the ONLY means toward progress, we (the U.S.) will ALWAYS be behind the rest of the world in the implementation of universal standards and new technology. Why? Because all the "players" will be too busy fighting over how to get rich with THEIR particular "standard" or widget instead of working collectively toward a universal standard that everyone can benefit from.

    Each field of technology has two camps: those that develop technology for the benefit of people...and those that develop (or suppress) technology for the benefit of profit.

    It happens in just about every field: automotive, energy, health, exploration, computers, communications.

    ...But that's a topic for another thread. In any case, let's hope that with the current "system" we get to use all the neat gee-wiz "toys" without having to wait until we're too old to enjoy them.
    Last edited by Insp_Gadget; 07/23/2003 at 09:46 AM.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  14. #15  
    Originally posted by Insp_Gadget
    Yet we lag behind.
    It's taken us about 30 years to go from "paper or plastic?" to "plastic ok?"

    However, there are good and bad to everything. Automobile sales tax in Finland is about 100% which doubles the price of the car. I lived in Finland for 5 years, got tired of riding the bus/tram/metro/trains. Within days of returning to Texas, I had my own wheels.
    David
  15. #16  
    Originally posted by drw
    It's taken us about 30 years to go from "paper or plastic?" to "plastic ok?"

    However, there are good and bad to everything. Automobile sales tax in Finland is about 100% which doubles the price of the car. I lived in Finland for 5 years, got tired of riding the bus/tram/metro/trains. Within days of returning to Texas, I had my own wheels.
    I think you misunderstood my point. When it comes to adopting new technology, the U.S. tends to be behind other nations even though we may have invented said technology.

    I understand what you were pointing out with autos in Finland; however, when speaking of autos, I was referring to the fact that more fuel efficient engine technology is available, but such technology has been suppressed (or made exorbitantly expensive) because someone stands to lose their fortune (or "cash cow") if it becomes mainstream.

    Finland's "standardization" on mass transit is a matter of necessisity. After all, Finland is somewhat smaller than the U.S.

    In communication, instead of helping to further develop an already global standard such as GSM, the U.S. companies decided to come up with their own standards because doing so was more profitable for them. They didn't consider people's need for international travel or their desire to be able to buy ONE phone and use it anywhere. Or to be able to switch carriers and keep the same phone anywhere in the world. (The arrogant presumption was that as long as it works in the U.S. it will be fine.)

    The market research that U.S. companies tend to use often misses the true desire of the people because they often don't ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate people.

    When asking people on the street if they would like a smartphone, how many of those people actually know what a smartphone can do when it has the appropriate network to run on? As with many things, people don't miss what they don't know about. How many PDA users "can't live without" their PDAs now? Those same people didn't know what they were missing until someone "sold" them on the idea and they "tried" it.

    Perception is a big part of any acceptance of something new. How many of those people that were surveyed in the article have the perception that smartphones are too big and bulky to carry? Or that they're too hard to use as a regular phone? Or that they would look like a "geek" using one? Don't get me wrong...some smartphones ARE too big. Some are too small to properly utilize their potential. But they are getting better all the time.

    Feature a smartphone like the Treo 600 being used to its potential by some hero in a blockbuster movie and see how the perception would change.

    On a more serious note, a decent advertising campaign that actually shows people how a smartphone can improve on their lifestyle would have a dramatic effect, IMO. It doesn't have to be "cute" or "coy". Just make it point out practical situations that people find themselves in on a regular basis, and how a smartphone would come in handy.

    For example, a comparison with two similar situations: one person has a regular cell phone and the other has a smartphone. Point out how the person with a smartphone can do more or has an easier time in a given situation. Show people what they're missing. My guess is that once that is done, the "market research" will yield dramatically different results.

    But it will all be for nothing if the infrastructure isn't improved to take advantage of the possibilities. Any solution that is developed from scratch (or adopted from an already existing standard) has to be utilized everywhere that people need it, or it might as well not exist.

    On the wireless communication front, Europe has the U.S. beat, hands down. Does it have to be that way? No. Will it be that way as long as U.S. companies can't see past their bottom line? Certainly.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  16. #17  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You mentioned briefly trouble getting the US gov't to support the HD standard. I for one don't want to see the gov't dictating standards better decided by the markets and collective will of the people. Sure there may be some whiz-bang features out there, but I don't want Uncle Sam telling me I have to use them.
    Actually, HDTV came about because the government forced the television networks to innovate or lose the spectrum. The history of HDTV is an interesting study of corporate greed and government looking out for consumer interest actually. First, you have to remember that the broadcast spectrum is a public resource that some companies are allowed to use, not own.

    In the US, the broadcast networks have/had a large amount of unused spectrum that they had been granted a long time ago, but were not using.

    Other companies wanted to use that spectrum for new technologies and uses.

    The broadcast companies ran to uncle sam to whine that they should be allowed to keep their (valuable and owned by the public) spectrum for themselves. The government (well, the FCC anyway) said "OK, if we let you keep this spectrum, what are you going to do with it that would be valuable to the public (who actually own the spectrum).

    So, the television networks noticed this technology: high definition analog television. It was new, it was very high quality, and best of all, it used five times the amount of spectrum.

    Well, the FCC decided that, in return for introducing HDTV, the networks could keep their spectrum.

    What happened next, of course, is that it was harder than they thought. They realized they'd have to spend a lot of money on it, etc. Also, someone figured out a way to use a digital signal to transmit HDTV, rather than analog.

    The digital transmission was a big improvement. It solved a lot of problems for the network. It also had another advantage: Rather than carry a few HDTV signals, the digital signals could carry hundreds of normal TV channels (remember the 500 channel discussions in the early eighties?)

    Wow, were the networks every gleeful. 500 channels means huge amounts of advertising space to sell. They quickly abandoned plans for HDTV and started talking about all these wonderful channels (not mentioning that 450 of them would be home shopping...)

    Enter the FCC. They called foul. "Wait a minute", they said, "we let you keep this spectrum to yourselves, rather than let other companies do something different with it becuase you promised us HDTV. Now your going to use it just to create more channels? Uh Uh. No. You said give us the spectrum for HDTV so HDTV is what you have to provide..."

    Fast forward a few years and after a few arguments and what we get is a compromise. Some HDTV programming, some low resolution programming.

    In short, the FCC was not "dictating standards" it was balancing the desire of one group of corporations against another group of corporations and holding the first to their promises to provide something better to consumers.
  17. #18  
    Originally posted by Insp_Gadget

    In communication, instead of helping to further develop an already global standard such as GSM, the U.S. companies decided to come up with their own standards because doing so was more profitable for them. They didn't consider people's need for international travel or their desire to be able to buy ONE phone and use it anywhere. Or to be able to switch carriers and keep the same phone anywhere in the world. (The arrogant presumption was that as long as it works in the U.S. it will be fine.)
    I don't think, and I may need a history lesson here, that GSM was a standard until CDMA was already rolled out in the US. GSM might have existed, might have been used extensively, but I don't think Europe got together and said, "this is the technology we will all use" before CDMA.

    Yes companies do what is more profitable for them and that system has worked pretty well for the US. I'm sure the companies evaluated whether international travel for the average US citizen was worth it, and it probably wasn't. (It wouldn't be worth it if I was the typical citizen, I almost never go abroad.)

    There are and were advantages and disadvantages to CDMA and GSM, so I can't blame companies with building on both technologies. I'm betting that GSM simply became the standard in Europe because people do move from country to country. That's what makes the Euro work there. Also Qualcomm didn't spring up there. If it did, they are probably all using CDMA now.

    The same of all this could be said of Microsoft. Apple was first and that should give it rights to the "standard" of computer OSes. However another company came along and pushed them, Apple's pushed back a bit and the competition hopefully leaves us better for it. I don't want to see GSM just decide that they don't need to go to 3G, 4G, 5G networks because no one is pushing them. I'm glad that CDMA is there behind, saying, "Just try to slow down" with a grin.
  18. #19  
    Originally posted by bmacfarland


    I don't think, and I may need a history lesson here, that GSM was a standard until CDMA was already rolled out in the US. GSM might have existed, might have been used extensively, but I don't think Europe got together and said, "this is the technology we will all use" before CDMA.

    Yes companies do what is more profitable for them and that system has worked pretty well for the US. I'm sure the companies evaluated whether international travel for the average US citizen was worth it, and it probably wasn't. (It wouldn't be worth it if I was the typical citizen, I almost never go abroad.)

    There are and were advantages and disadvantages to CDMA and GSM, so I can't blame companies with building on both technologies. I'm betting that GSM simply became the standard in Europe because people do move from country to country. That's what makes the Euro work there. Also Qualcomm didn't spring up there. If it did, they are probably all using CDMA now.

    The same of all this could be said of Microsoft. Apple was first and that should give it rights to the "standard" of computer OSes. However another company came along and pushed them, Apple's pushed back a bit and the competition hopefully leaves us better for it. I don't want to see GSM just decide that they don't need to go to 3G, 4G, 5G networks because no one is pushing them. I'm glad that CDMA is there behind, saying, "Just try to slow down" with a grin.
    It's not my intention to turn this into a GSM vs CDMA debate. CDMA is actually a technically superior technology in some areas. But GSM has advantages also. It was designed to do many of the things that CDMA networks in the U.S. are trying to implement after the fact (such as SMS, swappable SIM cards, built-in security, etc.). My point is that the U.S. has a thing or two to learn from the rest of the world when it comes to establishing global standards, and that unless attitudes change, we'll always be behind in reaping the benefits.

    By the way, your GSM history lesson is here: http://ccnga.uwaterloo.ca/~jscouria/GSM/gsmreport.html (Keep in mind, this document was written back in 1996 and many advancements in GSM have occurred since then.)

    GSM was around while the U.S. was still using analog. The European countries had the vision to look forward and work together for a unified standard. That attitude reached other countries (but not the U.S.) and a global standard was established (The U.S. was left behind still using analog). GSM was more advanced than the system in the U.S. at the time.

    Like I said, because it was different (and they couldn't control it, thus horde the profits) the U.S. companies resisted using it. But that's just MY opinion.

    As for 3G...have you heard of EDGE and 3GSM? They're available. I don't think the fact that it's a global standard will prevent improvements. If anything, demand for improvement will be driven by a global demand, not just one country...and it will be easier to adopt because it's based on a standard that already had it in mind.

    Face it. We Americans don't like to change. We say we do, but our actions say otherwise.
    Last edited by Insp_Gadget; 07/24/2003 at 11:21 AM.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  19. #20  
    Just 2 cents more from me...
    first off reagrding HDTV, the technology has been around since the early eightys if not before developed here and brought to the market place by the Japanese. (I read about it as a college student at Syracuse in '82 in a text book that was already 3 years old). Point is the US is SLOOOOOWWW to adopt new ways of doing things either for profit reasons or otherwise as mentioned before in this thread. The US was the leader in the manufacturing of the television set for decades, today there are no companies owned and operated in the US that Manufacture televisions, point being that US sloth has created opportunity "outside" the US for considerable profit gain from companies other than our own. So the profit part isn't the problem. When we do innovate look out, say what you want about Bill Gates, but look at what he's brought to the world from a technological stand point.

    that brings us back to the arrogance over all of the people, individually or as part of big business and gov't. We don't see ourselves as part of the world collective. It will eventually keep us in the dark ages.

Posting Permissions