Sold on Briggs & Riley and Luggage World

By Michael Fraase

Sunday, 11 July 2010 10:59PM CST

Section: Business

CreativityIt took three months, but I’ve finally found a replacement laptop backpack. As I wrote earlier, my almost-four-year-old Booq Boa XL blew a zipper last May. Booq failed to honor its warranty and I’ve been searching, off and on, ever since for a non-Booq replacement.

I’m tough on my bags, but I don’t mind paying for quality and expect them to last. I have Tumi and Tenba bags that are 20 years old and still in excellent condition. They’re terribly scuffed and dirty, but all the parts still work. That’s what I expect. Tumi has even sent redesigned replacement parts for two of our bags (wheelie pop-up handles) because they were seeing unusually high rates of failure. That was years ago. So far, only one of the bags needed the new part.

I need a backpack because I want both hands free and I want the weight of my bag distributed as I tend to walk fairly long distances—the enormous University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus (I still can’t believe how much physical space it takes up) is distributed between two campuses about seven miles apart, and the College of Design occupies buildings on both campuses.

Today I bought a Briggs & Riley 17-inch clamshell. It’s as well constructed as any of my Tumi bags and even more thoughtfully designed. I couldn’t decide between the 17-inch clamshell and the Glide. I liked the straps on the Glide better, but I liked the interior design and water-resistant zippers of the clamshell. And the middle section of the Glide didn’t go all the way to the bottom (it’s taken up by a cable compartment at the bottom). And there was a US$50 price difference. The owner of Luggage World (highly recommended; don’t let their website fool you—they have a lot more in stock than they show) offered to give me US$30 off on the clamshell and I bit. He said if I didn’t like it, I could run it over a few times with my car and he’d still take it back with a full refund. And Briggs & Riley comes with a no-questions forever repair warranty, even if the airlines mangle the bag.

I haven’t had it out in the field yet, but so far I like it. Because it’s a clamshell, making my way through airport security will be a breeze (the laptop can stay in the bag; the bag opens like a clam to pass through x-ray). And it holds just as much as the Booq and is a full inch less deep, at 6.5 inches. Most of the other bags I looked at were at least twice as deep. You might think a deeper bag is better (hey, look at all the shit I can put in here), but it’s significantly worse. Just because you can put all that crap in there probably means you will. And then you’re looking at hoisting and carrying 50 pounds of all that crap around. A smaller depth bag forces you to pack thoughtfully.

Permalink | (0) Comments

The blotter: Week ending 4 July 2010

By Michael Fraase

Sunday, 04 July 2010 05:24PM CST

Section: Blotter

Janis Joplin blotter acid

Business

In the financial reform bill that isn’t, Senate Republicans threatened to block the legislation unless the proposed tax on big banks and hedge funds was removed. Democrats spinelessly obliged. The compromise? Taking about US$11 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to pay for it. So, instead of the banks paying the cost of re-regulation, the US taxpayers will be footing the bill.

As if you had any doubt, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has published a report by Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney that clearly shows that George W. Bush’s policies are entirely responsible for the deficits the American citizenry will face over the next decade. “Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years,” write Ruffing and Horney. Included is a neat takedown of the Heritage Foundation’s most recent propaganda. Highly recommended.

Censorship

Instead of complying with Chinese censorship, last March Google began redirecting searches originating in China to servers in Hong Kong. The Chinese have responded by ordering Google to stop the redirection or lose its ability to conduct business in the country. Google blinked and has stopped redirecting its Chinese search traffic. Dan Gillmor, writing for Salon, reports that Google’s Chinese users can “still get the mostly uncensored Hong Kong results, but now they have to do so via hyperlinks rather than automatically.” Sooner or later Google will have to decide to either cease operations in China or continue to make concessions. “Will its fiduciary duty to shareholders outweigh moral concerns,” Gillmor writes. “Right, silly question.” Silly because American law dictates that the sole responsibility of a corporation is to return profit to its shareholders.

More...

Permalink | (0) Comments

Rolling Stone, hot news, and a Taibbi takedown

By Michael Fraase

Sunday, 04 July 2010 05:05PM CST

Section: Media

Corporate newsWhen Rolling Stone published Michael Hastings’ profile of General Stanley McChrystal, it quickly became, as David Carr, reporting for the New York Times, wrote, “a story that tilted the national conversation.” Unfortunately, the story wasn’t available anywhere. The Associated Press had done an early advance piece featuring highlights and excerpts. But that was it.

Time magazine and Politico both stole the Rolling Stone article and published a .pdf of the complete article on their websites. As Carr writes, “It was a clear violation of copyright and professional practice, and it amounted to taking money out of a competitor’s pocket.” Carr reports that both Politico and Time rationalized their theft by saying that they were responding to a “frenzy involving a significant national issue.”

Rolling Stone may have been clueless in not publishing the article on its website as soon as it was available, but let’s be clear: It was Rolling Stone‘s sole choice to publish the article or not.

Carr quotes Jim VandHei, co-founder and executive editor of Politico as saying, “Our reporters got the article from sources with no restrictions. It was being circulated and widely discussed among insiders, and our team felt readers should see what insiders were reading and reacting to.” VandHei is clearly clueless about stealing the intellectual property of others, but you can bet your ass he’d whine endlessly if it was a Poltico article that had been stolen.

A Time spokeswoman was just as clueless in an email to Carr: “Time.com posted a .pdf of the story to help separate rumor from fact at the moment this story of immense national interest was hitting fever pitch and the actual piece was not available. ... It was a mistake; if we had it do over again [sic], we would only post a headline and an abstract.” Like every blogger on the planet.

More...

Permalink | (0) Comments

Page 3 of 362 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›