They base each new OS on the last until some major change is required, like the move from WinME to Win2k.
Fun fact: Win2K came first (released Feb 2000 against ME's Sept 2000). You probably just remember the move going in that direction because WinME was the OS equivalent of opening "Dr." Hitler's Abortionarium in Tel Aviv.
Well, not quite that bad. I just like being needlessly offensive. 3!
For what it's worth, I have the red one so it doesn't interfere with my sleepy-time too much, and the shockingly bright blue power LED on my computer case is crudely covered with yellow paper and clear tape so that it does not wake me up for 15 minutes any time I happen to look at it.
But LEDs are cooooooool, and I won't pretend otherwise.
"converting gov't research money into private intellectual property for mega-corporations is evil in my opinion"
Ah stop this bullshit... it is no coincidence that great majority of progress in this field is made in countries where private research and development is responsible for progress.
Well, according to http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Hea lthPolicy/tb/1767>, here in the US a full 28% of medical research is funded by the NIH alone, ignoring all other government and charitable sources of research funding.
Is it really appropriate to claim that a medication that is 28% taxpayer-funded is something Merck has the [moral] right to sell at whatever cost the market will bear? Certainly at the moment they have the legal right to do so, but I don't believe that it is ever moral to save lives based purely on a scheme to maximize profits.
What I'd LIKE to see is government research being hugely expanded--you can talk all the trash you want about "government waste," but basic government research into killing people has brought us nuclear power and satellite radio, albeit indirectly, along with the series of tubes we're talking through at the moment. I know it's not a realistic plan (too many lobbyists with too much money would stop it immediately), but it would be nice if government research money being applied to a problem would weaken the patents you get from it--accepting government money cuts your patent length in half, and you can never renew it, or something like that. I'd say something tricky like "reduces your patent's duration proportionately with the percentage of the research money that was your own," but I'm sure that'd just result in companies cooking the books to seem like they have a huge R&D budget.
And of course to get the money for all that, we'd just use some of the money we got from the Iraqi War. You know, the one where the oil basically payed for the war? Sigh. Sorry, I'm feeling quite cynical today.
So let me ask the obvious question that no one else will. Why didn't Brazil do the research, create it's own AIDS drug, and accept liability for any consequences?
Because while they did that, thousands of people would get AIDS and thousands of people would die. Considering just how much of meds research is actually done on the government's dime through grants or work done in universities, the whole "We'd never have money for research if we weren't charging you your median income to live" aspect of AIDS drugs is pure evil.
Besides, even though they're not White Anglo-Saxon American Protestants, most Brazilians are people (some, of course, are special haircuts in your no-no zone), and if I have to choose between a lot of people dying and a bunch of lying thieves (converting gov't research money into private intellectual property for mega-corporations is evil in my opinion) getting richer, well, I'm going to pick the people (some of whom are always also going to be lying thieves), because I'm like that.
Honestly, though, it's the 21st century. As a race, humanity can do so much more for each other than this. Shrill cries of, "Let's give Merck our cash!" or "Pure capitalism would have fixed this!" just bother me. Capitalism is a good system, but it isn't magical, and we should try to avoid using it to price out a human life, or its span. Can we always avoid that? No, we're not on Star Trek. But it's nice to occasionally give it a try.
Long term vision is not what I would call the XBox or XBox 360... A vision does not take 7 years to finally break even on a yearly basis after you have lost $6 Billion. As far as a return on investmet, the XBox brand may finally break even as a whole after 10 years making their profit 0% after 10 years (a pretty awful return) so investors would be right to be angry at Microsoft.
Yeah, that's great, but what about 15 years down the road? Or 20? In 20 years, who knows if Windows will still be the cash cow it is now? Who knows if video games will be either? Microsoft at least has the ability to benefit as long as either one of those is a cash cow in 20 years.
That's the kind of long-term thinking they're after. They're a company built around having a couple of cash cows lying around (Windows, Office). They are always looking for another one.
I'm not even a Microsoft fan. But they're definitely doing a good job of fucking things up less hard than Sony this time around. Not that that's particularly difficult, but the company DID produce Microsoft Bob, so you never know.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, someone else was going to do it if I didn't!
Well, not quite that bad. I just like being needlessly offensive. 3!
Ow. My soul.
Your troll-fu is weak, Daniel-san. Only when you can praise Jon Katz will you be ready.
... Can I buy pot from you?
My keyboard will make him die!
For what it's worth, I have the red one so it doesn't interfere with my sleepy-time too much, and the shockingly bright blue power LED on my computer case is crudely covered with yellow paper and clear tape so that it does not wake me up for 15 minutes any time I happen to look at it.
But LEDs are cooooooool, and I won't pretend otherwise.
Is it really appropriate to claim that a medication that is 28% taxpayer-funded is something Merck has the [moral] right to sell at whatever cost the market will bear? Certainly at the moment they have the legal right to do so, but I don't believe that it is ever moral to save lives based purely on a scheme to maximize profits.
What I'd LIKE to see is government research being hugely expanded--you can talk all the trash you want about "government waste," but basic government research into killing people has brought us nuclear power and satellite radio, albeit indirectly, along with the series of tubes we're talking through at the moment. I know it's not a realistic plan (too many lobbyists with too much money would stop it immediately), but it would be nice if government research money being applied to a problem would weaken the patents you get from it--accepting government money cuts your patent length in half, and you can never renew it, or something like that. I'd say something tricky like "reduces your patent's duration proportionately with the percentage of the research money that was your own," but I'm sure that'd just result in companies cooking the books to seem like they have a huge R&D budget.
And of course to get the money for all that, we'd just use some of the money we got from the Iraqi War. You know, the one where the oil basically payed for the war? Sigh. Sorry, I'm feeling quite cynical today.
Besides, even though they're not White Anglo-Saxon American Protestants, most Brazilians are people (some, of course, are special haircuts in your no-no zone), and if I have to choose between a lot of people dying and a bunch of lying thieves (converting gov't research money into private intellectual property for mega-corporations is evil in my opinion) getting richer, well, I'm going to pick the people (some of whom are always also going to be lying thieves), because I'm like that.
Honestly, though, it's the 21st century. As a race, humanity can do so much more for each other than this. Shrill cries of, "Let's give Merck our cash!" or "Pure capitalism would have fixed this!" just bother me. Capitalism is a good system, but it isn't magical, and we should try to avoid using it to price out a human life, or its span. Can we always avoid that? No, we're not on Star Trek. But it's nice to occasionally give it a try.
That's the kind of long-term thinking they're after. They're a company built around having a couple of cash cows lying around (Windows, Office). They are always looking for another one.
I'm not even a Microsoft fan. But they're definitely doing a good job of fucking things up less hard than Sony this time around. Not that that's particularly difficult, but the company DID produce Microsoft Bob, so you never know.