No, you don't understand the law. At all. I know this for a fact. Here's why:
1. You have no clue what the standard for civil tort is. You still think shareholders can sue a company just for losing money. They can't. In legal parlance, merely losing money is not actionable. 2. You have no idea what summary judgment is or when it's likely 3. You have no idea what slander is. Saying that a company violates your patent--no matter if that's true or not--is not slander. I'm sorry, but it's just not. Go look it up. 4. Twice in your most recent post you talk about "slander and liable" laws. Twice. Here's a clue: It's not "Liable." It's "Libel." I highly doubt you made the same "typo" twice. once again, you're just under-informed 5. You're stupid. You just are. You make comments that contradict each other. When I point out how stupid you are you say things like "declare how you are th ehighest judge in the land." You're just dumb, bro. I'm sorry, maybe you're good looking or you have a huge penis, i don't know, but you're not the sharpest tool in the shed..... But you are still a tool...
Uhh.. You said that Microsoft would be sued by its shareholders for losing money. Your idea was that Microsoft would lose money by trying to enforce these patents. You don't understand that shareholders would have no grounds to sue MSFT for trying to defend their patents. They have NO GROUNDS. It's a question of law, NOT A QUESTION OF FACT. The law says that there must be negligence or forseeable damage.
"As of right now, If a company sued microsoft in order to force them to make their case for patent infringment or shut the hell up, they couldn't make the case to support their statements that are in effect slander"
Slander? That's not slander. You basically have no concept of the law, do you? Just what you've learned on CSI?
Do me a favor... if you want to write 400 words about applying the law to Microsofts patent accusations, GO LEARN THE LAW YOU'RE TRYING TO APPLY.
You're making as much sense in this thread as I would if I spent the day talking about the intricacies of neurosurgery.
1. Dude, "You seriously don't think Microsoft would have to dip into that reserve?" And "No, their revenue wouldn't dry up and neither would their reserves" are conflicting statements. You said in your second post that their revenue wouldn't dry up. If that was the case, they'd have no reason to dip into reserves. You can try to talk a circle around that, but it's right there in your own words.
2. Microsoft is not above the law... do you understand what summary judgement is? It's granted when a tort case is seen by a judge to be a question of LAW not a question of FACT. Courts are not here to listen to cases that are a question of law. They're only here to decide cases that are a question of fact. In this case, the FACT is that Microsoft (speaking in a future sense) has sued to protect the patents. I don't think you understand that a company _HAS_ to enforce its patents. That is not negligence on behalf of the management. In fact, it _WOULD_ be negligence to NOT defend its patents. Summary judgement would be granted, case dismissed.
3. Fixation on IBM? I didn't say anything about IBM in that last post other than acknowledging that you say this has nothing to do with the company.
I think you need to go back to lawschool, my friend. Shareholders cannot sue a company just because it loses money. If they could, every airline and automaker in the country would've been sued into oblivion.
Like all other torts, there is a standard that has to be met. The damage must be either foreseeable, or negligent. It's just that simple. And not foreseeable in a Slasdhot microsoft-hating way "Duh, it was foreseeable that their $hitty $oftware would lose money," but foreseeable in a "it's foreseeable that someone could be hurt if you point a loaded gun at them" way.
If somebody did sue microsoft on behalf of their shareholders as you mentioned, Microsoft would petition for summary judgment, and it would probably be granted. If you don't defend your patents and trademarks you LOSE RIGHTS to them. No judge in America would prevent a company from vigorously defending their IP.
And you say it isn't about IBM. You seem to suggest that there would be some public backlash against Microsoft for going after free software that most of their customers don't use to begin with. I don't have hard facts, but I'd stand by the idea that the majority of Americans own Microsoft products, and the majority of Americans have no idea what linux or OSS is. The Microsoft PR machine would frame the issue favorably to the company and the world would keep on humming along like it always has.
And what's with the moving target? You begin your first post by saying "You seriously don't think Microsoft would have to dip into that reserve?" And you begin your last post by saying "No, their revenue wouldn't dry up and neither would their reserves."
You act like Microsofts revenue would entirely dry-up, which is just insane. It would never happen. No amount of legal troubles will cause people to stop buying all MSFT products overnight. I mean, most of their sales are to PC Vendors. Are vendors going to just switch to Ubuntu en masse and stop shipping windows? Maybe in your wet dreams, but it would never happen out here in reality.
Furthremore, Microsoft has a 30% profit margin. That means that their sales could drop by a whoppin 30% before they started posting a loss for the year. I think it's barely at the edge of possible that they could lose 30% of their sales in the scenario that you suggested, which would bring them to break-even for the year. Still, at that point, they're not drawing a dime from their nest-egg.
Besides, your entire post is based on the presumption that IBM has some magical patent that will force Microsoft to re-tool or remove from the market ALL of their flagship products.
In other words, every last bit of your post is complete fantasy.
MSFT has anywhere from $10bn to $30bn in the bank. In cash. So your notion that their cash position "could change as soon as they start legal actions" is either misinformed or disingenuous. I don't know where you got the idea that their money is "paper value" when the company has been notorious for their huge amounts of cash on hand.
And besides, just compare the two companies:
1. Microsoft is TWICE THE SIZE of IBM in terms of capitalization. 2. Microsofts gross margin is TWICE the size of IBMs 3. Microsofts profit margin is THREE TIMES that of IBMs
I know it was fun to watch IBM slap down SCO like a fat guy slaps at a gnat in his potato salad, but if you think that's an indication of how a legal fight between MSFT and IBM would play out, well, i think you're sorely mistaken..
They don't cold-call people. You have to pitch them first. So it's disingenuous to say that they're asking you to make a "crucial decision about the future of their business within five minutes." By that stage you've presumably given it some serious thought. Most likely, you wouldn't pitch to them if you weren't going to accept their offer. They've made it known how they invest their money. Nobody is pitching to Y-Comb expecting $2MM.
Furthermore, the notion that a $300k valuation at such an early stage is inappropriate, I think, is bubble-talk. Only in the.com bubble would anyone scoff at the notion that an idea, a couple twentysomethings, and some code is worth ONLY $350,000. These are people in the absolute beginning. This isn't an "early round" of financing. This is the EARLIEST ROUND. This is just north of the "lets meet after work at my place and we can write code until 11PM" stage.
1. Joe Anthony "locked out" the Obama campaign by changing the password after the campaign rejected his $50k offer. So they no longer had access. 2. Anthony violated MySpace ToS by creating a site representing himself as Barack Obama. He didn't call it a fan site. He didn't say "People for Obama" or whatever. 3. Obama didn't take ANYTHING from Anthony EXCEPT the URL. That's it. All Anthony has to do is pick another, more acceptable URL and his page with all 160k friends will be restored 4. The page was being updated less and less frequently and at the same time it was growing more and more popular. The campaign needed to manage its resource more effectively. Go figure.
"Right. And single row single table commits aren't relational data. Duh?"
Dude? Are you joking?
You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid.
I can have a table for, say, an assembly which includes data like when that assembly was created, and various other meta data like the customer, job number, etc. I can then have a table full of jobs and a table full of polygons in the assembly. The polygons table holds the Assembly fKey and the Assembly table holds the job fKey. This is certainly relational data. And this is a real example from the project I mentioned a few posts ago.
In this application there are about 1000 inserts into the polygon table for every 1 insert into the assembly table, and there are about 20 inserts into the assembly table for every one insert into the jobs table.
90% of all DB I/O in this application is the polygon table.
I've written a number of apps that have very similar characteristics to this project.
Relation Data. Single Row, Single Table Commits. No transactions needed. No value from using transactions.
"No, its just you clinging desperately to your delusions that data integrity doesn't matter and anyone with common sense must be brainwashed morons, I'm done."
No, it's only in your small mind where you need atomic transactions to ensure data integrity.
1. There is no slashdotter alive that hasn't been Mod'd troll before. Including you. 2. I have better karma than you. This doesn't matter much, but really, it makes it all pretty comical when you try to cast aspersions at me for being a "troll" 3. Congrats for doing some research about FF3.0 and now acting like you know wtf you're talking about. You don't. The DB Implementation is not for search history. It's designed to provide client-side data storage to XUL apps. Seriously, you really should stfu until you actually KNOW what you're talking about. It just makes you look dumb 4. Who cares if SQLite has transactions? Why does that matter? Oracle has transactions, too. That doesn't mean I'm _FORCED_ to use them... 5. I'm not insulting your work. I'm pointing out that you're not qualified to see the other side of the coin.
Hey, I get it that you've been trained that transactions are some end-all be-all. But your training is comming up short here. Like I said, you're out of your depth. It's just this simple:
Single Row, Single Table commits have no use for transactions. If it fails, all of it fails. If it succeeds, all of it succeeds. I made this point about 20 posts ago, but you were unable to parse it thru your mindless blathering. THINK, bro, THINK. Think first, then type. It works much better.
You might be a good software developer some day. But to do that, you need to get past the dogma that you've been taught and start to think on your own. When doing a single-row, single-table commit, transactions provide you with absolutely ZERO advantage. In fact, in such a case, they're just overhead.
So you can continue to argue that every use of a relation DB must use transactions or else the developer is stupid. I don't mind. Nobody else is watching this thread, anyway. It's just you, over and over again, thrusting yourself into my oncoming path so I can roll right over you. It's actually a little funny.
Now, go back to your CRUD apps and leave the real development to the big boys, OK?
Dude, Firefox is implementing a relational database in V3.........So, you were saying?
Like I said, bro, move on. You're just a bystander. You have no clue what you're talking about. You're out of your depth here and it shows. I only look stupid to you because you don't understand how to use the tools of this particular trade. Assuming that atomic transactions are an essential part of a relational database is just silly. Assuming that every application that uses a relation DB needs transactions is equally as silly.
Seriously, you're clearly either a student, an IT grunt of some sort, or, MAYBE, an IT department CRUD developer whose never written an application that wasn't database centric. \\
Once again, I'm forced to bitch slap you, and I'm starting to feel bad for you. Everyone of your arguments is based on your own flawed and imcomplete knowledge. This is really getting comical but I feel like I'm shooting baskets over the guy in the wheelchair. I'm kicking your ass, but there's no pride in it.
Actually, among many other examples, if Firefox, which is implementing a DB engine for central storage of settings and configurations, as well as extensible storage. This sorta thing isn't rare. Like, for example, prototyping software that I wrote last year. Think domain-specific Catia that uses a database to store both source data -- assemblies and such, basically collections of polygons -- and compilation data -- again, collections of polygons that are stored in coordinate form so they can be exportred and manipulated in many ways.
This is not something that needs transactions in any possible way.
So really, get over it. I'm pretty positive for about a dozen reasons that you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever, you know, been paid to develop software? And if so, is it script-kiddy IT-department CRUD development?.... In fact, dont' answer that. I'm positive you've never written any REAL software.
No, if transactions are never needed it just means I'm not creating yet another boring fucking accounting system. For the software I'm hired to build, database transactions are usually limited to single table updates or inserts at a time. I'm not writing carbon-copy business software like the millions of wannabe Visual Basic programmers out there are. And in this particular world, the software is usually not database centric. Standard CRUD apps that you get paid $25 an hour to write can take advantage of the things atomic transactions have to offer. But for most of the software written (like, for example, this web browser, every single Office application, photoshop, and just about every other commercial application people are lining-up to spend $400 for) doesn't require rock-solid db transactions.
So please, the kiddy table is to the left. Stay there from now on. You're boring me.
Because a magazine "subscription" is tangible. That's a different ballgame. If you subscribe to Satellite Radio, all of the past satellite radio programs just disappear with every passing moment unless you act in the affirmative to record them. Same thing for music subscription.
Once again, you chose to pick something that's totally unrelated in concept and you try to use it to justify your own v. rent opinion. This is just slightly better than suggesting that renting music is even a little similar to renting a house.
If you wish to make a comparison in the publishing industry, this is much more like a subscription to Lexis Nexis.
You cannot compare renting a home to subscribing to a music service. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
The reasons for subscription music services revolve largely around variety and choice. For $20 a month I can access MILLIONS, MILLIONS of songs. On top of that, your music "collection" is always up to date, new music being added all the time.
This is like saying "Nobody would want to SUBSCRIBE to cable television. You don't want to RENT your shows, you want to OWN them, JUST LIKE A HOUSE"...what? that makes no sense? well, either does your post.
Let's not forget that Jobs has a vested interest here. He's not just speaking as a concerned observer. It just so happens that a subscription model is not terribly compatible with the iPod in its current incarnation.
For $20 a month, I can buy, what, 240 songs a year? Why is is a better deal to pay $240 for 240 songs when I can pay $240 for millions of songs, available to me via any internet connection, and easily sharable with trusted friends or family? If I cancel my subscription I don't have any songs. Who cares? For $20 more I can have access for another month to millions of songs again.
This isn't exactly a new model. If people were so concerned about "owning" content they wouldn't be going to libraries, they wouldn't be subscribing to Satellite Radio, and they wouldn't be subscribing to Cable TV.
"Jet Blue/ESE is nowhere near the design of say, Oracle or PostgreSQL, or even MSSQL for that matter. It's about on the level of version 3 or 4 of MySQL (using MyISAM, not InnoDB), or perhaps SQLite."
Huh?
1. "Oracle or Postgre"... You say that as if these two databases are anywhere NEAR the same level. They're not. 2. "or even MSSQL"... You say THAT as if MSSQL is somehow a lesser DB than Postgre. It's not. In fact, it's just as capable and worthy as Oracle for many tasks 3. "It's about on the level of version 3 or 4 of MySQL" OK, this is the killer sentence. MySQL 4 doesn't allow nested select statements ANYWHERE (Not in SELECT, FROM or WHERE clauses), it doesn't support HAVING it's prone to full table scans when they're not really needed. I'm a HUGE MySQL supporter--look at my recent comments, I've been defending MySQL--but, frankly, Jet is a better database than MySQL 4. Hands down. Now, MySQL 5 beats its pants off, but c'mon, the query optimizer in 4.x alone is enough to give Jet the win.
First, it's 40bn, not $40MM and CERTAINLY not $40M.
Second, what the hell is your point? That they made money not by selling software but by being a monopoly? So did people just send checks to Microsoft with no consideration in return? Of course not... Microsoft sold a an shit ton of software and made hundreds of billions of dollars because of it.
What's your point? Do you understand what you're talking about? Most companies only begin to pay dividends to their shareholders when they're no longer able to grow the business and therefore their capital has more utility value to investors in the form of dividends than it does in the form of re-investments designed to push stock prices up.
Most investors would GLADLY sacrifice the paltry amount they make in dividends in exchange for the company growing their business (and thusly their stock price).
Uhh.. No, actually this _IS_ lock-in. It's the very definition of lock-in. Not only do they store your data in a proprietary format, they don't even give you access to download the data at all, even in their proprietary formats.
Like it or not (and I'm sure i'll get modded down by at least one google fanboy), Google uses lock-in just like Microsoft and Adobe and practically every other software company. People deride MSFT for their techniques, but turn the other cheek when Google does it. I should be able to click a link and download a tar with all my GMail messages, likewise for their Documents, Spreadsheets, Calendar, etc. If they're worried about bandwidth, maybe only allow people to d/l the archive once a month or so.
There's no reason they can't do this... so you have to ask yourself why they HAVEN'T done it yet...... Google Lock In is the only explanation I can proffer.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't understand the law. At all. I know this for a fact. Here's why:
.... But you are still a tool ...
1. You have no clue what the standard for civil tort is. You still think shareholders can sue a company just for losing money. They can't. In legal parlance, merely losing money is not actionable.
2. You have no idea what summary judgment is or when it's likely
3. You have no idea what slander is. Saying that a company violates your patent--no matter if that's true or not--is not slander. I'm sorry, but it's just not. Go look it up.
4. Twice in your most recent post you talk about "slander and liable" laws. Twice. Here's a clue: It's not "Liable." It's "Libel." I highly doubt you made the same "typo" twice. once again, you're just under-informed
5. You're stupid. You just are. You make comments that contradict each other. When I point out how stupid you are you say things like "declare how you are th ehighest judge in the land." You're just dumb, bro. I'm sorry, maybe you're good looking or you have a huge penis, i don't know, but you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
"you thinking futuristicly as fact."
Uhh.. You said that Microsoft would be sued by its shareholders for losing money. Your idea was that Microsoft would lose money by trying to enforce these patents. You don't understand that shareholders would have no grounds to sue MSFT for trying to defend their patents. They have NO GROUNDS. It's a question of law, NOT A QUESTION OF FACT. The law says that there must be negligence or forseeable damage.
"As of right now, If a company sued microsoft in order to force them to make their case for patent infringment or shut the hell up, they couldn't make the case to support their statements that are in effect slander"
Slander? That's not slander.
You basically have no concept of the law, do you?
Just what you've learned on CSI?
Do me a favor... if you want to write 400 words about applying the law to Microsofts patent accusations, GO LEARN THE LAW YOU'RE TRYING TO APPLY.
You're making as much sense in this thread as I would if I spent the day talking about the intricacies of neurosurgery.
Get a clue.
1. Dude, "You seriously don't think Microsoft would have to dip into that reserve?" And "No, their revenue wouldn't dry up and neither would their reserves" are conflicting statements. You said in your second post that their revenue wouldn't dry up. If that was the case, they'd have no reason to dip into reserves. You can try to talk a circle around that, but it's right there in your own words.
2. Microsoft is not above the law... do you understand what summary judgement is? It's granted when a tort case is seen by a judge to be a question of LAW not a question of FACT. Courts are not here to listen to cases that are a question of law. They're only here to decide cases that are a question of fact. In this case, the FACT is that Microsoft (speaking in a future sense) has sued to protect the patents. I don't think you understand that a company _HAS_ to enforce its patents. That is not negligence on behalf of the management. In fact, it _WOULD_ be negligence to NOT defend its patents. Summary judgement would be granted, case dismissed.
3. Fixation on IBM? I didn't say anything about IBM in that last post other than acknowledging that you say this has nothing to do with the company.
I think you need to go back to lawschool, my friend. Shareholders cannot sue a company just because it loses money. If they could, every airline and automaker in the country would've been sued into oblivion.
Like all other torts, there is a standard that has to be met. The damage must be either foreseeable, or negligent. It's just that simple. And not foreseeable in a Slasdhot microsoft-hating way "Duh, it was foreseeable that their $hitty $oftware would lose money," but foreseeable in a "it's foreseeable that someone could be hurt if you point a loaded gun at them" way.
If somebody did sue microsoft on behalf of their shareholders as you mentioned, Microsoft would petition for summary judgment, and it would probably be granted. If you don't defend your patents and trademarks you LOSE RIGHTS to them. No judge in America would prevent a company from vigorously defending their IP.
And you say it isn't about IBM. You seem to suggest that there would be some public backlash against Microsoft for going after free software that most of their customers don't use to begin with. I don't have hard facts, but I'd stand by the idea that the majority of Americans own Microsoft products, and the majority of Americans have no idea what linux or OSS is. The Microsoft PR machine would frame the issue favorably to the company and the world would keep on humming along like it always has.
And what's with the moving target? You begin your first post by saying "You seriously don't think Microsoft would have to dip into that reserve?" And you begin your last post by saying "No, their revenue wouldn't dry up and neither would their reserves."
So which is it?
You act like Microsofts revenue would entirely dry-up, which is just insane. It would never happen. No amount of legal troubles will cause people to stop buying all MSFT products overnight. I mean, most of their sales are to PC Vendors. Are vendors going to just switch to Ubuntu en masse and stop shipping windows? Maybe in your wet dreams, but it would never happen out here in reality.
Furthremore, Microsoft has a 30% profit margin. That means that their sales could drop by a whoppin 30% before they started posting a loss for the year. I think it's barely at the edge of possible that they could lose 30% of their sales in the scenario that you suggested, which would bring them to break-even for the year. Still, at that point, they're not drawing a dime from their nest-egg.
Besides, your entire post is based on the presumption that IBM has some magical patent that will force Microsoft to re-tool or remove from the market ALL of their flagship products.
In other words, every last bit of your post is complete fantasy.
MSFT has anywhere from $10bn to $30bn in the bank. In cash. So your notion that their cash position "could change as soon as they start legal actions" is either misinformed or disingenuous. I don't know where you got the idea that their money is "paper value" when the company has been notorious for their huge amounts of cash on hand.
And besides, just compare the two companies:
1. Microsoft is TWICE THE SIZE of IBM in terms of capitalization.
2. Microsofts gross margin is TWICE the size of IBMs
3. Microsofts profit margin is THREE TIMES that of IBMs
I know it was fun to watch IBM slap down SCO like a fat guy slaps at a gnat in his potato salad, but if you think that's an indication of how a legal fight between MSFT and IBM would play out, well, i think you're sorely mistaken..
They don't cold-call people. You have to pitch them first. So it's disingenuous to say that they're asking you to make a "crucial decision about the future of their business within five minutes." By that stage you've presumably given it some serious thought. Most likely, you wouldn't pitch to them if you weren't going to accept their offer. They've made it known how they invest their money. Nobody is pitching to Y-Comb expecting $2MM.
.com bubble would anyone scoff at the notion that an idea, a couple twentysomethings, and some code is worth ONLY $350,000. These are people in the absolute beginning. This isn't an "early round" of financing. This is the EARLIEST ROUND. This is just north of the "lets meet after work at my place and we can write code until 11PM" stage.
Furthermore, the notion that a $300k valuation at such an early stage is inappropriate, I think, is bubble-talk. Only in the
So many people keep using POTS. People! Get with it! This isn't 1975!
PSTN, baby.
PSTN.
If you REALLY "got it" then why did you call it "criticism?"
Don't lie... you know you didn't get it... that's OK, though.
what?
Because I'm not entirely biased like the most of you fanboys that makes me a MS-funded person?
please.... you really should look into getting a life......
I want to clarify some things:
1. Joe Anthony "locked out" the Obama campaign by changing the password after the campaign rejected his $50k offer. So they no longer had access.
2. Anthony violated MySpace ToS by creating a site representing himself as Barack Obama. He didn't call it a fan site. He didn't say "People for Obama" or whatever.
3. Obama didn't take ANYTHING from Anthony EXCEPT the URL. That's it. All Anthony has to do is pick another, more acceptable URL and his page with all 160k friends will be restored
4. The page was being updated less and less frequently and at the same time it was growing more and more popular. The campaign needed to manage its resource more effectively. Go figure.
Yeah Bro, you're clueless.
"Right. And single row single table commits aren't relational data. Duh?"
Dude? Are you joking?
You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid.
I can have a table for, say, an assembly which includes data like when that assembly was created, and various other meta data like the customer, job number, etc. I can then have a table full of jobs and a table full of polygons in the assembly. The polygons table holds the Assembly fKey and the Assembly table holds the job fKey. This is certainly relational data. And this is a real example from the project I mentioned a few posts ago.
In this application there are about 1000 inserts into the polygon table for every 1 insert into the assembly table, and there are about 20 inserts into the assembly table for every one insert into the jobs table.
90% of all DB I/O in this application is the polygon table.
I've written a number of apps that have very similar characteristics to this project.
Relation Data. Single Row, Single Table Commits. No transactions needed. No value from using transactions.
"No, its just you clinging desperately to your delusions that data integrity doesn't matter and anyone with common sense must be brainwashed morons, I'm done."
No, it's only in your small mind where you need atomic transactions to ensure data integrity.
Get over it.
1. There is no slashdotter alive that hasn't been Mod'd troll before. Including you.
2. I have better karma than you. This doesn't matter much, but really, it makes it all pretty comical when you try to cast aspersions at me for being a "troll"
3. Congrats for doing some research about FF3.0 and now acting like you know wtf you're talking about. You don't. The DB Implementation is not for search history. It's designed to provide client-side data storage to XUL apps. Seriously, you really should stfu until you actually KNOW what you're talking about. It just makes you look dumb
4. Who cares if SQLite has transactions? Why does that matter? Oracle has transactions, too. That doesn't mean I'm _FORCED_ to use them...
5. I'm not insulting your work. I'm pointing out that you're not qualified to see the other side of the coin.
Hey, I get it that you've been trained that transactions are some end-all be-all. But your training is comming up short here. Like I said, you're out of your depth. It's just this simple:
Single Row, Single Table commits have no use for transactions. If it fails, all of it fails. If it succeeds, all of it succeeds. I made this point about 20 posts ago, but you were unable to parse it thru your mindless blathering. THINK, bro, THINK. Think first, then type. It works much better.
You might be a good software developer some day. But to do that, you need to get past the dogma that you've been taught and start to think on your own. When doing a single-row, single-table commit, transactions provide you with absolutely ZERO advantage. In fact, in such a case, they're just overhead.
So you can continue to argue that every use of a relation DB must use transactions or else the developer is stupid. I don't mind. Nobody else is watching this thread, anyway. It's just you, over and over again, thrusting yourself into my oncoming path so I can roll right over you. It's actually a little funny.
Now, go back to your CRUD apps and leave the real development to the big boys, OK?
Dude, Firefox is implementing a relational database in V3. ........So, you were saying?
Like I said, bro, move on. You're just a bystander. You have no clue what you're talking about. You're out of your depth here and it shows. I only look stupid to you because you don't understand how to use the tools of this particular trade. Assuming that atomic transactions are an essential part of a relational database is just silly. Assuming that every application that uses a relation DB needs transactions is equally as silly.
Seriously, you're clearly either a student, an IT grunt of some sort, or, MAYBE, an IT department CRUD developer whose never written an application that wasn't database centric. \\
Once again, I'm forced to bitch slap you, and I'm starting to feel bad for you. Everyone of your arguments is based on your own flawed and imcomplete knowledge. This is really getting comical but I feel like I'm shooting baskets over the guy in the wheelchair. I'm kicking your ass, but there's no pride in it.
So please, save it.
Actually, among many other examples, if Firefox, which is implementing a DB engine for central storage of settings and configurations, as well as extensible storage. This sorta thing isn't rare. Like, for example, prototyping software that I wrote last year. Think domain-specific Catia that uses a database to store both source data -- assemblies and such, basically collections of polygons -- and compilation data -- again, collections of polygons that are stored in coordinate form so they can be exportred and manipulated in many ways.
.... In fact, dont' answer that. I'm positive you've never written any REAL software.
This is not something that needs transactions in any possible way.
So really, get over it. I'm pretty positive for about a dozen reasons that you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever, you know, been paid to develop software? And if so, is it script-kiddy IT-department CRUD development?
No, if transactions are never needed it just means I'm not creating yet another boring fucking accounting system. For the software I'm hired to build, database transactions are usually limited to single table updates or inserts at a time. I'm not writing carbon-copy business software like the millions of wannabe Visual Basic programmers out there are. And in this particular world, the software is usually not database centric. Standard CRUD apps that you get paid $25 an hour to write can take advantage of the things atomic transactions have to offer. But for most of the software written (like, for example, this web browser, every single Office application, photoshop, and just about every other commercial application people are lining-up to spend $400 for) doesn't require rock-solid db transactions.
So please, the kiddy table is to the left. Stay there from now on. You're boring me.
Because a magazine "subscription" is tangible. That's a different ballgame. If you subscribe to Satellite Radio, all of the past satellite radio programs just disappear with every passing moment unless you act in the affirmative to record them. Same thing for music subscription.
Once again, you chose to pick something that's totally unrelated in concept and you try to use it to justify your own v. rent opinion. This is just slightly better than suggesting that renting music is even a little similar to renting a house.
If you wish to make a comparison in the publishing industry, this is much more like a subscription to Lexis Nexis.
You cannot compare renting a home to subscribing to a music service. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
...what? that makes no sense? well, either does your post.
The reasons for subscription music services revolve largely around variety and choice. For $20 a month I can access MILLIONS, MILLIONS of songs. On top of that, your music "collection" is always up to date, new music being added all the time.
This is like saying "Nobody would want to SUBSCRIBE to cable television. You don't want to RENT your shows, you want to OWN them, JUST LIKE A HOUSE"
Let's not forget that Jobs has a vested interest here. He's not just speaking as a concerned observer. It just so happens that a subscription model is not terribly compatible with the iPod in its current incarnation.
For $20 a month, I can buy, what, 240 songs a year? Why is is a better deal to pay $240 for 240 songs when I can pay $240 for millions of songs, available to me via any internet connection, and easily sharable with trusted friends or family? If I cancel my subscription I don't have any songs. Who cares? For $20 more I can have access for another month to millions of songs again.
This isn't exactly a new model. If people were so concerned about "owning" content they wouldn't be going to libraries, they wouldn't be subscribing to Satellite Radio, and they wouldn't be subscribing to Cable TV.
"Jet Blue/ESE is nowhere near the design of say, Oracle or PostgreSQL, or even MSSQL for that matter. It's about on the level of version 3 or 4 of MySQL (using MyISAM, not InnoDB), or perhaps SQLite."
... You say that as if these two databases are anywhere NEAR the same level. They're not. ... You say THAT as if MSSQL is somehow a lesser DB than Postgre. It's not. In fact, it's just as capable and worthy as Oracle for many tasks
Huh?
1. "Oracle or Postgre"
2. "or even MSSQL"
3. "It's about on the level of version 3 or 4 of MySQL" OK, this is the killer sentence. MySQL 4 doesn't allow nested select statements ANYWHERE (Not in SELECT, FROM or WHERE clauses), it doesn't support HAVING it's prone to full table scans when they're not really needed. I'm a HUGE MySQL supporter--look at my recent comments, I've been defending MySQL--but, frankly, Jet is a better database than MySQL 4. Hands down. Now, MySQL 5 beats its pants off, but c'mon, the query optimizer in 4.x alone is enough to give Jet the win.
First, it's 40bn, not $40MM and CERTAINLY not $40M.
Second, what the hell is your point? That they made money not by selling software but by being a monopoly? So did people just send checks to Microsoft with no consideration in return? Of course not... Microsoft sold a an shit ton of software and made hundreds of billions of dollars because of it.
In summary, thanks for backing up my point.
What's your point? Do you understand what you're talking about? Most companies only begin to pay dividends to their shareholders when they're no longer able to grow the business and therefore their capital has more utility value to investors in the form of dividends than it does in the form of re-investments designed to push stock prices up.
Most investors would GLADLY sacrifice the paltry amount they make in dividends in exchange for the company growing their business (and thusly their stock price).
Because if Microsoft sells a lot of software it MUST be "creative accounting?"
How, exactly, do you think they GOT the $40bn they have in the bank?
So by "Kill xbox" you meant "spin it out" ?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but come on....
"It's almost a lock in."
..... Google Lock In is the only explanation I can proffer.
Uhh.. No, actually this _IS_ lock-in. It's the very definition of lock-in. Not only do they store your data in a proprietary format, they don't even give you access to download the data at all, even in their proprietary formats.
Like it or not (and I'm sure i'll get modded down by at least one google fanboy), Google uses lock-in just like Microsoft and Adobe and practically every other software company. People deride MSFT for their techniques, but turn the other cheek when Google does it. I should be able to click a link and download a tar with all my GMail messages, likewise for their Documents, Spreadsheets, Calendar, etc. If they're worried about bandwidth, maybe only allow people to d/l the archive once a month or so.
There's no reason they can't do this... so you have to ask yourself why they HAVEN'T done it yet.