Well, after reading it a million times in a thousand slashdot articles, we should all know by now that the artists don't actually own any works they produce.
So, why pay the artists? THEY don't own the song. I have about as much ownership of that song as they do. They could pay me and it would make about as much sense as this scheme.
Does this strike anyone else as blatantly anti-competitive and illegal under legislation on the books?
A) Time-Warner is leveraging its local monopolies in cable distribution to jam this device down customer's throats. By tying the purchase of cable service to the purchase of this device, they make the purchase of an external PVR service fairly redundant and expensive with the exception that;
B) This behavior is to the detriment of the consumer. Whereas people are currently willing to pay for the ability to skip commerials, this device will take that freedom away from them.
Time and time again, I have heard it said that this is due to their market share - hackers want to be seen and thus make their virii attackers of the software that most people have. But this really rings hollow for me - the MacOS has always been relatively free of virii, as has Linux, as has BSD, as has AmigaOS, as has BeOS etc.
It seems to me that the propagation of a virus for ANY platform is dependent on a couple factors:
1) Technical proficiency of the user
2) Technical proficiency of the admin
3) Resiliency of the platform (in this case win/outlook) to virus attacks
4) Number of virus authors writing for the platform
I would say with zero doubt that Windows tends to attract the least sophisticated users AND administrators. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that 99.9% of Windows virus outbreaks spread b/c a) the user doesn't understand what's happening or b) the administrator isn't doing their job by applying patches.
The point here isn't to absolve responsibility from Microsoft because they have dumb customers. Instead, people should be thinking about what they would do differently if Linux had a 90% market share. A good portion of your user base is going to be composed of the same kind of people who are getting hit by these viruses. Do you think you could provide the idiot-proof, all-powerful interface your customers demand while simultaneously preventing all security problems? Probably not. As long as people don't understand what's going on inside that box under their desk, viruses are here to stay, regardless of who happens to be king of the mountain.
Amazon as a corporation has progressed beyond the kindergarten level of "Supply & Demand" economics. Even if Amazon is able to sell its products at a profit (with Sales Revenue higher than its Cost of Goods Sold), it doesn't mean Amazon will necessarily be a profitable company. As everyone has pointed out, the company is highly leveraged with a lot of debt and the accompanying interest payments and eventual principle payments.
These kinds of balance sheet problems are probably symptomatic of a lot of internet companies. Huge investments in distibution systems coupled with ever-slimming margins mean that amazon will never get the return on capital investment that it needs to sustain its ridiculous market cap. The big losers will only be the suckers holding the bag when Amazon begins its precipitous drop!
A side note: if you inspect their 10-Q's, you'll see that Amazon counts as valuable assets the stocks of other etailer/etc that it made investments in. The whole industry is dangerously intertwined, people. If those other stocks drop, so will Amazon's...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, after reading it a million times in a thousand slashdot articles, we should all know by now that the artists don't actually own any works they produce.
So, why pay the artists? THEY don't own the song. I have about as much ownership of that song as they do. They could pay me and it would make about as much sense as this scheme.
Does this strike anyone else as blatantly anti-competitive and illegal under legislation on the books?
A) Time-Warner is leveraging its local monopolies in cable distribution to jam this device down customer's throats. By tying the purchase of cable service to the purchase of this device, they make the purchase of an external PVR service fairly redundant and expensive with the exception that;
B) This behavior is to the detriment of the consumer. Whereas people are currently willing to pay for the ability to skip commerials, this device will take that freedom away from them.
It seems to me that the propagation of a virus for ANY platform is dependent on a couple factors:
1) Technical proficiency of the user 2) Technical proficiency of the admin 3) Resiliency of the platform (in this case win/outlook) to virus attacks 4) Number of virus authors writing for the platform
I would say with zero doubt that Windows tends to attract the least sophisticated users AND administrators. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that 99.9% of Windows virus outbreaks spread b/c a) the user doesn't understand what's happening or b) the administrator isn't doing their job by applying patches.
The point here isn't to absolve responsibility from Microsoft because they have dumb customers. Instead, people should be thinking about what they would do differently if Linux had a 90% market share. A good portion of your user base is going to be composed of the same kind of people who are getting hit by these viruses. Do you think you could provide the idiot-proof, all-powerful interface your customers demand while simultaneously preventing all security problems? Probably not. As long as people don't understand what's going on inside that box under their desk, viruses are here to stay, regardless of who happens to be king of the mountain.
These kinds of balance sheet problems are probably symptomatic of a lot of internet companies. Huge investments in distibution systems coupled with ever-slimming margins mean that amazon will never get the return on capital investment that it needs to sustain its ridiculous market cap. The big losers will only be the suckers holding the bag when Amazon begins its precipitous drop!
A side note: if you inspect their 10-Q's, you'll see that Amazon counts as valuable assets the stocks of other etailer/etc that it made investments in. The whole industry is dangerously intertwined, people. If those other stocks drop, so will Amazon's...