Not $35 versus $40, we're talking $35 versus $100 or more.
Yes obviously Dell picked the option that was best for them. The whole "problem" as you ask is that Microsoft is a monopoly, and what is legal in markets with competition is not legal in markets with a overwhelmingly dominant player. It doens't matter at all if Dell decided on this willingly and without coercion.
Microsoft has done things to prevent the PC to be sold without an OS. The classic example is the requirement that the discounted OEM license cost is charged on every PC the maker sells, whether or not the final product actually has Windows on it. The PC makers are not paying extra prices to get Windows, hardly, they are getting huge discounts over the off-the-shelf Windows prices (which are really steep) and so they'll gladly put Windows on all the PCs and absorb the cost for the few oddball customers who don't want Windows.
Also remember that Microsoft is a monopoly. While this practice may be legal for a maker of drive trains on bikes where there is lots of competition, it is not legal for Microsoft to do the same thing.
Microsoft isn't just providing a bundling option, it is mandating that the PC maker must bundle Windows on every PC sold or else is unable to receive OEM license discounts. This bundling is what essentially locked in Windows early on against the competitors. When you got Windows "for free" with your PC there was no incentive to remove it and replace with OS/2 or GEOS or GEM or whatever.
The peanut makers are not offering the nuts at 90% off but only if they serve them to every seat, but that's essentially what is happening with Microsoft's OEM licenses.
Right now they "force" everyone buying a PC to get Windows, and they're able to do this by unfair OEM licensing schemes and as their position as the monopoly player. No on else is able to horn in on the action because Microsoft is entrenched. That's the whole point of anti-monopoly laws.
Microsoft would *never* be able to force anyone to get Surface laptops because they in no way have a monopoly there, the general public would just go elsewhere. With Windows and PCs it is different because the vast majority of people have Windows, the general public is unfamiliar with alternatives, the only effective competition is high priced and still only a fraction of the market, and any PC they buy comes with what appears to be a free copy of Windows anyway (whether or not they asked for a copy of Windows).
For Macs at least, I think the OS is essentially free now. There's no amount to the "refund". With the PC+Windows, Windows is being sold separately, and at a high price. Similarly, there is the OEM model that charges a discounted price for the OS but also charges it for *every* PC whether or not it actually has Windows on it.
For phones it may be similar, the OS is essentially free (for android) so what's the refund you get if you get the bare hardware?
Alos remember this is Microsoft. They are not just another company trying to compete and attempting various strategies to compete on a level playing field. The are a monopoly, plain and simple, and as such the laws are much harsher on them than other companies in order to allow the possibility of actual competition. It may seem unfair when viewing the situation if one is ignorant that one of the entities is a monopoly, which is why Microsoft goes to great lengths to try and portray itself as not being a monopoly.
I guarantee it. Basically distrust anyone who blames the countries ills on just one party because they are broadcasting their partisanship (and no, partisanship is not a virtue, it is a vice of the highest order).
This is not just one party. Both major parties for a long time have figured out that you never lose a vote by being harsh on crime but will lose elections if there's even an accusation of being soft on crime. The difference starting with Nixon is that this was being applied at a very high level rather than being about local or state elections.
I think at the very least, if no lawsuit judgement is reached then the money MUST be returned (technically this is a civil lawsuit that is being used as a justification, not a criminal proceeding). The idea that it was "probably" obtained through drug money is ridiculous, it needs to be proved. And the forfeiture must happen AFTER the lawsuit, not before.
California passed laws severely restricting this under state law, and limited amount of proceeds police are allowed to keep from forfeiture. But then the police found a loophole, they pass it on to the feds since Federal law is much harsher in this regard and the local law enforcement is allowed to keep up to 80% of the proceeds. It's a built in incentive to cheat. So even if the states have implemented reforms (ie, California does require a conviction before real estate or vehicles can be forfeited) the Federal law is still broken and is often used to get around this, especially in regards to drug laws. The Federal laws need fixing first, it's no good trying to fix stuff piece meal at the state level (especially as some states are een more onerous then the feds).
I have coworkers from Warsaw Pact countries, and they did relate a life much better than the claims that were being made by Americans during the cold war. However they also point out stuff that did match the stereotypes at the time. Remember these countries did not want to be communist but they didn't have the power to stand up to the USSR and its tanks. Stories like the woman who was declared a capitalist because she had 6 employees, so her shop was taken away and she worked in a factory after that. And one coworker who thinks he could have been imprisoned or killed at one point because of his anti-government protests (right at the time of communism collapse though). A family friend in the 70s could not get East Germany to release his mother's body for burial in West Germany for several months.
Then there was the eastern made manufactured goods that were just awful. The automobiles were legendarily bad and they like to make jokes about them still. Farm equipment was awful too, one combine harvester required a small gasoline motor in order to turn over and start the main motor, and one variety was considered extremely dangerous to drive. These countries closer to the west though did get western goods, so they'd have Russian made tractors along with western ones on the same farm.
Hmm, when I was in school, in the 80s, it was associated with math and engineering departments (part of EE originally but with professors from math), and required calculus and physics and one EE class, even for the BA in CS deg. More requirements for the BS in CS degree.
The problem is that CS is not just engineering and not just math. It is a cross disciplinary curriculum. Which is why it's hard to pigeonhole it like the corporate employers want to do.
Cs is more than just theory, it is a very broad based curriculum covering computing. Yes there are a broad set of theories that overlap with mathematics and science and engineering fields. But just as CS is not only programing languages, neither is it only one type of theory (most people think the theory is just algorithms and computability). Electrical engineering and chip design are very much a part of CS, as are programming languages, compilation, operating system, networks (and theory of), set theory, algorithms, yada yada.
That's surprising. Back in early 2000s, rural UK was awful with internet. There were all sorts of right-of-way issues trying to lay new cables in many regions.
The big ISPs you mean. The little and medium guys are probably happy to serve that if they had the opportunity to do so. The problem is that the fat wires are mostly controlled by the big name cable companies. The smaller guys piggyback on copper because the telcos are mandated to share it, but the cable companies won't share their own wires until the government requires them to.
To be honest here, we're nowhere near getting 4Mbps to most people who aren't cable/u-verse subscribers. We have a large number who don't get more than basic DSL speeds (1.5mpbs if you're lucky). And also a very large number who are still using dial-up, as the affordable solution. And there are a large number of people using dialup as the only available solution they have (which I suspect is true in many parts of rural europe too).
And to be really honest if the ISPs are listening, there are even people who don't even have dialup as it's too expensive so they make use of the library if they have one nearby.
Seriously people, stop it with the Startup Religion. A start up is nothing other than a new company with likely bad funding or heavy mortgages that employees underpaid and overworked people who usually know nothing about actual product creation or business development. Meanwhile the media treats these like houses of worship, fawning over entrepreneurs, and so on. Wake up.
A startup village is inherently stupid. Once a startup company gets a product going and is no longer a "startup", then you want as many employees as possible to STAY and finish the product and build the company, not have them jump ship or be forced to move out because the housing is reserved for only startup devs. Also when work is over, GO HOME! Do not live the lifestyle because the lifestyle is a lie. Don't follow all the other cultists.
I interviewed with the author of make, Stu Feldman.
I don't think it's that big a deal myself. I wish it used just any white space, but... If that's the big fault then it's doing great. It's a simple system but very powerful, and none of the many make replacements come anywhere near its usefulness.
This is a copy from Smalltalk. So it's not "weird" or unique at all. It's also something common in many Lisp dialects. Ie, symbols are immutable and unique, strings don't have to be unique and don't have to be immutable.
There are many scripting languages where strings are all immutable constants so that's not strange (ie, changing a string makes a new string), and some others where strings are unique (ie if they're equal then they're the same object as well).
That was added I think mostly to whine that JavaScript isn't strongly typed. The "+" itself or its behavior is in no way weird or unusual in languages, except for those who feel only strongly typed languages should exist. And here I am defending a language I don't like...
Pascal used ";" as statement separator I thought, not a statement terminator. This is true for many from the ALGOL family. Which meant that having a final semicolon before a closing block would lead to a syntax error (though later versions certainly relaxed this rule).
I found the Python style to be some what odd myself. Not only is there only one way to do it, but if you actually do it a different way there will be an army of purists to chase you down with tar and feathers. (technically not true, Python has many ways to do the same thing)
A language with really only one way to do things is in my view, a limited language with no flexibility. Granted better than Perl, but the argument of "but Perl!" is not good enough to justify the rigidity of thinking.
When it was new it didn't require stuff that was necessarily weird, because every machine was unique and thus weird. At the time there were lots of unusual keyboards out there. No graphics card required at all, these were just characters and even ASCII characters required special support to be displayed on a CRT. For a teletype you just needed a different type head and no graphics at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Not $35 versus $40, we're talking $35 versus $100 or more.
Yes obviously Dell picked the option that was best for them. The whole "problem" as you ask is that Microsoft is a monopoly, and what is legal in markets with competition is not legal in markets with a overwhelmingly dominant player. It doens't matter at all if Dell decided on this willingly and without coercion.
Microsoft has done things to prevent the PC to be sold without an OS. The classic example is the requirement that the discounted OEM license cost is charged on every PC the maker sells, whether or not the final product actually has Windows on it. The PC makers are not paying extra prices to get Windows, hardly, they are getting huge discounts over the off-the-shelf Windows prices (which are really steep) and so they'll gladly put Windows on all the PCs and absorb the cost for the few oddball customers who don't want Windows.
Also remember that Microsoft is a monopoly. While this practice may be legal for a maker of drive trains on bikes where there is lots of competition, it is not legal for Microsoft to do the same thing.
Microsoft isn't just providing a bundling option, it is mandating that the PC maker must bundle Windows on every PC sold or else is unable to receive OEM license discounts. This bundling is what essentially locked in Windows early on against the competitors. When you got Windows "for free" with your PC there was no incentive to remove it and replace with OS/2 or GEOS or GEM or whatever.
The peanut makers are not offering the nuts at 90% off but only if they serve them to every seat, but that's essentially what is happening with Microsoft's OEM licenses.
Because the justice department doesn't want to prosecute. Well, they were attempting prosecution until a change in administration made it all go away.
Right now they "force" everyone buying a PC to get Windows, and they're able to do this by unfair OEM licensing schemes and as their position as the monopoly player. No on else is able to horn in on the action because Microsoft is entrenched. That's the whole point of anti-monopoly laws.
Microsoft would *never* be able to force anyone to get Surface laptops because they in no way have a monopoly there, the general public would just go elsewhere. With Windows and PCs it is different because the vast majority of people have Windows, the general public is unfamiliar with alternatives, the only effective competition is high priced and still only a fraction of the market, and any PC they buy comes with what appears to be a free copy of Windows anyway (whether or not they asked for a copy of Windows).
For Macs at least, I think the OS is essentially free now. There's no amount to the "refund". With the PC+Windows, Windows is being sold separately, and at a high price. Similarly, there is the OEM model that charges a discounted price for the OS but also charges it for *every* PC whether or not it actually has Windows on it.
For phones it may be similar, the OS is essentially free (for android) so what's the refund you get if you get the bare hardware?
Alos remember this is Microsoft. They are not just another company trying to compete and attempting various strategies to compete on a level playing field. The are a monopoly, plain and simple, and as such the laws are much harsher on them than other companies in order to allow the possibility of actual competition. It may seem unfair when viewing the situation if one is ignorant that one of the entities is a monopoly, which is why Microsoft goes to great lengths to try and portray itself as not being a monopoly.
No, NY is cold too, but that's essentially a foreign country to me.
Canada does sound like a nice place, however it has this awful thing up there called snow and cold weather otherwise I'd consider relocating.
I guarantee it. Basically distrust anyone who blames the countries ills on just one party because they are broadcasting their partisanship (and no, partisanship is not a virtue, it is a vice of the highest order).
This is not just one party. Both major parties for a long time have figured out that you never lose a vote by being harsh on crime but will lose elections if there's even an accusation of being soft on crime. The difference starting with Nixon is that this was being applied at a very high level rather than being about local or state elections.
I think at the very least, if no lawsuit judgement is reached then the money MUST be returned (technically this is a civil lawsuit that is being used as a justification, not a criminal proceeding). The idea that it was "probably" obtained through drug money is ridiculous, it needs to be proved. And the forfeiture must happen AFTER the lawsuit, not before.
California passed laws severely restricting this under state law, and limited amount of proceeds police are allowed to keep from forfeiture. But then the police found a loophole, they pass it on to the feds since Federal law is much harsher in this regard and the local law enforcement is allowed to keep up to 80% of the proceeds. It's a built in incentive to cheat. So even if the states have implemented reforms (ie, California does require a conviction before real estate or vehicles can be forfeited) the Federal law is still broken and is often used to get around this, especially in regards to drug laws. The Federal laws need fixing first, it's no good trying to fix stuff piece meal at the state level (especially as some states are een more onerous then the feds).
I have coworkers from Warsaw Pact countries, and they did relate a life much better than the claims that were being made by Americans during the cold war. However they also point out stuff that did match the stereotypes at the time. Remember these countries did not want to be communist but they didn't have the power to stand up to the USSR and its tanks. Stories like the woman who was declared a capitalist because she had 6 employees, so her shop was taken away and she worked in a factory after that. And one coworker who thinks he could have been imprisoned or killed at one point because of his anti-government protests (right at the time of communism collapse though). A family friend in the 70s could not get East Germany to release his mother's body for burial in West Germany for several months.
Then there was the eastern made manufactured goods that were just awful. The automobiles were legendarily bad and they like to make jokes about them still. Farm equipment was awful too, one combine harvester required a small gasoline motor in order to turn over and start the main motor, and one variety was considered extremely dangerous to drive. These countries closer to the west though did get western goods, so they'd have Russian made tractors along with western ones on the same farm.
To be fair, I still haven't decided what apps I would ever want on a phone much less on a watch...
Hmm, when I was in school, in the 80s, it was associated with math and engineering departments (part of EE originally but with professors from math), and required calculus and physics and one EE class, even for the BA in CS deg. More requirements for the BS in CS degree.
The problem is that CS is not just engineering and not just math. It is a cross disciplinary curriculum. Which is why it's hard to pigeonhole it like the corporate employers want to do.
Cs is more than just theory, it is a very broad based curriculum covering computing. Yes there are a broad set of theories that overlap with mathematics and science and engineering fields. But just as CS is not only programing languages, neither is it only one type of theory (most people think the theory is just algorithms and computability). Electrical engineering and chip design are very much a part of CS, as are programming languages, compilation, operating system, networks (and theory of), set theory, algorithms, yada yada.
That's surprising. Back in early 2000s, rural UK was awful with internet. There were all sorts of right-of-way issues trying to lay new cables in many regions.
The big ISPs you mean. The little and medium guys are probably happy to serve that if they had the opportunity to do so. The problem is that the fat wires are mostly controlled by the big name cable companies. The smaller guys piggyback on copper because the telcos are mandated to share it, but the cable companies won't share their own wires until the government requires them to.
To be honest here, we're nowhere near getting 4Mbps to most people who aren't cable/u-verse subscribers. We have a large number who don't get more than basic DSL speeds (1.5mpbs if you're lucky). And also a very large number who are still using dial-up, as the affordable solution. And there are a large number of people using dialup as the only available solution they have (which I suspect is true in many parts of rural europe too).
And to be really honest if the ISPs are listening, there are even people who don't even have dialup as it's too expensive so they make use of the library if they have one nearby.
Seriously people, stop it with the Startup Religion. A start up is nothing other than a new company with likely bad funding or heavy mortgages that employees underpaid and overworked people who usually know nothing about actual product creation or business development. Meanwhile the media treats these like houses of worship, fawning over entrepreneurs, and so on. Wake up.
A startup village is inherently stupid. Once a startup company gets a product going and is no longer a "startup", then you want as many employees as possible to STAY and finish the product and build the company, not have them jump ship or be forced to move out because the housing is reserved for only startup devs. Also when work is over, GO HOME! Do not live the lifestyle because the lifestyle is a lie. Don't follow all the other cultists.
I interviewed with the author of make, Stu Feldman.
I don't think it's that big a deal myself. I wish it used just any white space, but... If that's the big fault then it's doing great. It's a simple system but very powerful, and none of the many make replacements come anywhere near its usefulness.
This is a copy from Smalltalk. So it's not "weird" or unique at all. It's also something common in many Lisp dialects. Ie, symbols are immutable and unique, strings don't have to be unique and don't have to be immutable.
There are many scripting languages where strings are all immutable constants so that's not strange (ie, changing a string makes a new string), and some others where strings are unique (ie if they're equal then they're the same object as well).
That was added I think mostly to whine that JavaScript isn't strongly typed. The "+" itself or its behavior is in no way weird or unusual in languages, except for those who feel only strongly typed languages should exist. And here I am defending a language I don't like...
Pascal used ";" as statement separator I thought, not a statement terminator. This is true for many from the ALGOL family. Which meant that having a final semicolon before a closing block would lead to a syntax error (though later versions certainly relaxed this rule).
I found the Python style to be some what odd myself. Not only is there only one way to do it, but if you actually do it a different way there will be an army of purists to chase you down with tar and feathers. (technically not true, Python has many ways to do the same thing)
A language with really only one way to do things is in my view, a limited language with no flexibility. Granted better than Perl, but the argument of "but Perl!" is not good enough to justify the rigidity of thinking.
When it was new it didn't require stuff that was necessarily weird, because every machine was unique and thus weird. At the time there were lots of unusual keyboards out there. No graphics card required at all, these were just characters and even ASCII characters required special support to be displayed on a CRT. For a teletype you just needed a different type head and no graphics at all.