Ability to refine edges and quick select alone made the upgrade for me worthwhile. I question your self-proclaimed power user status if you can't recognize the improvements they've made over time. I would rather jump in a lake than go back from CS3 to CS2. Anything before Adobe 7 would GREATLY improve my workload to the point I would need twice the time to do anything.
I have a Motorola V3. It does more than I even use as a cell phone. It has a camera, mp3 player, voicemail, cell phone and other stuff. I only use it as a phone, and every now and then I take a couple of pictures of my kids. It has great battery life, sounds very clear, and gets great reception. My cell phone rate per month is reasonable. Its actually cheaper than having a land-line phone in my house. Why should I be all upset about cell phones again? I remember what cell phones were like 20 years ago, and think they are progressing very nicely at this point. (My carrier is T-mobile)
You realize, of course, politicians attend debates to enhance their electability. I am scratching my head and wondering just exactly what Slashdotters are hoping to learn from a debate like this, and how it would actually influence an election. I really don't care what my candidate thinks about science. I doubt he or she will be researching anything when he or she is president. I care more about his foreign policy inclinations, his position on government and social programs, and what he is actually going to do as a president. The only thing science related I care about is what money should go to research what.
Does it really matter if the candidate agrees with you on all matters of science? Or does it matter more that their policies they will actually put into place are in line with what you want for the country. I found the article juvenile and silly and written with a snide and "superior" tone. The writer wants the world to know how smart they are, and to "educate" the politicians (It could even be fun). Although I'm sure I would do quite well in a science debate, if I were a politician, I would have no interest in joining such an activity, especially if the writer of this article were there.
Here is what I want debates on: Social Security funding, Iraq War, Iran and nuclear weapons, Taxes, The rightful role of government in America, What countries we are going to work with and to what end, What scientific research will be a priority for the USA, Our Energy Policy, and How we will address Environmental issues. I couldn't care less about what they think about science.
OOOOOH, an Internet TOUGH GUY!
Half-Life sales: 15 million copies
Half-Lif3 sales that anlprb is causing a "horrible fire" by bad talking: 20 million copies
Approximately 25% of the buyers of Half Life 2 used Steam's download interface to buy the video game. Sounds like anlprb needs to step up the bad talking about the horrible treatment that STEAM gives everyone.
You are making an argument using the wrong terms. Steam is selling their product based on the most amount of money they can get for it in different regions. If they chose to limit the use of their own product based on geographic areas, this is their decision as a company. It has no effect on a larger "free" market. They in no way are limiting any other software distributers or video game companies from distributing their own products as they see fit. Instead of arguing for market freedom (the ability of each seller to distribute and enable their products as they see fit) you are arguing for more restrictions (Steam should distribute their software the way I like).
A free market never guarantees you get your products the way you want. Or even at the same price that everyone else gets it. A free market just means that software companies are free to price and distribute their products as they see fit. The market then decides who wins and who loses. The whiny people who don't want to pay for The Orange Box because some asian people get it cheaper can feel "Free" to not buy the game. The people who want to use STEAM's game can buy it at the price that STEAM sets. If you don't like The Orange Box, you can always get a different video game you prefer, or no video game at all. That's a free market.
You may want to read the apple page on boot camp. They have improved boot camp, and apparently you can be seemlessly upgraded to the new version just by updating the drivers included in the install disk. At least that is what I gathered from reading Apple's page that informs you about the new version of boot camp.
Oh yes they are, if they want to stay in business.
Microsoft selling their OS at a discount to high volume vendors is not FORCING them to sell it. Linux has an even bigger discount. You don't have to pay a thing. You are merely acknowledging the reality that the average PC buyer expects and wants a Microsoft OS.
These articles that talk about how Microsoft is shoved down our throats read more like Geek fan fiction than actual good policy. Its as if the writers fantasize about a way to show people Linux is the one true Operating System, and the only way is to take away the convenience of using Windows. No manufacturer is FORCED to bundle Microsoft XP or Vista with their hardware. They have the option of not including an operating system at all, or also selling Linux versions. The reason this is not more prevalent is that there is no demand for it. If there were wide demand for pre-installed Linux boxes, they would be out there all over the place. I can recall quite a few Linux boxes that were sold as ultra-low cost alternatives to Windows boxes and they failed in sales quite badly. One of them that comes to mind was sold at ALDI.
Microsoft may have unethical tactics, but to force changes on the way computer manufacturers bundle and sell their equipment is an exercise best left to communist and socialist countries where the government knows better than the consumers and businesses in the market place. There is no barrier to computer sales that I can see. If I wanted to, I could sell a director_mr brand computer tomorrow. BUT BUT no one would buy it you might say. That is because the demand for computers is being met adequately by the marketplace. If you really think there is demand for pre-installed Linux boxes then sell them, and become the next Dell or Gateway or HP. Forcing Dell or Gateway or HP to be what YOU want them to be by changing the laws and making them become that is VERY inefficient and foolish.
Even though drsmithy adequately addressed your points by pointing out you are not doing a proper comparison, I would like to add a couple of more points. You are free to buy a Dell server with no operating system whatsoever. I have done that in the past when I needed to have a Linux server that was a Dell (because Dell was an approved vender and all that). A Microsoft Exchange server is a highly specific tool that does things you can't do with an Apple Xserve running OS X server. In fact, in my opinion, OS X server is immature for corporate use, and lacks several features I find highly useful and valuable in a Microsoft Server OS. Things like print services that include quotas, and rights to certain printers do not work well on OS X servers. In this case Microsoft can charge a lot of money for their server OS because people are willing to pay it for the services it provides. If apple could talk enough people into paying $10,000 for their server OS, they would charge that in a heartbeat, too.
A government framework for business does not necessarily have to force a market to have a competitor. Leaving the market open to competition and forcing the market to have competitors is not the same thing. Sometimes forcing competition leads to rising prices.
Having had extensive experience dealing with Apple, you are 100% wrong in everything that you assert. Apple does bundle the operating system with their computers and includes that in the final price. You can even pay extra to buy the next 3 years of upgrades on the computer.
As far as unbundling Microsoft OS from Dell or HP, you can already do that.
Apple has no interest in joining the OEM PC market, it is not part of their business model at this time. They prefer to support a limited hardware set and sell their own hardware to increase their profits.
Your main interest seems to be putting Microsoft out of business. Why this would be important to you is unclear. And your wild-eyed Apple assertions that have no basis in reality suggest you don't know what you are talking about.
So you are agreeing that this move will raise the price the average consumer will pay for a computer, and arguing that this is good because more tax money will be generated? And this will help the market how? Have you thought what you are advocating through at all?
This statement is patently false. How could you possibly claim that a market dominated by one entity is not a free market? You need to study economics before you spout off your uninformed statements.
That is a bunch of B.S. An $80000 Canon digital camera would be a high end EOS 1d with some really nice lenses. Right now they have 20 megapixels and can have the picture blown up to poster size while remaining photo quality. I know of no 35 mm camera that can do that at the same ASA range. Now my medium format and full-format camera can blow the EOS 1-D out of the water, but that is only because a large amount of film real-estate. Digital cameras also have greater color range and flexibility from any single film I can think of.
If you think that super8 film is astounding, you probably aren't paying attention to the substantial color shifting you are observing, or haven't bothered to check out any of the HD-quality video cameras they have out for shooting news items now.
Your in-laws probably have a REALLY bad digital satellite TV setup, because my HD satellite setup blows anything else I have seen out of the water. And waxing nostalgic about how awesome old VHS tapes look is just foolish.
I see no reason to complain about how a DVD player you buy today (which you can get for around 25 dollars) will not last as long as the 200 dollar one you bought 5 years ago, especially since HD players like Blue Ray are going to be what you really want a few years from now. I rather buy a 25 dollar dvd player and replace it every 4 years or so than buy a 200 dollar one and replace it every 10 years. But that is just me.
The market is in the middle of large changes and shifts in video technology. Video technology is progressing forward with ever greater quality. If you don't believe me watch any sitcom from 20 years ago and compare it with one from last year. You, my friend are either delusional or making things up for effect.
The thing we are complaining about is the fact that audio quality is not progressing forward but going backward even as video and image quality improves. Go back and watch your precious Charles in Charge VHS tapes with their amazing video and audio quality.
A lot of slashdotters are assuming that all ads are created for you to click on them and buy something on a website. If you look around you, a lot of advertising is used to create brand name recognition, and a favorable impression of a brand or item. I personally don't mind ads as long as they don't become TOO intrusive. If ads were reasonable, attractive and non-intrusive, more people wouldn't block them.
That being said, blocking people who block ads seems like it won't do anything but drive away traffic from a website. I would think a better tactic would be to provide content people really want to see. You get more traffic that won't buy things, but you will also get traffic that comes by word of mouth, and get people who will buy things.
Slashdot Mirror
Ability to refine edges and quick select alone made the upgrade for me worthwhile. I question your self-proclaimed power user status if you can't recognize the improvements they've made over time. I would rather jump in a lake than go back from CS3 to CS2. Anything before Adobe 7 would GREATLY improve my workload to the point I would need twice the time to do anything.
I have a Motorola V3. It does more than I even use as a cell phone. It has a camera, mp3 player, voicemail, cell phone and other stuff. I only use it as a phone, and every now and then I take a couple of pictures of my kids. It has great battery life, sounds very clear, and gets great reception. My cell phone rate per month is reasonable. Its actually cheaper than having a land-line phone in my house. Why should I be all upset about cell phones again? I remember what cell phones were like 20 years ago, and think they are progressing very nicely at this point. (My carrier is T-mobile)
You realize, of course, politicians attend debates to enhance their electability. I am scratching my head and wondering just exactly what Slashdotters are hoping to learn from a debate like this, and how it would actually influence an election. I really don't care what my candidate thinks about science. I doubt he or she will be researching anything when he or she is president. I care more about his foreign policy inclinations, his position on government and social programs, and what he is actually going to do as a president. The only thing science related I care about is what money should go to research what.
Does it really matter if the candidate agrees with you on all matters of science? Or does it matter more that their policies they will actually put into place are in line with what you want for the country. I found the article juvenile and silly and written with a snide and "superior" tone. The writer wants the world to know how smart they are, and to "educate" the politicians (It could even be fun). Although I'm sure I would do quite well in a science debate, if I were a politician, I would have no interest in joining such an activity, especially if the writer of this article were there.
Here is what I want debates on: Social Security funding, Iraq War, Iran and nuclear weapons, Taxes, The rightful role of government in America, What countries we are going to work with and to what end, What scientific research will be a priority for the USA, Our Energy Policy, and How we will address Environmental issues. I couldn't care less about what they think about science.
OOOOOH, an Internet TOUGH GUY! Half-Life sales: 15 million copies Half-Lif3 sales that anlprb is causing a "horrible fire" by bad talking: 20 million copies Approximately 25% of the buyers of Half Life 2 used Steam's download interface to buy the video game. Sounds like anlprb needs to step up the bad talking about the horrible treatment that STEAM gives everyone.
You are making an argument using the wrong terms. Steam is selling their product based on the most amount of money they can get for it in different regions. If they chose to limit the use of their own product based on geographic areas, this is their decision as a company. It has no effect on a larger "free" market. They in no way are limiting any other software distributers or video game companies from distributing their own products as they see fit. Instead of arguing for market freedom (the ability of each seller to distribute and enable their products as they see fit) you are arguing for more restrictions (Steam should distribute their software the way I like).
A free market never guarantees you get your products the way you want. Or even at the same price that everyone else gets it. A free market just means that software companies are free to price and distribute their products as they see fit. The market then decides who wins and who loses. The whiny people who don't want to pay for The Orange Box because some asian people get it cheaper can feel "Free" to not buy the game. The people who want to use STEAM's game can buy it at the price that STEAM sets. If you don't like The Orange Box, you can always get a different video game you prefer, or no video game at all. That's a free market.
You may want to read the apple page on boot camp. They have improved boot camp, and apparently you can be seemlessly upgraded to the new version just by updating the drivers included in the install disk. At least that is what I gathered from reading Apple's page that informs you about the new version of boot camp.
Oh yes they are, if they want to stay in business. Microsoft selling their OS at a discount to high volume vendors is not FORCING them to sell it. Linux has an even bigger discount. You don't have to pay a thing. You are merely acknowledging the reality that the average PC buyer expects and wants a Microsoft OS.
These articles that talk about how Microsoft is shoved down our throats read more like Geek fan fiction than actual good policy. Its as if the writers fantasize about a way to show people Linux is the one true Operating System, and the only way is to take away the convenience of using Windows. No manufacturer is FORCED to bundle Microsoft XP or Vista with their hardware. They have the option of not including an operating system at all, or also selling Linux versions. The reason this is not more prevalent is that there is no demand for it. If there were wide demand for pre-installed Linux boxes, they would be out there all over the place. I can recall quite a few Linux boxes that were sold as ultra-low cost alternatives to Windows boxes and they failed in sales quite badly. One of them that comes to mind was sold at ALDI. Microsoft may have unethical tactics, but to force changes on the way computer manufacturers bundle and sell their equipment is an exercise best left to communist and socialist countries where the government knows better than the consumers and businesses in the market place. There is no barrier to computer sales that I can see. If I wanted to, I could sell a director_mr brand computer tomorrow. BUT BUT no one would buy it you might say. That is because the demand for computers is being met adequately by the marketplace. If you really think there is demand for pre-installed Linux boxes then sell them, and become the next Dell or Gateway or HP. Forcing Dell or Gateway or HP to be what YOU want them to be by changing the laws and making them become that is VERY inefficient and foolish.
Even though drsmithy adequately addressed your points by pointing out you are not doing a proper comparison, I would like to add a couple of more points. You are free to buy a Dell server with no operating system whatsoever. I have done that in the past when I needed to have a Linux server that was a Dell (because Dell was an approved vender and all that). A Microsoft Exchange server is a highly specific tool that does things you can't do with an Apple Xserve running OS X server. In fact, in my opinion, OS X server is immature for corporate use, and lacks several features I find highly useful and valuable in a Microsoft Server OS. Things like print services that include quotas, and rights to certain printers do not work well on OS X servers. In this case Microsoft can charge a lot of money for their server OS because people are willing to pay it for the services it provides. If apple could talk enough people into paying $10,000 for their server OS, they would charge that in a heartbeat, too.
A government framework for business does not necessarily have to force a market to have a competitor. Leaving the market open to competition and forcing the market to have competitors is not the same thing. Sometimes forcing competition leads to rising prices.
Having had extensive experience dealing with Apple, you are 100% wrong in everything that you assert. Apple does bundle the operating system with their computers and includes that in the final price. You can even pay extra to buy the next 3 years of upgrades on the computer. As far as unbundling Microsoft OS from Dell or HP, you can already do that. Apple has no interest in joining the OEM PC market, it is not part of their business model at this time. They prefer to support a limited hardware set and sell their own hardware to increase their profits. Your main interest seems to be putting Microsoft out of business. Why this would be important to you is unclear. And your wild-eyed Apple assertions that have no basis in reality suggest you don't know what you are talking about.
So you are agreeing that this move will raise the price the average consumer will pay for a computer, and arguing that this is good because more tax money will be generated? And this will help the market how? Have you thought what you are advocating through at all?
This statement is patently false. How could you possibly claim that a market dominated by one entity is not a free market? You need to study economics before you spout off your uninformed statements.
The FBI doesn't agree with you. They put AGFA 200 ASA film as the equivalent of a 16 megapixel camera. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/s wgitfield1.htm
That is a bunch of B.S. An $80000 Canon digital camera would be a high end EOS 1d with some really nice lenses. Right now they have 20 megapixels and can have the picture blown up to poster size while remaining photo quality. I know of no 35 mm camera that can do that at the same ASA range. Now my medium format and full-format camera can blow the EOS 1-D out of the water, but that is only because a large amount of film real-estate. Digital cameras also have greater color range and flexibility from any single film I can think of.
If you think that super8 film is astounding, you probably aren't paying attention to the substantial color shifting you are observing, or haven't bothered to check out any of the HD-quality video cameras they have out for shooting news items now.
Your in-laws probably have a REALLY bad digital satellite TV setup, because my HD satellite setup blows anything else I have seen out of the water. And waxing nostalgic about how awesome old VHS tapes look is just foolish.
I see no reason to complain about how a DVD player you buy today (which you can get for around 25 dollars) will not last as long as the 200 dollar one you bought 5 years ago, especially since HD players like Blue Ray are going to be what you really want a few years from now. I rather buy a 25 dollar dvd player and replace it every 4 years or so than buy a 200 dollar one and replace it every 10 years. But that is just me.
The market is in the middle of large changes and shifts in video technology. Video technology is progressing forward with ever greater quality. If you don't believe me watch any sitcom from 20 years ago and compare it with one from last year. You, my friend are either delusional or making things up for effect.
The thing we are complaining about is the fact that audio quality is not progressing forward but going backward even as video and image quality improves. Go back and watch your precious Charles in Charge VHS tapes with their amazing video and audio quality.
A lot of slashdotters are assuming that all ads are created for you to click on them and buy something on a website. If you look around you, a lot of advertising is used to create brand name recognition, and a favorable impression of a brand or item. I personally don't mind ads as long as they don't become TOO intrusive. If ads were reasonable, attractive and non-intrusive, more people wouldn't block them. That being said, blocking people who block ads seems like it won't do anything but drive away traffic from a website. I would think a better tactic would be to provide content people really want to see. You get more traffic that won't buy things, but you will also get traffic that comes by word of mouth, and get people who will buy things.