"It doesn't change. But all of the meaningful elements change".
Back when I was using Minis for MythTV I had 3 of them. They each had their own video dongle because each one of them had a different video port. Such a simple basic thing wasn't the same from one release to the next.
As far as a datacenter goes, there are standards and Apple gear does not conform to them.
That is the basic problem with any sort of "loser pays" approach. It primarily just increases the cost of litigation. It will probably not just be restricted to "evil people".
Measures intended to "punish evil people" don't really address the root of the issue. They just sound good to the masses. It's the perfect sort of "feel good and do nothing" measure.
Ultimately, they just open the door for bad ideas that end up victimizing "nice people" sooner or later.
> Feel free to list applications where it's needed for normal people and list how many may be interested in those.
Anything that involves cloud storage. Currently, all of those services are limited by both downstream and upstream bandwidth. Upstream bandwidth severely limits what you can shove into the cloud and downstream limits hobble what can be done with streaming.
Do any of this sort of stuff on a GigE wired network and you will see the difference. It's like night and day. Applications go from being marginal to trivial (and FAST).
> I'm not sure who is paying just $65/month for 35Mbps because I pay slightly more than that for around 10Mbps from Comcast.
Anyone that's stuck with only one option.
That's the nature of the beast here. If you are lucky, you will have 2 monopolies to deal with (cable and phone). If you aren't lucky you might not even have that.
Both type of monopoly will abuse you because they think they can get away with it since they "own the lines" and have total control of them and aren't required to share. It's one set of arrogant pricks or another.
Anyone interested in the top tier from TWC probably understands just how bad of a deal it is. They understand how overpriced it all is but they don't really have any choice.
So they settle for one of the more moderate options.
If you are a large company that's richer than some small nations, you may find that the government won't let you fail regardless of how badly you screw up. If anything, they will bail you out and let you become even bigger (like AA).
Based on actual requirements, it seems like the alternatives are legion actually.
If things are different on the high end for equipment that WVA never needed, then that's something that the Feds need to address. It sounds like it's time to start enforcing the Sherman Act.
That's kind of the point. It just took the rise of tablets for people to finally realize it. Most people really don't need Microsoft's brand of WordPerfect style overkill. They never did really.
> Sensationalism at its best. Almost everyone makes android tablets.
So you're basically agreeing with the "sensationalist" headline.
PC vendors are finally straying from Microsoft.
It doesn't matter how you try to spin it. It still comes out the same. Microsoft's grip on consumers as computer users is waning. It took something that looks nothing like a PC, but it finally happened.
It's little wonder that it can be bested by pretty much ANY established console. So your anecdote really doesn't mean much as you might thing.
Re:Nintendo needs to rethink its place in the worl
on
Is the Wii U Already Dead?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If I want to access my game library anywhere on the planet, I can just employ external storage. The same goes for any other form of "entertainment". This can last for as long as I like.
The only stumbling block is DRM.
Unfortunately, Steam is still DRM.
It's a really pleasant cage but it's still a cage.
My last gig onsite with a large company consisting of multiple cubicle farms in multiple locations spanning several states. Even if a guy was onsite, chances were that he was on the other side of the building. The rest of my team was not in my same location. The teams we collaborated with were also spread to the 4 winds.
I could have been on a beach in Aruba and it would not have made any difference in terms of communicating with "my team".
No. It's percieved as less risky than something new.
The beancounters want a "sure thing".
The idea that art as a business requires risk is just not something they can handle. This is why corporate mergers are so problematic. You end up with large entities comparable to large governments. They don't really have a good sense of direction beyond immediate self preservation and petty self enrichment.
That's the value of a founder like Gates or Jobs. They give the beast a soul and some direction.
Your idea of what the regime should be is pretty irrelevant. The US has one justificatoin that legally allows them to enforce the notion of a copyright. Does it increase creatitivty? If not then all of your crowing is irrelevant.
Despite the fact that some of the Supremes mirror your ideology, the laws of the United States don't exist to make sure that corporations can make money don't particular things.
> It would be perverse indeed to assume that the founders intended a system where every copyright holder would have to own a publishing company. Because that is exactly what you are proposing.
That's pretty much the way it was in 1776.
Publishing was much more decentralized then. You didn't have a cartel of gatekeepers deciding what would get published. Business entities in general were much smaller.
The idea that some variation on the British East India Company would control the creation of art or invention would likely have horrified the founders.
Microsoft is much more of a classic parasite. A parasite can't thrive if it destroys the host. In this respect, Microsoft is actually far less destructive than Apple. On the other hand, Apple tries to destroy companies rather than just feed off of them.
Of course the whole system is corrupt and all of the big bully companies like the status quo.
The concept of ownership of ideas is inherently immoral and a disgrace to the human intellect.
The refrain of someone who has never has any worthwhile ideas.
No. We are just less full of ourselves.
Not all worthwhile ideas warrant the ability to STEAL the intellectual efforts of EVERYONE ELSE.
In all likelihood, you will be the abused serf rather than the Robber Baron. It's the nonsense that you are defending that will be what's used against you.
This isn't about any genuine invention. Providing "replacement" technology is actually pretty trivial. Many of these predate their Microsoft counterpart. The real problem is that product configuration becomes unnecessarily complicated because suddenly extra device drivers are required.
Taxes on "being compatible" are obscene and should be viewed by everyone here as such.
Slashdot Mirror
> Like a Mac Mini?
My first low profile PC predated the Mini by a fair bit.
Like many other things, Apple did not invent this sort of thing.
The ability of Apple Fanboys to delude themselves is simply amazing.
Your post is just such an obvious contradiction.
"It doesn't change. But all of the meaningful elements change".
Back when I was using Minis for MythTV I had 3 of them. They each had their own video dongle because each one of them had a different video port. Such a simple basic thing wasn't the same from one release to the next.
As far as a datacenter goes, there are standards and Apple gear does not conform to them.
It's a band aid on a bullet wound and nearly everyone here has enough of a clue to understand it.
A loss at trial does not imply "flimsy grounds".
That is the basic problem with any sort of "loser pays" approach. It primarily just increases the cost of litigation. It will probably not just be restricted to "evil people".
Measures intended to "punish evil people" don't really address the root of the issue. They just sound good to the masses. It's the perfect sort of "feel good and do nothing" measure.
Ultimately, they just open the door for bad ideas that end up victimizing "nice people" sooner or later.
> Feel free to list applications where it's needed for normal people and list how many may be interested in those.
Anything that involves cloud storage. Currently, all of those services are limited by both downstream and upstream bandwidth. Upstream bandwidth severely limits what you can shove into the cloud and downstream limits hobble what can be done with streaming.
Do any of this sort of stuff on a GigE wired network and you will see the difference. It's like night and day. Applications go from being marginal to trivial (and FAST).
> I'm not sure who is paying just $65/month for 35Mbps because I pay slightly more than that for around 10Mbps from Comcast.
Anyone that's stuck with only one option.
That's the nature of the beast here. If you are lucky, you will have 2 monopolies to deal with (cable and phone). If you aren't lucky you might not even have that.
Both type of monopoly will abuse you because they think they can get away with it since they "own the lines" and have total control of them and aren't required to share. It's one set of arrogant pricks or another.
Anyone interested in the top tier from TWC probably understands just how bad of a deal it is. They understand how overpriced it all is but they don't really have any choice.
So they settle for one of the more moderate options.
People see the name Kansas and they imagine some farm village with two traffic lights.
It's just their total ignorance and complete unwillingness to remedy that ignorance.
Plus, you could always be "too big to fail".
If you are a large company that's richer than some small nations, you may find that the government won't let you fail regardless of how badly you screw up. If anything, they will bail you out and let you become even bigger (like AA).
Based on actual requirements, it seems like the alternatives are legion actually.
If things are different on the high end for equipment that WVA never needed, then that's something that the Feds need to address. It sounds like it's time to start enforcing the Sherman Act.
I have never been exposed to such spreadsheets.
So it's really a non-problem for most people.
That's kind of the point. It just took the rise of tablets for people to finally realize it. Most people really don't need Microsoft's brand of WordPerfect style overkill. They never did really.
> Sensationalism at its best. Almost everyone makes android tablets.
So you're basically agreeing with the "sensationalist" headline.
PC vendors are finally straying from Microsoft.
It doesn't matter how you try to spin it. It still comes out the same. Microsoft's grip on consumers as computer users is waning. It took something that looks nothing like a PC, but it finally happened.
The Wii UI is a brand new system.
It's little wonder that it can be bested by pretty much ANY established console. So your anecdote really doesn't mean much as you might thing.
If I want to access my game library anywhere on the planet, I can just employ external storage. The same goes for any other form of "entertainment". This can last for as long as I like.
The only stumbling block is DRM.
Unfortunately, Steam is still DRM.
It's a really pleasant cage but it's still a cage.
My last gig onsite with a large company consisting of multiple cubicle farms in multiple locations spanning several states. Even if a guy was onsite, chances were that he was on the other side of the building. The rest of my team was not in my same location. The teams we collaborated with were also spread to the 4 winds.
I could have been on a beach in Aruba and it would not have made any difference in terms of communicating with "my team".
> How on earth could it be a better solution than anything else?
Imagine the same setup without the walls.
That's what it replaced.
> You must not have kids.
Why would they be a problem?
They have their own "office" to go to.
No. It's percieved as less risky than something new.
The beancounters want a "sure thing".
The idea that art as a business requires risk is just not something they can handle. This is why corporate mergers are so problematic. You end up with large entities comparable to large governments. They don't really have a good sense of direction beyond immediate self preservation and petty self enrichment.
That's the value of a founder like Gates or Jobs. They give the beast a soul and some direction.
Your idea of what the regime should be is pretty irrelevant. The US has one justificatoin that legally allows them to enforce the notion of a copyright. Does it increase creatitivty? If not then all of your crowing is irrelevant.
Despite the fact that some of the Supremes mirror your ideology, the laws of the United States don't exist to make sure that corporations can make money don't particular things.
> It would be perverse indeed to assume that the founders intended a system where every copyright holder would have to own a publishing company. Because that is exactly what you are proposing.
That's pretty much the way it was in 1776.
Publishing was much more decentralized then. You didn't have a cartel of gatekeepers deciding what would get published. Business entities in general were much smaller.
The idea that some variation on the British East India Company would control the creation of art or invention would likely have horrified the founders.
Nope. Hollywood is far too busy outsourcing production outside of the US.
Microsoft is much more of a classic parasite. A parasite can't thrive if it destroys the host. In this respect, Microsoft is actually far less destructive than Apple. On the other hand, Apple tries to destroy companies rather than just feed off of them.
Of course the whole system is corrupt and all of the big bully companies like the status quo.
The concept of ownership of ideas is inherently immoral and a disgrace to the human intellect.
The refrain of someone who has never has any worthwhile ideas.
No. We are just less full of ourselves.
Not all worthwhile ideas warrant the ability to STEAL the intellectual efforts of EVERYONE ELSE.
In all likelihood, you will be the abused serf rather than the Robber Baron. It's the nonsense that you are defending that will be what's used against you.
You're like trailer trash for Romney.
So it's OK because you're not killing anyone. You're only evil if you are Hitler or Pol Pot? Is that it?
We should all be happy and tolerate Robber Barons because they aren't murdering anyone outright.
Now you're the one being childish.
This isn't about any genuine invention. Providing "replacement" technology is actually pretty trivial. Many of these predate their Microsoft counterpart. The real problem is that product configuration becomes unnecessarily complicated because suddenly extra device drivers are required.
Taxes on "being compatible" are obscene and should be viewed by everyone here as such.