"Marginal cost" in this context is what goes into the amortisation calculations - it's a technical term in microeconomics with a specific well-defined meaning.
You realise of course that a large part of the culture industry's present traumas are the fact that the marginal cost per copy is in fact zero, so they're competing with free.
In a closed source for-profit world, the price rapidly sinks to the marginal cost per copy. Which is zero. Open source just means the software is likely to be better.
Gamers who are sick of paying to be bored could turn to First Life, the incredibly popular Massively Multiplayer Offline Reality-Playing Game released by Jehovah Labs six thousand years ago. At least in First Life, people pay you to be bored.
Google will give you their web and email services, photo processing, mapping, office applications that will run in Google's own browser and will make you a cup of tea. This is all paid for by personally-directed text ads in your tea leaves, based on analysing a DNA sample taken when you sip the tea and sending your genetic code back to Google for future targeting.
Google will maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information, genetic structure and personal preferences in pornography. "Weâ(TM)re Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live."
I was attempting to use it as my daily browser at the time. Its rendering was nice, its stability was in the toilet. Around 0.9 they had a big stability push, and at 0.9.1 it had suddenly achieved the stability that it was a usable beta rather than an interesting alpha.
"We understand that many journalists use Macs," said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger. "This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs. We cannot countenance their bias. Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP. When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple? It's so unfair!"
Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run "benchmarks" and "tests." "It's horrifying bias from the 'reality'-based community," said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle. "We understand that, just because Vista was 40% slower than XP, the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing that it's 'not enough of an improvement.' It's so unfair!"
"Mactards are like concentration camp guards," said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield, "brutalising 'I'm A PC' users and" [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]
"The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail," said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post. "It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff! They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple. It's so unfair!"
Read the original thread - Matt Asay quite specifically dodges the question of whether there is in fact such a restriction. The original poster notes this and repeats the question, with no answer being given.
One thing that seems to have been lost to the mists of time: IE 4 and IE 5 were functionally better browsers than Netscape 4. Their rendering was much nicer and they didn't crash nearly as often.
I wanted to use Netscape instead of IE. But it was such a hideous piece of shit that it was actually worse than IE.
I started running test builds and bug-reporting on Mozilla around mid-2000. Not because it was good, it wasn't, but because it was important. Thankfully it finally became good around 0.9.1.
The updates include "critical" patches to Windows Media Player visualisations, Zune player software, that really cute dinosaur cursor and Age Of Empires II. The exploits opened by these patches allow a malicious user to take webcam pictures of your pimply butt, steal your pizza delivery and have sex with your girlfriend. The exploits have already been marketed to the Dark Security market by Microsoft Russia.
"Windows 7 won't be vulnerable!" added marketing marketer Jonathan Ness. "Did we mention how fantastic Windows 7 will be? Also, Vista's pretty good! Really! The London Stock Exchange was probably still on XP!"
The terrorists, representing an organisation calling itself "Microsoft," apparently used insecure third-party contractors to put a virus-running platform called "Windows" into critical systems in the hospitals, in order to extort money from them on an annual basis.
It is understood that a large percentage of all businesses are infected with the virus, wasting up to 25% of employees' working time and opening the companies to further attacks from related criminal organisations demanding to see all their licenses.
The virus in question, W32.SHILL/ZDNET, takes over the host's IT systems, leading to aches, pains, nausea, vomiting, pumping out prodigious quantities of faeces and a terrible compulsion to spread the infection to others. The patient also walks with a shuddering stumble and asks for their hospital meal to include tasty, tasty brains. Recovery has commenced when they have an overwhelming urge to throw their computer out of the window. "Getting this stuff out of the system makes MRSA look like a walk in the park," said one cleaner, waving his shit-encrusted hands about for emphasis.
When the infection became known, ambulances were diverted to other hospitals. "We have maintained a safe environment for our patients throughout the incident," said a spokesman for Barts NHS Trust, "keeping them in the Clostridium difficile culturing lab rather than risking exposing them to 'Windows.'"
Slashdot Mirror
XP is quite livable in 512MB with several hundred MHz of processor. The same for KDE, in my experience. Modern shiny interfaces are fat.
Indeed. "The big flashy ads giveth, and the fine print taketh away" is pretty much universally regarded in law as deception in advertising.
http://code.google.com/chromium/
telnet port 80, dammit. wget if you're one of them nancy boys who wants "convenience."
"Marginal cost" in this context is what goes into the amortisation calculations - it's a technical term in microeconomics with a specific well-defined meaning.
You realise of course that a large part of the culture industry's present traumas are the fact that the marginal cost per copy is in fact zero, so they're competing with free.
Some people's First Life avatars are rather disturbing.
(You wish that was a Photoshop job.)
In a closed source for-profit world, the price rapidly sinks to the marginal cost per copy. Which is zero. Open source just means the software is likely to be better.
Gamers who are sick of paying to be bored could turn to First Life, the incredibly popular Massively Multiplayer Offline Reality-Playing Game released by Jehovah Labs six thousand years ago. At least in First Life, people pay you to be bored.
I thought of the car first. I figured that's how much battery you'd need to run it in a laptop.
Google will give you their web and email services, photo processing, mapping, office applications that will run in Google's own browser and will make you a cup of tea. This is all paid for by personally-directed text ads in your tea leaves, based on analysing a DNA sample taken when you sip the tea and sending your genetic code back to Google for future targeting.
Google will maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information, genetic structure and personal preferences in pornography. "Weâ(TM)re Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live."
I was attempting to use it as my daily browser at the time. Its rendering was nice, its stability was in the toilet. Around 0.9 they had a big stability push, and at 0.9.1 it had suddenly achieved the stability that it was a usable beta rather than an interesting alpha.
"Turing-equivalent to a Vista Ready machine!"
The "reality-based" community just don't understand the wonder and beauty of Microsoft products. Some of them even badmouth OOXML! I'm shocked.
Microsoft today issued a plea through its network of objective opinion-shapers: Don't let the journalists near it.
"We understand that many journalists use Macs," said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger. "This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs. We cannot countenance their bias. Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP. When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple? It's so unfair!"
Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run "benchmarks" and "tests." "It's horrifying bias from the 'reality'-based community," said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle. "We understand that, just because Vista was 40% slower than XP, the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing that it's 'not enough of an improvement.' It's so unfair!"
"Mactards are like concentration camp guards," said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield, "brutalising 'I'm A PC' users and" [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]
"The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail," said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post. "It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff! They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple. It's so unfair!"
Oh, well, a single exception definitely disproves the general use.
No, you're more like "cattle to be milked."
No, he's quite correct. Google get money from their advertisers. What they sell the advertisers is your attention.
Search and Gmail are not the "products" that Google actually sell* - they're bait to lure in the products that they sell.
* OK, they do sell Gmail for your domain as a product. But the vast majority of their income is selling your eyeballs to advertisers.
Read the original thread - Matt Asay quite specifically dodges the question of whether there is in fact such a restriction. The original poster notes this and repeats the question, with no answer being given.
One thing that seems to have been lost to the mists of time: IE 4 and IE 5 were functionally better browsers than Netscape 4. Their rendering was much nicer and they didn't crash nearly as often.
I wanted to use Netscape instead of IE. But it was such a hideous piece of shit that it was actually worse than IE.
I started running test builds and bug-reporting on Mozilla around mid-2000. Not because it was good, it wasn't, but because it was important. Thankfully it finally became good around 0.9.1.
ActiveX is COM recycled, so I wouldn't be surprised - Microsoft recycle technologies lots. I clearly need to write the Wikipedia article on this.
Oh man. I had to look that one up. That's even better than Smart Display.
After what was expected to be an unusually quiet Patch Tuesday, Microsoft has released eight patches for applications with an insufficient number of security holes.
The updates include "critical" patches to Windows Media Player visualisations, Zune player software, that really cute dinosaur cursor and Age Of Empires II. The exploits opened by these patches allow a malicious user to take webcam pictures of your pimply butt, steal your pizza delivery and have sex with your girlfriend. The exploits have already been marketed to the Dark Security market by Microsoft Russia.
"Windows 7 won't be vulnerable!" added marketing marketer Jonathan Ness. "Did we mention how fantastic Windows 7 will be? Also, Vista's pretty good! Really! The London Stock Exchange was probably still on XP!"
Yesterday, a terrorist attack on the NHS brought three London hospitals to a halt.
The terrorists, representing an organisation calling itself "Microsoft," apparently used insecure third-party contractors to put a virus-running platform called "Windows" into critical systems in the hospitals, in order to extort money from them on an annual basis.
It is understood that a large percentage of all businesses are infected with the virus, wasting up to 25% of employees' working time and opening the companies to further attacks from related criminal organisations demanding to see all their licenses.
The virus in question, W32.SHILL/ZDNET, takes over the host's IT systems, leading to aches, pains, nausea, vomiting, pumping out prodigious quantities of faeces and a terrible compulsion to spread the infection to others. The patient also walks with a shuddering stumble and asks for their hospital meal to include tasty, tasty brains. Recovery has commenced when they have an overwhelming urge to throw their computer out of the window. "Getting this stuff out of the system makes MRSA look like a walk in the park," said one cleaner, waving his shit-encrusted hands about for emphasis.
When the infection became known, ambulances were diverted to other hospitals. "We have maintained a safe environment for our patients throughout the incident," said a spokesman for Barts NHS Trust, "keeping them in the Clostridium difficile culturing lab rather than risking exposing them to 'Windows.'"
Wikipedia is the largest Massively Multiplayer Online Notepad installation in the world!
(I just forwarded a link to the app to wikien-l.)