All their stuff comes form one place. You can only buy Kraft foods from Kraft and even fresh veg and fruit will come from the same farms so they need to create some loss leaders to pull you in and then you'll buy the other stuff simply because you're there. I'm not entirely sure that's true competition either because they won't really have different loss leaders. If you realised all those super markets had different things at rock bottom prices then you could shop at each one and they're screwed. It'll be store X has coke for half price so store Y has coke for 2 for 3 or maybe just buy one get one free since free will sound better than 50% off.
But the question is how easy is it for you anyone to enter the market and survive? I'm not sure you can call a selection of big players a free market. If you look closer at some smaller markets you'll probably find they are still a chain but one for smaller brands like Shur Fine (in PA at least).
They have to do that because, like I mentioned, the only way to really compete is buy in bigger quantities which no one store can really do on its own.
Also, just because it looks like a bargin doesn't mean it is. They do use tactics to take advantage of the fact people don't pay attention at all. Like offer two items for a higher price than the individual price but the sticker will be in the sale colour which is what people look at and assume it's a deal. It's illegal but they do it because no one really notices and those who do don't care enough to make them stop.
I'm really annoyed because I can't find the thing now but there is a picture on reddit from either wal-mart or target but anyway they had a picture from a store where they were selling bulbs and buying the smallest pack was actually the cheapest but they rely on people's assumptions and the fact they just don't care enough and they can get away with it because they all do it and you or myself can't really start out own stores and do away with those practices to gain the upper-hand in an area because you will never have the buying power to match them.
Life is hard. First you find out that your beloved Fox news is being bought up by dirty "forrin people" and now all your favourite blogs are paid and bought for and to top it off your choice during the next election will probably be Obama and some Alaskian bimbo who pumps out dumb babies with dumb names which means you'll lose big time.
Not business really wants a free market. That is why all these idiots who claim that the free market is the best for medicine, broadband or whatever are simply full of BS.
There is no one alive that has seen a real free market so how do they know it works? I would almost even go as far to say that there has never been a free market in the existence of humans.
Good way to show you can have a mature debate rather than being the mentally retarded Palin follower that responds to everything with 3rd grade insults and or a shotgun.
They probably would and Oracle could still fight it but the copyright portion of their case it out and the rest would be weakened too I believe. At least now they can claim Google is trying to break their language.
Android's source is open too. Oracle can make their own version. I don't think you can really put the Dalvik code back into Java because it would break compatibility so even if Google wanted to it's not really going to happen. Secondly, we're still waiting on JDK 7. By the time Google changes would get implemented Java will probably be dead.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 1
Google has been pretty good at saying you're not creating Java but you're creating their byte code from Java syntax. If I recall (and I may be wrong) because you can't really have an incompatible JVM created from the Java source unless you pay a licence or don't refer to it as a JVM. I don't believe there is anything saying you have to change the syntax or can't refer to it as what it is and that is Java syntax.
It's not really being sold as Google's version of Java. It's their VM which uses the Java language to tell the VM what to do but the byte code is not Java bytecode. So I sort of see it not being the same as the MS case where MS was creating a Java Vm to replace Sun's VM with incompatible features.
Yes, Dalvik is arguably replacing mobile Java but in the same way as Apple creating their own VM and not including Java's VM. Google has always been pretty clear that you're not writing Java. You're using Java syntax to create something else.
To be honest I don't mind Oracle pushing this because I personally believe we'd see Google using Python to replace Java and I'd prefer that.
Do you think they wouldn't do the same to the android marketplace or any other phone's app shop? I belive this would affect all of them otherwise there is no point.
The Library of congress is indexing twitter comments, the internet archive is indexing tons of websites. Google is hardly your only problem. Tons of people are taking interest in logging your online activity for the whole world to see in the future.
If the UI is polished and the underworkings are broken then they're not equal. That's covering shit up with a shiny package. I saw it was just as import not more important.
Apple never claimed to have invented digital music players and in fact the purpose of the iPod was the create a usable nice looking digital music player which is what they did. The iPod wasn't great but compared to the butt ugly Nomad it was awsome.
Apple innovates in design and interfaces and those things are just as important as anything else.
Mobile phone markets are NOT the "freest communication network in the US". Where on earth did you get that idea? First of all,
you need some cash to buy out or license certain radio frequencies. Next, radio frequencies are not magical. They can only handle
so much traffic. On the other hand, any landline based telecomm can bury cables. There's no physical restriction limiting them,
whereas there is for mobile networks.
Anyone can get a licence if they have the money and how much frequency there is doesn't make it any less free. The carriers are free to
charge what they want for their services and more or less do what they want with it. These same restrictions and more exist in the UK yet
they have better mobile phone service. The size of the US doesn't matter either because your call doesn't travel through the air the whole
way from your phone to another country / state. It only travels through the air from you phone to the tower. So it doesn't really matter to me
if the US is larger than the UK or not. My signal in PA for example will travel just as far as it will in the UK. Hell if it travelled
only in the air it would be nearly impossible to call across the states and calling the other side of the world would be nearly impossible.
When Verizon is bury cables it is for both landlines and cellphones. The only restriction on cellphones is line of sight to the tower and how many
people are around. A signal can travel up to 25 miles I believe so rural users don't really need more towers or anything special and again once it
hits that tower it becomes a land line call the rest of the way.
If a free market is better than there is no reasaon US prices should be anywhere near the UK prices when the UK is generally more expensive,
has more tax and has more regulation. Hell there are poorer countries that have higher mobile phone usage. How is it these poor countries can
a manage to give service to and phones to people but it is so expensive to operate in the US?
I'd personally be embarrassed if I was being beaten by the Czech Republic and Greece. Of course they're both in Europe and companies can't lock
customers in so anyone operating there, like any where else in Europe really only have price and better service to compete with and it's not like
they're making less money. Companies can afford to advertise using big name Hollywood stars. The A-Team movie featured a big advert in the previews for
Orange and their phones featuring the A-Team cast.
I should also point out that the size of the countries do not matter because most companies do not only operate in Greece or the UK. They operate across
the Europe and even outside of Europe. In case of T-mobile they're even in the US so they are building big networks too rather than just connecting two
houses with sheep farmers.
Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed, but while there's 5 major carriers on the national level, there's local
competition in tons of markets (here, it's Cricket). There's also the option of prepaid phones. Really, there is quite a bit of
diverse competition, but the reason you aren't seeing much more is for the reasons mentioned above.
You can't use the mobile networks as an example, because it's a severely limited resource. Nice try.
Cricket isn't local, they're national and I just checked. Their prices aren't really better than Verizon and you still don't really get any decent free phones.
Then again why should they offer it to you when no other company does and it will keep shareholders happy if they give as little away as possible.
I don't know what world you live in, but if someone wants more customers, they'll try to offer customers a better deal.
Either it'll be product quality or price, or both. In a free market, if this isn't done, th
.Net fanboys are having a real circle jerk at the moment but Microsoft would have done the same exact thing. Mono and Android are not the same.
Mono is striving for compatibility and will forever be behind.Net. Android broke compatibility and released something much better than J2ME. You try making Mono superior and incompatible to.Net and see what happens..Net is not more open.
Seriously, I can't believe people feel the need to go off to extremes and either champion a totally free market or government control. Need a fine tuned mix of both and whatever we set now won't always work. You can't be lazy it is something that will require vigilance and tweaking over time. Business wants to fuck you over just as much as the government.
But capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a complete free market and a completely free market won't solve consumer's problems. The US mobile phone market hasn't provided consumers with better options in fact it's pretty piss poor and yet it is the freest communication network in the US. Do you honestly think that companies will provide anything different with the internet more so when companies have already tried closed networks like AOL.
The argument is flawed because companies won't compete in any sort of way that benefits consumers. They'll keep prices high and what are you going to do when you only options are company A for $59.99 or company B for $59.99? Of course one will offer you a shitty cheap USB wifi stick and the other one unlimited email addresses which they know you can't possibly use more than 10 and if you try they'll probably bitch.
The whole free market idea is a complete fallacy. If complete government control is bad then how can complete business control be good more so when the same sort of people that run for government run corporations. The ideal situation for consumers is a mix of the two.
He states "This is not the case with net neutrality because right now internet service providers are voluntarily complying with the standards net neutrality advocates seek to codify." but if that is true and they're happy to voluntarily run a neutral network then why does it matter if the government makes it required? They're only doing it because they've had to live with the threat of government intervention so actually they're not doing it voluntarily.
His other examples like 1st class seats are completely irrelevant because you aren't limited to where you can travel if you can't afford 1st class. The cable TV example is just dumb because people don't want to be limited to which websites they can go to. However if companies are given full control they'll make the consumer do that no matter what just like mobile phone companies bend users over.
Perhaps you think consumers want to pay more in the US for an iPhone, for example, compared to the more expensive / higher rate UK.
I think it's pretty obvious that both movies and games don't need high-end graphics if the story / gameplay is there. Awesome visuals are needed just to cover up a piss-poor movie / game or justify the outlay on a super high-end home theatre.
Slashdot Mirror
All their stuff comes form one place. You can only buy Kraft foods from Kraft and even fresh veg and fruit will come from the same farms so they need to create some loss leaders to pull you in and then you'll buy the other stuff simply because you're there. I'm not entirely sure that's true competition either because they won't really have different loss leaders. If you realised all those super markets had different things at rock bottom prices then you could shop at each one and they're screwed. It'll be store X has coke for half price so store Y has coke for 2 for 3 or maybe just buy one get one free since free will sound better than 50% off.
But the question is how easy is it for you anyone to enter the market and survive? I'm not sure you can call a selection of big players a free market. If you look closer at some smaller markets you'll probably find they are still a chain but one for smaller brands like Shur Fine (in PA at least).
They have to do that because, like I mentioned, the only way to really compete is buy in bigger quantities which no one store can really do on its own.
Also, just because it looks like a bargin doesn't mean it is. They do use tactics to take advantage of the fact people don't pay attention at all. Like offer two items for a higher price than the individual price but the sticker will be in the sale colour which is what people look at and assume it's a deal. It's illegal but they do it because no one really notices and those who do don't care enough to make them stop.
I'm really annoyed because I can't find the thing now but there is a picture on reddit from either wal-mart or target but anyway they had a picture from a store where they were selling bulbs and buying the smallest pack was actually the cheapest but they rely on people's assumptions and the fact they just don't care enough and they can get away with it because they all do it and you or myself can't really start out own stores and do away with those practices to gain the upper-hand in an area because you will never have the buying power to match them.
Reporting the truth would be balanced and unbiased even if that meant reporting that only one side was the main practitioner of this tactic.
Life is hard. First you find out that your beloved Fox news is being bought up by dirty "forrin people" and now all your favourite blogs are paid and bought for and to top it off your choice during the next election will probably be Obama and some Alaskian bimbo who pumps out dumb babies with dumb names which means you'll lose big time.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.
Not business really wants a free market. That is why all these idiots who claim that the free market is the best for medicine, broadband or whatever are simply full of BS.
There is no one alive that has seen a real free market so how do they know it works? I would almost even go as far to say that there has never been a free market in the existence of humans.
Good way to show you can have a mature debate rather than being the mentally retarded Palin follower that responds to everything with 3rd grade insults and or a shotgun.
They probably would and Oracle could still fight it but the copyright portion of their case it out and the rest would be weakened too I believe. At least now they can claim Google is trying to break their language.
Android's source is open too. Oracle can make their own version. I don't think you can really put the Dalvik code back into Java because it would break compatibility so even if Google wanted to it's not really going to happen. Secondly, we're still waiting on JDK 7. By the time Google changes would get implemented Java will probably be dead.
Google has been pretty good at saying you're not creating Java but you're creating their byte code from Java syntax. If I recall (and I may be wrong) because you can't really have an incompatible JVM created from the Java source unless you pay a licence or don't refer to it as a JVM. I don't believe there is anything saying you have to change the syntax or can't refer to it as what it is and that is Java syntax.
It's not really being sold as Google's version of Java. It's their VM which uses the Java language to tell the VM what to do but the byte code is not Java bytecode. So I sort of see it not being the same as the MS case where MS was creating a Java Vm to replace Sun's VM with incompatible features.
Yes, Dalvik is arguably replacing mobile Java but in the same way as Apple creating their own VM and not including Java's VM. Google has always been pretty clear that you're not writing Java. You're using Java syntax to create something else.
To be honest I don't mind Oracle pushing this because I personally believe we'd see Google using Python to replace Java and I'd prefer that.
Do you think they wouldn't do the same to the android marketplace or any other phone's app shop? I belive this would affect all of them otherwise there is no point.
It's election time guys, have your say. This is rediculous.
The idea that they would try this blue me away!
The Library of congress is indexing twitter comments, the internet archive is indexing tons of websites. Google is hardly your only problem. Tons of people are taking interest in logging your online activity for the whole world to see in the future.
If the UI is polished and the underworkings are broken then they're not equal. That's covering shit up with a shiny package. I saw it was just as import not more important.
Apple never claimed to have invented digital music players and in fact the purpose of the iPod was the create a usable nice looking digital music player which is what they did. The iPod wasn't great but compared to the butt ugly Nomad it was awsome.
Apple innovates in design and interfaces and those things are just as important as anything else.
Mobile phone markets are NOT the "freest communication network in the US". Where on earth did you get that idea? First of all, you need some cash to buy out or license certain radio frequencies. Next, radio frequencies are not magical. They can only handle so much traffic. On the other hand, any landline based telecomm can bury cables. There's no physical restriction limiting them, whereas there is for mobile networks.
Anyone can get a licence if they have the money and how much frequency there is doesn't make it any less free. The carriers are free to charge what they want for their services and more or less do what they want with it. These same restrictions and more exist in the UK yet they have better mobile phone service. The size of the US doesn't matter either because your call doesn't travel through the air the whole way from your phone to another country / state. It only travels through the air from you phone to the tower. So it doesn't really matter to me if the US is larger than the UK or not. My signal in PA for example will travel just as far as it will in the UK. Hell if it travelled only in the air it would be nearly impossible to call across the states and calling the other side of the world would be nearly impossible.
When Verizon is bury cables it is for both landlines and cellphones. The only restriction on cellphones is line of sight to the tower and how many people are around. A signal can travel up to 25 miles I believe so rural users don't really need more towers or anything special and again once it hits that tower it becomes a land line call the rest of the way.
If a free market is better than there is no reasaon US prices should be anywhere near the UK prices when the UK is generally more expensive, has more tax and has more regulation. Hell there are poorer countries that have higher mobile phone usage. How is it these poor countries can a manage to give service to and phones to people but it is so expensive to operate in the US?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_mob_pho-media-mobile-phones
I'd personally be embarrassed if I was being beaten by the Czech Republic and Greece. Of course they're both in Europe and companies can't lock customers in so anyone operating there, like any where else in Europe really only have price and better service to compete with and it's not like they're making less money. Companies can afford to advertise using big name Hollywood stars. The A-Team movie featured a big advert in the previews for Orange and their phones featuring the A-Team cast.
I should also point out that the size of the countries do not matter because most companies do not only operate in Greece or the UK. They operate across the Europe and even outside of Europe. In case of T-mobile they're even in the US so they are building big networks too rather than just connecting two houses with sheep farmers.
Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed, but while there's 5 major carriers on the national level, there's local competition in tons of markets (here, it's Cricket). There's also the option of prepaid phones. Really, there is quite a bit of diverse competition, but the reason you aren't seeing much more is for the reasons mentioned above.
You can't use the mobile networks as an example, because it's a severely limited resource. Nice try.
Cricket isn't local, they're national and I just checked. Their prices aren't really better than Verizon and you still don't really get any decent free phones. Then again why should they offer it to you when no other company does and it will keep shareholders happy if they give as little away as possible.
I don't know what world you live in, but if someone wants more customers, they'll try to offer customers a better deal. Either it'll be product quality or price, or both. In a free market, if this isn't done, th
.Net fanboys are having a real circle jerk at the moment but Microsoft would have done the same exact thing. Mono and Android are not the same.
.Net. Android broke compatibility and released something much better than J2ME. You try making Mono superior and incompatible to .Net and see what happens. .Net is not more open.
Mono is striving for compatibility and will forever be behind
Is it true Ballmer's penis tastes like pizza?
Seriously, I can't believe people feel the need to go off to extremes and either champion a totally free market or government control. Need a fine tuned mix of both and whatever we set now won't always work. You can't be lazy it is something that will require vigilance and tweaking over time. Business wants to fuck you over just as much as the government.
But capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a complete free market and a completely free market won't solve consumer's problems. The US mobile phone market hasn't provided consumers with better options in fact it's pretty piss poor and yet it is the freest communication network in the US. Do you honestly think that companies will provide anything different with the internet more so when companies have already tried closed networks like AOL.
The argument is flawed because companies won't compete in any sort of way that benefits consumers. They'll keep prices high and what are you going to do when you only options are company A for $59.99 or company B for $59.99? Of course one will offer you a shitty cheap USB wifi stick and the other one unlimited email addresses which they know you can't possibly use more than 10 and if you try they'll probably bitch.
The whole free market idea is a complete fallacy. If complete government control is bad then how can complete business control be good more so when the same sort of people that run for government run corporations. The ideal situation for consumers is a mix of the two.
He states "This is not the case with net neutrality because right now internet service providers are voluntarily complying with the standards net neutrality advocates seek to codify." but if that is true and they're happy to voluntarily run a neutral network then why does it matter if the government makes it required? They're only doing it because they've had to live with the threat of government intervention so actually they're not doing it voluntarily.
His other examples like 1st class seats are completely irrelevant because you aren't limited to where you can travel if you can't afford 1st class. The cable TV example is just dumb because people don't want to be limited to which websites they can go to. However if companies are given full control they'll make the consumer do that no matter what just like mobile phone companies bend users over.
Perhaps you think consumers want to pay more in the US for an iPhone, for example, compared to the more expensive / higher rate UK.
I think it's pretty obvious that both movies and games don't need high-end graphics if the story / gameplay is there. Awesome visuals are needed just to cover up a piss-poor movie / game or justify the outlay on a super high-end home theatre.
They're not going to give you movies that everyone will buy.
Yes, Slashdot feels a bit old compared to reddit but the quality of the moderating of stories more than makes up for that.
Yet you stick around and comment with your holier-than-thou attitude.
Woah there Ballmer if you don't watch your temper you're be down one more chair.