Because the fact that the West (including Israel) has nuclear weapons, while other don't, is an enormous strategic advantage. As long as you identify with the Western civilization, non-proliferation it is a good thing, otherwise it obviously is not.
I guess the point of my post is that you really do come off as an elitist asshole, and just because you might be better off than many others out there, does not at all make you a better person.
Being worse off most definitely does not make you a better person. Also, except for your illness, having 4-5 hours of free time daily would suggest that you deserve being worse off.
Yes it is. You are still able to buy the full functioning product for the full price. Additionally, you are not able to save money by buying a reduced spec product.
So double development costs, quadruple test and support costs, degrade experience for 95% of users—all to get additional 5% of the market? This does not look like a sound business plan to me.
I study computer science, and of my friends one runs Linux, maybe five run Macintosh OS and the rest—many scores—run Windows. I think it is much closer to 1% than 2%. And this is in Europe. How's that for anecdotal evidence?
it seems safe to assume he has gotten rich, which means Republican
It is Democratic that is now that party of the rich and of the lumpenproletariat, while the Republican Party is the party of the proles and the middle class.
A number of earlier potential buyers valued Miramax at only $550 million to $600 million, so the $660 million value is seen as top of the market. Investor Ron Burkle, working with brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who first created Miramax and built it into a force in film, earlier this year lost out on Miramax when a bid of $565 million was rejected by Disney, which had indicated that it wanted $700 million.
Um, maybe try to compete on salaries then? Anyways, there will always be frictional unemployment, since demand changes, businesses fail, people move, etc.
So what you're saying is that you want to pay your hard earned money for a PC that the developers will actively seek to prevent you from gaining root access on, who's apps can only come from one place
Who needs virtual desktops when you can have multiple monitors? Too bad linux does not support them out of box (i.e., without tricking with command prompt)
You can pay a person to spend five minutes making a hamburger for you/paint a picture of you, or you can pay him to lay a brick for a new factory/learn new method of production. Which one results in better economy?
Slashdot Mirror
...while making a billion people more productive. Go figure!
This was the most stupid thing I ever read on this site.
I wonder if F$F zealots will ever realize that software is just an instrument.
With a million years to continue mining I would look for more pressing issues than space fantasies.
Good summary. Net neutrality is a solution to a hypothetical problem that won't affect the majority of us.
In other words, in case you don't use Youtube or Facebook, you get to pay less for your Internet access. How is this bad?
Even on Slashdot, not everyone thinks "net neutrality" is a good thing.
And why would these companies care, when users themselves don't?
Your facts are racist!
It is no surprise you don't own one. Natural selection I guess.
I suppose copyright infringement is a civil matter, so who other than businesses should police it?
Is forcing own ethics on others ethical? I for one judge technology on basis of merit, not ideology.
Maybe that makes me a good person, and it probably makes your philosophical conclusion less valid and your movement less worthy.
Because the fact that the West (including Israel) has nuclear weapons, while other don't, is an enormous strategic advantage. As long as you identify with the Western civilization, non-proliferation it is a good thing, otherwise it obviously is not.
I guess the point of my post is that you really do come off as an elitist asshole, and just because you might be better off than many others out there, does not at all make you a better person.
Being worse off most definitely does not make you a better person. Also, except for your illness, having 4-5 hours of free time daily would suggest that you deserve being worse off.
Yes it is. You are still able to buy the full functioning product for the full price. Additionally, you are not able to save money by buying a reduced spec product.
So double development costs, quadruple test and support costs, degrade experience for 95% of users—all to get additional 5% of the market? This does not look like a sound business plan to me.
I study computer science, and of my friends one runs Linux, maybe five run Macintosh OS and the rest—many scores—run Windows. I think it is much closer to 1% than 2%. And this is in Europe. How's that for anecdotal evidence?
it seems safe to assume he has gotten rich, which means Republican
It is Democratic that is now that party of the rich and of the lumpenproletariat, while the Republican Party is the party of the proles and the middle class.
It's making as much money as ever.
It is not.
A number of earlier potential buyers valued Miramax at only $550 million to $600 million, so the $660 million value is seen as top of the market. Investor Ron Burkle, working with brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who first created Miramax and built it into a force in film, earlier this year lost out on Miramax when a bid of $565 million was rejected by Disney, which had indicated that it wanted $700 million.
Source: http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-hollywood-economics-folly-of-world.html
As the author of the blog post concludes, this amounts to under a million per movie and $7 million per TV season.
These days the criterion for a scientific theory is whether it makes one feel good.
Any lower and it becomes too hard to find people.
Um, maybe try to compete on salaries then? Anyways, there will always be frictional unemployment, since demand changes, businesses fail, people move, etc.
So what you're saying is that you want to pay your hard earned money for a PC that the developers will actively seek to prevent you from gaining root access on, who's apps can only come from one place
Yes.
De-facto standard, maybe?
Who needs virtual desktops when you can have multiple monitors? Too bad linux does not support them out of box (i.e., without tricking with command prompt)
You can pay a person to spend five minutes making a hamburger for you/paint a picture of you, or you can pay him to lay a brick for a new factory/learn new method of production. Which one results in better economy?