Very good point! It's also worth bearing in mind how resource-hungry windows is. Which do manufacturers want their customers using: Something that users really want a higher-end machine to run, or something that'll run comfortably on the cheapest machine they stock?
They could've justified it to shareholders the same way they justified the "We've decided to make our systems as incompatible with everything else as possible" conversation.
They could write and release drivers that let them access Linux and Mac file systems, for example, or to have released proper specs for the NTFS system. They didn't though, on the grounds that it'd make moving away from their domination more likely.
In-fact, they don't need to justify letting people steal as much as they'd need to justify spending on anti-piracy measures. Show them a graph showing how much has been spent on WGA versus how little profit it made them. Follow that up with a comment like "it's notable that as we spend more on these measures, a number of users will be moving to free alternatives such-as Linux, weakening our overall market dominance" and you have the shareholders on your side.
Oh yes, driving away the freeloaders is a big risk for M$. How many illegal copies of windows XP do you think there are in the world? Now imagine if they all ran Linux instead.
I saw a report recently that said the percentage of PCs with Linux pre-installed was 28 times what it was when vista first shipped. The actual 28 times figure is unimportant, it's more like 14 or 9 times if you look at the months before vista's release, but the actual market share is the important part. That's up to 2.8%, which is comparable to Apple's share.
What does that mean? Apple's share may not be big, but it's big enough to draw developers like Adobe. When you consider the potential that many of the machines with XP/Vista pre-installed will have been dual-booted to Linux, I'd expect the percentage of new computers with Linux to beat the percentage of new Macs hands-down.
There are still a lot of computers out there from past years, however, mostly running Windows XP. They'll probably be jumping to either Vista or Linux and, however much WGA they throw at the situation, they can't afford for them to jump to Linux even if it means making Vista easier to pirate, like by removing the reduced-functionality "kill switch" as they did in SP1.
My theory: This isn't actually an effort to get more people buying windows directly, but to maintain market dominance. M$ are squeezing the illegal XP 'market', trying to get them to use illegal Vista instead.
This is merely the first step, they'll eventually add checks for the most common cracks, followed by kill switches. This comes after service pack 1 removed the kill switch from Vista, making it less risky to pirate.
Whilst this might see a few people jumping ship to Linux or something, I'm guessing M$ decided the risks of losing a few freeloaers outweighed the importance of removing the XP-shaped-thorn from their side.
Get everyone doin' the downgrade, that way people will be used to it for when windows 7 comes out. M$ have learnt their lesson, and won't be creating any more good operating systems any time soon. It's less profitable!
Personally, I find it likely that there was some form of information that the press found/were given saying that the building had collapsed, but don't think it need have been part of any conspiracy.
Here's another report, probably made at about the same time, in which another reporter states that building 7 was going to collapse, had collapsed, or was collapsing. Again, building 7 is clearly visible in the background.
Both of them seem incredibly unclear on the facts. The BBC said that details were sketchy, and the CNN reporter giving 3 possible statuses for the building. From this, I think it's likely that they got similar sketchy info and both decided to report it. The BBC mistakenly reported a collapse instead of reporting that they actually weren't sure. I mean, they'd had 3-4 reports of collapses already.
I put it to you: Would they have said that details were sketchy if they had an actual press release? Do you think they had people at the police cordon asking questions and hoping to overhear information? If they heard someone say that the building came down, don't you think they'd report it? Before that, any info on the ground is likely to have come by word of mouth, and is subject to being misheard and re-phrased several times. "It's gonna collapse" turns into "it's collapsing" which a few minutes later surely would mean that it had collapsed already.
By the way, those of you who fantasize about your wife or girlfriend in a schoolgirl outfit are also pervs:)
Well, that depends on if their girlfriend actually is a schoolgirl. If they are, I'd say 'perv' was a bit light.
You're also forgetting the possibility of people on here fantasizing about their husband or boyfriend in a schoolgirl outfit. I'd label them 'weird pervs'.
This technology is great, but I wonder if they'll actually ever reach the pinnacle of this kind of technology.
What do I mean by this? I mean using multiple photos to form 3d models of the subject, then going back over all of the data using a super resolution [wikipedia] system, thus creating a resulting set of images containing more detail than any individually contributing image.
It's what the human brain does all the time! Then-again, human brains can do all sorts of stuff that we're probably not gonna see computers doing any time soon, like thinking, and loving...
Whilst I like the whole story involving Oscar Pistorius, the 'Blade Runner', I wouldn't put him in a race with normal competitors. Normal competitors wouldn't be allowed large sprung contraptions on their feet, and allowing someone with a disability to use them on the grounds that they're at a disadvantage to start off with... It opens-up a whole new can of worms.
I mean, why not allow an able-bodied person to use something similar on the grounds that they're not a very good athlete?
Well, if this is edible, then the natural way to combine it with geeks is to infuse it with caffeine. I can see the advert now.
Lan party going on too long? Need that extra hit of caffiene? Out of energy drinks, and even caffeinated mints? Now, you can get that kick you need, by eating your own shirt!
Some geeks have needed biochemically active clothing for a while though. Not for eating, but to tell them when they're 'done' and it's time to change. I doubt it would sell as well, but if you figured-out some way to hook it up to a power source and make it wash itself: You've got a best-seller.
Slashdot Mirror
Very good point! It's also worth bearing in mind how resource-hungry windows is. Which do manufacturers want their customers using: Something that users really want a higher-end machine to run, or something that'll run comfortably on the cheapest machine they stock?
No, but they're working on something similar.
They could've justified it to shareholders the same way they justified the "We've decided to make our systems as incompatible with everything else as possible" conversation.
They could write and release drivers that let them access Linux and Mac file systems, for example, or to have released proper specs for the NTFS system. They didn't though, on the grounds that it'd make moving away from their domination more likely.
In-fact, they don't need to justify letting people steal as much as they'd need to justify spending on anti-piracy measures. Show them a graph showing how much has been spent on WGA versus how little profit it made them. Follow that up with a comment like "it's notable that as we spend more on these measures, a number of users will be moving to free alternatives such-as Linux, weakening our overall market dominance" and you have the shareholders on your side.
Oh yes, driving away the freeloaders is a big risk for M$. How many illegal copies of windows XP do you think there are in the world? Now imagine if they all ran Linux instead.
I saw a report recently that said the percentage of PCs with Linux pre-installed was 28 times what it was when vista first shipped. The actual 28 times figure is unimportant, it's more like 14 or 9 times if you look at the months before vista's release, but the actual market share is the important part. That's up to 2.8%, which is comparable to Apple's share.
What does that mean? Apple's share may not be big, but it's big enough to draw developers like Adobe. When you consider the potential that many of the machines with XP/Vista pre-installed will have been dual-booted to Linux, I'd expect the percentage of new computers with Linux to beat the percentage of new Macs hands-down.
There are still a lot of computers out there from past years, however, mostly running Windows XP. They'll probably be jumping to either Vista or Linux and, however much WGA they throw at the situation, they can't afford for them to jump to Linux even if it means making Vista easier to pirate, like by removing the reduced-functionality "kill switch" as they did in SP1.
My theory: This isn't actually an effort to get more people buying windows directly, but to maintain market dominance. M$ are squeezing the illegal XP 'market', trying to get them to use illegal Vista instead.
This is merely the first step, they'll eventually add checks for the most common cracks, followed by kill switches. This comes after service pack 1 removed the kill switch from Vista, making it less risky to pirate.
Whilst this might see a few people jumping ship to Linux or something, I'm guessing M$ decided the risks of losing a few freeloaers outweighed the importance of removing the XP-shaped-thorn from their side.
Get everyone doin' the downgrade, that way people will be used to it for when windows 7 comes out. M$ have learnt their lesson, and won't be creating any more good operating systems any time soon. It's less profitable!
Yeah, "Large Hardon Collider" is probably something completely different... Sounds more like a gay porno, with no anal.
... unless you pay micro$oft some money.
Personally, I find it likely that there was some form of information that the press found/were given saying that the building had collapsed, but don't think it need have been part of any conspiracy.
Here's another report, probably made at about the same time, in which another reporter states that building 7 was going to collapse, had collapsed, or was collapsing. Again, building 7 is clearly visible in the background.
Both of them seem incredibly unclear on the facts. The BBC said that details were sketchy, and the CNN reporter giving 3 possible statuses for the building. From this, I think it's likely that they got similar sketchy info and both decided to report it. The BBC mistakenly reported a collapse instead of reporting that they actually weren't sure. I mean, they'd had 3-4 reports of collapses already.
I put it to you: Would they have said that details were sketchy if they had an actual press release? Do you think they had people at the police cordon asking questions and hoping to overhear information? If they heard someone say that the building came down, don't you think they'd report it? Before that, any info on the ground is likely to have come by word of mouth, and is subject to being misheard and re-phrased several times. "It's gonna collapse" turns into "it's collapsing" which a few minutes later surely would mean that it had collapsed already.
By the way, those of you who fantasize about your wife or girlfriend in a schoolgirl outfit are also pervs :)
Well, that depends on if their girlfriend actually is a schoolgirl. If they are, I'd say 'perv' was a bit light.
You're also forgetting the possibility of people on here fantasizing about their husband or boyfriend in a schoolgirl outfit. I'd label them 'weird pervs'.
This technology is great, but I wonder if they'll actually ever reach the pinnacle of this kind of technology.
What do I mean by this? I mean using multiple photos to form 3d models of the subject, then going back over all of the data using a super resolution [wikipedia] system, thus creating a resulting set of images containing more detail than any individually contributing image.
It's what the human brain does all the time! Then-again, human brains can do all sorts of stuff that we're probably not gonna see computers doing any time soon, like thinking, and loving...
Soon, my Commodore 64, soon...
Whilst I like the whole story involving Oscar Pistorius, the 'Blade Runner', I wouldn't put him in a race with normal competitors. Normal competitors wouldn't be allowed large sprung contraptions on their feet, and allowing someone with a disability to use them on the grounds that they're at a disadvantage to start off with... It opens-up a whole new can of worms.
I mean, why not allow an able-bodied person to use something similar on the grounds that they're not a very good athlete?
Well, if this is edible, then the natural way to combine it with geeks is to infuse it with caffeine. I can see the advert now. Lan party going on too long? Need that extra hit of caffiene? Out of energy drinks, and even caffeinated mints? Now, you can get that kick you need, by eating your own shirt! Some geeks have needed biochemically active clothing for a while though. Not for eating, but to tell them when they're 'done' and it's time to change. I doubt it would sell as well, but if you figured-out some way to hook it up to a power source and make it wash itself: You've got a best-seller.