My first computer was a PC Junior. 128k of RAM, and I'm not sure how fast it went but it would have been 4.77 mhz at the fastest (and probably a little less). I loved that little machine.
Then I learned about the limitations of 16-bit operating systems and memory access. 2 megs were a waste on the system.
Now they can work crushing hours doing horrible manual labor, then come home after their 12 hour shift and read slashdot, where they'll find out that they're poor because they're "lazy". Great that they'll now have a place to listen to spoiled rich kids whine about how the government steals their money and gives it to all those undeserving poor people.
Unless either government regulations occur or ISPs enter a strong mutual agreement over spam restriction, I forecast that in a few years nobody will have open mailboxes. If you want to exchange email with someone, you exchange addresses then configure your mail program to accept them.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln?
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
80 MILLION (US) dollars is a HELL of a lot of money for an online-only publication.
Are you in the publishing business?
The only difference between Salon and a print publication is the lack of a hardcopy edition. They still have to pay for all the other expenses, plus the bandwidth and hardware.
They disguised their dot-comminess by trying to crank out a "product"--but the product was one that people were habitually accustomed to getting for free
Huh? You don't pay for your magazines?
Whatever it's faults Salon published articles of professional quality, well above the quality of something like kuro5hin.org (let's be honest here, I like k5 and there are some interesting articles there, but it's basically a big slushpile).
Too bad people don't judge on actual merits than on imagined hobgoblins. The bad reputation of ARI (which I guess you're making some reference to as ReasonOnline is an objectivist magazine, and ARI being the "official" objectivist organization
Talk about imagined hobgoblins. ARI has nothing to do with Reason. Reason is a libertarian magazine, not an objectivist one.
If Reason was an objectivist publication I would have been even more condescending towards it.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Bush and compatriots are a bunch of crooks who stole the election, then proceeded to run this country into the ground.
But despite the fraud and other stuff, if another 600 or so people had voted for Gore, they would have made it almost impossible for the Republicans to have stole the election.
Losing. Market. Share. Is. An. Indication. Of. A. Company's. Failure.
No, it's not. A company that is making a profit is a success, even if they're losing market share.
What you and a lot of people are forgetting is declining market share doesn't necessarily mean a decline in sales. So you can (and there often have been) companies that a) make a profit, b) increase their sales, yet c) lose market share. These companies are successful.
Profit isn't some magical thing that comes from the profit fairy,
This is exactly what I'm saying. Replace "profit fairy" with market share.
it's produced by doing business. If Apple stops selling stuff, it will go under.
Argh, you've missed the whole point. Repeat after me:
This betrays the same sort of misguided thinking that caused the internet tech crash.
Market. Share. Is. Not. Necessarily. An. Indication. Of. A. Company's. Success.
Why can't people understand this? Why do they keep clinging to notions that have been disproved time and time again, are intuitively wrong, and yet people still believe them?
Apple doesn't have to beat PCs in market share. All they have to do is make a profit. That's it. And they don't even have to make a profit every quarter, as long as their cash reserves are large enough (and they are). They just have to over the long run bring in more money than they spend. It's so simple, why can't these people understand it? Why do they insist that "market share" has something to do with it? Enron had a sizeable market share. So did Worldcom. What they didn't have was profitability.
Am I the only one who watches only to find out what kind of society I live in? And without any real hope of contributing to or affecting the overall state of affairs?
Slashdot Mirror
My first computer was a PC Junior. 128k of RAM, and I'm not sure how fast it went but it would have been 4.77 mhz at the fastest (and probably a little less). I loved that little machine.
Then I learned about the limitations of 16-bit operating systems and memory access. 2 megs were a waste on the system.
It sounded good at least...
they were not needed for the first several years of DOS when people had only 512 kb of ram
Wha? I would have given my right arm for 512kb. Mine had 128k. Next step up had 256k. Geeze, 512k? We'd have been in happyland...
Don't forget the Alpha...
As long as they promise lower taxes a lot of the people on this forum will vote for them.
Now they can work crushing hours doing horrible manual labor, then come home after their 12 hour shift and read slashdot, where they'll find out that they're poor because they're "lazy". Great that they'll now have a place to listen to spoiled rich kids whine about how the government steals their money and gives it to all those undeserving poor people.
Unless either government regulations occur or ISPs enter a strong mutual agreement over spam restriction, I forecast that in a few years nobody will have open mailboxes. If you want to exchange email with someone, you exchange addresses then configure your mail program to accept them.
Transfering a CD's worth of music onto the device would take well over a minute at any decent quality.
Moe: Oh boy, the deep fryers here..I got it used from the Navy--you can flash-fry a buffalo in 40 seconds!
Homer: 40 seconds?! But I want it now!
Well said.
80 MILLION (US) dollars is a HELL of a lot of money for an online-only publication.
Are you in the publishing business?
The only difference between Salon and a print publication is the lack of a hardcopy edition. They still have to pay for all the other expenses, plus the bandwidth and hardware.
They disguised their dot-comminess by trying to crank out a "product"--but the product was one that people were habitually accustomed to getting for free
Huh? You don't pay for your magazines?
Whatever it's faults Salon published articles of professional quality, well above the quality of something like kuro5hin.org (let's be honest here, I like k5 and there are some interesting articles there, but it's basically a big slushpile).
The sad thing is it's working.
Yep, you shouldn't call conservatives stupid. It's incredibly rude to bring attention to their stupidity.
Well, Unreal 2k3 IS an Atari game...
What on earth would you do with the low-level code for a 2600 game? Answer: nothing.
Thank you.
Too bad people don't judge on actual merits than on imagined hobgoblins. The bad reputation of ARI (which I guess you're making some reference to as ReasonOnline is an objectivist magazine, and ARI being the "official" objectivist organization
Talk about imagined hobgoblins. ARI has nothing to do with Reason. Reason is a libertarian magazine, not an objectivist one.
If Reason was an objectivist publication I would have been even more condescending towards it.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Bush and compatriots are a bunch of crooks who stole the election, then proceeded to run this country into the ground.
But despite the fraud and other stuff, if another 600 or so people had voted for Gore, they would have made it almost impossible for the Republicans to have stole the election.
Too bad a magazine with a better reputation than Reason didn't pick this story up.
Losing. Market. Share. Is. An. Indication. Of. A. Company's. Failure.
No, it's not. A company that is making a profit is a success, even if they're losing market share.
What you and a lot of people are forgetting is declining market share doesn't necessarily mean a decline in sales. So you can (and there often have been) companies that a) make a profit, b) increase their sales, yet c) lose market share. These companies are successful.
Profit isn't some magical thing that comes from the profit fairy,
This is exactly what I'm saying. Replace "profit fairy" with market share.
it's produced by doing business. If Apple stops selling stuff, it will go under.
Argh, you've missed the whole point. Repeat after me:
Market share != profitability.
This betrays the same sort of misguided thinking that caused the internet tech crash.
Market. Share. Is. Not. Necessarily. An. Indication. Of. A. Company's. Success.
Why can't people understand this? Why do they keep clinging to notions that have been disproved time and time again, are intuitively wrong, and yet people still believe them?
Apple doesn't have to beat PCs in market share. All they have to do is make a profit. That's it. And they don't even have to make a profit every quarter, as long as their cash reserves are large enough (and they are). They just have to over the long run bring in more money than they spend. It's so simple, why can't these people understand it? Why do they insist that "market share" has something to do with it? Enron had a sizeable market share. So did Worldcom. What they didn't have was profitability.
LotR used a CG actor quite skillfully.
But I agree with you regarding the well-known actors part; better to go with respected actors who aren't well-known to the general public.
In Florida, millions of votes, 500 or so difference. Votes sure counted there.
Actually last time disproved the idea that your vote doesn't count.
Am I the only one who watches only to find out what kind of society I live in? And without any real hope of contributing to or affecting the overall state of affairs?
No. I vote.
You can't send all the president's friends to jail, who will he invite to his barbecues?