Re:Software subscriptions are NOT "good enough"
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
Your understanding of my post is at least as poor;)
For a company that just upgraded their office packet for the last 15 years, it was a software subscription with a big payment upfront. And 75% (or something about that, I don't remember the exact figure anymore) of the money paid for the software was for typically subscriptional services: updates and regular bugfixes. If the company had left out any upgrades, it had lost the discount for the software version after that.
So I was just doubting your statement that software subscriptions are just a new way for software companies (ok, for just one software company) to secure exceptional big profits. It is just the current model with a new label.
Re:Software subscriptions are NOT "good enough"
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
The software update cycle is nothing else than another type of "software subscription". You got "upgrade versions" at a discount, which amounts to a software subscription with a fee for regular updates.
I remember an article here on slashdot, where the author was separating the "service part" (upgrade discounts, bugfixes) and the "actual price of the base version", and he came to the conclusion that most of the price (if I remember correctly about 75%) for Microsoft Office was indeed a upfront payment for future services, e.g. some kind of service fee.
The software subscription as discussed here is the same, only differently packaged, and you don't need to pay upfront.
I believe that if a scientist is not willing to discuss truth, that scientist needs to spend some (more) time studying the philosophy of science.
But what if a scientist just asks: Does it work for me? Can I use it to calculate the possible outcomes of my next experiment? What if a scientist does not care about an abstract concept of Truth, but rather a very real concept of Utility? It might look like an engineer's approach to science, but what is wrong about it?
For an engineer there is no truth, there are just some formulas which within some limits he learns during his curriculum or later during his work which allow him to approach the final outcome. If a formula works for him, there is no reason to ponder about inherent truths.
You didn't read the last part of the article. He states that in the late 19th century dozens of type writer manufacturers existed, often with their own keyboard layout. And there were lots of typewriting competitions, with people competing on different keyboard layouts. At a time some typewriting records were hold by a guy on a non-QWERTY-layout. But in the end people on the QWERTY-layout were winning quite often. And then he stated that keyboard training was not much of an issue until way into the 20th century because there were no school trained typists anyway, so basicly every typist learned to type on the typewriter found at the employer's office, and for some time the typewriter manufacturers even had typing outsourcing services because of the lack of trained typewriters. So most of the arguments for QWERTY lock-in don't look very convincing. There were other layouts, they were competing, it was no problem to switch layouts at any time (typewriter manufacturers even had re-layout-services for US$5 at the time), retraining was not an issue at all. And US-made (and thus QWERTY-layouted) type writers weren't used very often overseas and in countries with other languages as english, and still they settled in the end to a layout, that only had minimal differences to the QWERTY layout, adapted to the local needs. So it's quite possible that indeed a layout pretty close to the most efficient layout won out in the competition.
It has its advantages. If the server is completely hosed up (or taken over by a foreign force), you can remotely rebuilt it by 1.) reinstall it from the CD still in the CD drive and then 2.) reload a backup of the configuration files.
Second. Some argue about the degradation/deterioration of the family in a nation being correlated to its demise (e.g., Rome's "family values" got pretty bad, especially as it applied to mistresses/prostitutes/marriage/kids).
Which is contradicted by the actual history. The Roman Empire was about to climb to the height of its power when people complained about the demise of family values and raising decadency. It was coming to an end (at least in its western part), when homosexuality was considered a crime.
For most of the time the Romans were correct. Their Empire was about to fall and rose again and again by reinventing itself. And even the end of the West Roman part of the Empire wasn't the end of it all, the Eastern part was alive and kicking for another millenium.
That's why you should go to a lawyer from a Verbraucherzentrale (Consumer protection agency). And the Verbraucherzentralen in Germany have lots of experience with the different types of scam going around, and how to get out of them.
- It puts in place an infrastructure to block off access to anything. The filters don't care if the list feed to them is child porn or bomb receipts or the political program of the opposition to the government.
- You can avoid stealth censorship under the flag of filtering child porn if you publish the list regularly for scrutinity. But then all people actually interested in child porn will know where to look. That's one of the reasons why any filter list which was used for a longer time was considered secret and not to be published. So this means the filter list will be a secret then.
- It doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. If you block the public access to child porn, it doesn't go away, it just is more harder to find. And the people creating it and putting it online are harder to find too.
- People who look at pictures of children to masturbate don't stalk real children to get sexually aroused. And they don't feel an urge to kill the child to cover their tracks.
You should give him at least the chance and read what he was writing. In Germany, there is a saying: "Eines Mannes Rede ist keines Mannes Rede, man muss sie hoeren alle beede" (One man's word is none man's word, you have to listen to both). If the story of death threats he got is only half true, there would have to be much begging for excusion by some people.
You bet in favor of large, unpredictable events, and lose a little money every day that they don't happen, but rake in huge sums when prices shift dramatically.
You just found out why some people think, doping in sport should be forbidden. And in the same moment you found out why other people (with a non empty intersection to the aforementioned) think, banning drugs makes no sense.
That will require honing the technology to make it more certain that only people within specific networks and groups could see, say, a breast-feeding photo, while keeping children from seeing nudity.
But that's exactly what is wrong with that policy! Every child who got breast-feed has already seen nudity as defined by "bare breasts (et.al.)" (except the breast-feeding mother was covering the eyes of the toddler during the meals;) ).
The term "nudity" itself or at least its negative connotation is wrong.
... also known (in a simplified form) as "Zipf's Law". The most popular word occurs twice as often as the second popular, three times the third popular, four times the fourth etc.pp.
If you look at the 10% most popular words in a table, you will notice that the absolute share of the upper 10% increases, if you count longer and longer texts with more and more individual words.
With 10 different words you get, that the first 10% make up ~34% of all words.
With 100 different words you get already ~56,5% share for the first 10% of words.
With 1000 words we have 69,2% share for the first 10%, with 10000 we come to ~76,5% share.
Slashdot Mirror
Your understanding of my post is at least as poor ;)
For a company that just upgraded their office packet for the last 15 years, it was a software subscription with a big payment upfront. And 75% (or something about that, I don't remember the exact figure anymore) of the money paid for the software was for typically subscriptional services: updates and regular bugfixes. If the company had left out any upgrades, it had lost the discount for the software version after that.
So I was just doubting your statement that software subscriptions are just a new way for software companies (ok, for just one software company) to secure exceptional big profits. It is just the current model with a new label.
The software update cycle is nothing else than another type of "software subscription". You got "upgrade versions" at a discount, which amounts to a software subscription with a fee for regular updates.
I remember an article here on slashdot, where the author was separating the "service part" (upgrade discounts, bugfixes) and the "actual price of the base version", and he came to the conclusion that most of the price (if I remember correctly about 75%) for Microsoft Office was indeed a upfront payment for future services, e.g. some kind of service fee.
The software subscription as discussed here is the same, only differently packaged, and you don't need to pay upfront.
But in the uncool market the Zune has to compete with Creative, iRiver and all those companies, that actually know how to make an MP3 player.
So because a product has more features than you'll use it sucks?
If those additional features get in your way it does suck.
I believe that if a scientist is not willing to discuss truth, that scientist needs to spend some (more) time studying the philosophy of science.
But what if a scientist just asks: Does it work for me? Can I use it to calculate the possible outcomes of my next experiment?
What if a scientist does not care about an abstract concept of Truth, but rather a very real concept of Utility? It might look like an engineer's approach to science, but what is wrong about it?
For an engineer there is no truth, there are just some formulas which within some limits he learns during his curriculum or later during his work which allow him to approach the final outcome. If a formula works for him, there is no reason to ponder about inherent truths.
You didn't read the last part of the article. He states that in the late 19th century dozens of type writer manufacturers existed, often with their own keyboard layout. And there were lots of typewriting competitions, with people competing on different keyboard layouts. At a time some typewriting records were hold by a guy on a non-QWERTY-layout. But in the end people on the QWERTY-layout were winning quite often.
And then he stated that keyboard training was not much of an issue until way into the 20th century because there were no school trained typists anyway, so basicly every typist learned to type on the typewriter found at the employer's office, and for some time the typewriter manufacturers even had typing outsourcing services because of the lack of trained typewriters.
So most of the arguments for QWERTY lock-in don't look very convincing. There were other layouts, they were competing, it was no problem to switch layouts at any time (typewriter manufacturers even had re-layout-services for US$5 at the time), retraining was not an issue at all.
And US-made (and thus QWERTY-layouted) type writers weren't used very often overseas and in countries with other languages as english, and still they settled in the end to a layout, that only had minimal differences to the QWERTY layout, adapted to the local needs.
So it's quite possible that indeed a layout pretty close to the most efficient layout won out in the competition.
But Italy is called Italia in Italy ;)
It has its advantages. If the server is completely hosed up (or taken over by a foreign force), you can remotely rebuilt it by 1.) reinstall it from the CD still in the CD drive and then 2.) reload a backup of the configuration files.
In a "civil union" nation I can marry a mug of water if I feel like it--and nobody can legally claim that they're "married".
If you get the mug to sign the papers, it would be possible, yes.
It's pretty easy. Dogs can not consent into a contract.
Second. Some argue about the degradation/deterioration of the family in a nation being correlated to its demise (e.g., Rome's "family values" got pretty bad, especially as it applied to mistresses/prostitutes/marriage/kids).
Which is contradicted by the actual history. The Roman Empire was about to climb to the height of its power when people complained about the demise of family values and raising decadency. It was coming to an end (at least in its western part), when homosexuality was considered a crime.
Yes, because traditional marriage was about inheritance of the family wealth. With no offspring, there was no reason to ponder about inheritance.
For most of the time the Romans were correct. Their Empire was about to fall and rose again and again by reinventing itself. And even the end of the West Roman part of the Empire wasn't the end of it all, the Eastern part was alive and kicking for another millenium.
Yes, homosexuality was forbidden in the late Roman Empire. They were growing and expanding while homosexuality was considered normal and morally ok.
If the letter arrives after more than two weeks, the two week "return for a refund" period as stated in the German consumer protection laws is over.
That's why you should go to a lawyer from a Verbraucherzentrale (Consumer protection agency). And the Verbraucherzentralen in Germany have lots of experience with the different types of scam going around, and how to get out of them.
- It puts in place an infrastructure to block off access to anything. The filters don't care if the list feed to them is child porn or bomb receipts or the political program of the opposition to the government.
- You can avoid stealth censorship under the flag of filtering child porn if you publish the list regularly for scrutinity. But then all people actually interested in child porn will know where to look. That's one of the reasons why any filter list which was used for a longer time was considered secret and not to be published. So this means the filter list will be a secret then.
- It doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. If you block the public access to child porn, it doesn't go away, it just is more harder to find. And the people creating it and putting it online are harder to find too.
- People who look at pictures of children to masturbate don't stalk real children to get sexually aroused. And they don't feel an urge to kill the child to cover their tracks.
You should give him at least the chance and read what he was writing. In Germany, there is a saying: "Eines Mannes Rede ist keines Mannes Rede, man muss sie hoeren alle beede" (One man's word is none man's word, you have to listen to both).
If the story of death threats he got is only half true, there would have to be much begging for excusion by some people.
You bet in favor of large, unpredictable events, and lose a little money every day that they don't happen, but rake in huge sums when prices shift dramatically.
That's called "buying insurance".
You just found out why some people think, doping in sport should be forbidden. And in the same moment you found out why other people (with a non empty intersection to the aforementioned) think, banning drugs makes no sense.
And keep a stove with a battery pack nearby to warm the milk to 37 degree Celsius.
No, everywhere and at everytime you are able to prepare 37ÂC warm food with exactly the nutritional ingredients a newborn needs.
And those chemicals are exactly those that also create the bonding during the sexual intercourse.
From a hormonal point of view breast-feeding and sexual intercourse are pretty similar.
That will require honing the technology to make it more certain that only people within specific networks and groups could see, say, a breast-feeding photo, while keeping children from seeing nudity.
But that's exactly what is wrong with that policy! Every child who got breast-feed has already seen nudity as defined by "bare breasts (et.al.)" (except the breast-feeding mother was covering the eyes of the toddler during the meals ;) ).
The term "nudity" itself or at least its negative connotation is wrong.
... also known (in a simplified form) as "Zipf's Law". The most popular word occurs twice as often as the second popular, three times the third popular, four times the fourth etc.pp.
If you look at the 10% most popular words in a table, you will notice that the absolute share of the upper 10% increases, if you count longer and longer texts with more and more individual words.
With 10 different words you get, that the first 10% make up ~34% of all words.
With 100 different words you get already ~56,5% share for the first 10% of words.
With 1000 words we have 69,2% share for the first 10%, with 10000 we come to ~76,5% share.