All he did was pass on information that was passed on to him from an insider in violation of that person's contract. You can hardly call what he did "prediction." Really he just passed on information that somebody else had given him. No educated analysis required.
Not only that, but Apple probably wouldn't be giving him such a hard time if he'd tell them who leaked the information to him.
This is nothing to fret about.... US of A is just a pretty big country to have anything decent in terms of % numbers.
Since when does something being hard give you an excuse to do a crappy job at it?
Plus, as others have pointed out in this thread, they percentage of Americans how live in Urban areas is about the same as that of Canada, yet the Canadians managed the #3 spot... Not only that, but in Seoul, people have tens of megabits of throughut. I don't know about you, but I live in a fairly urban part of the US, and I'm stuck with the same 768k upstream I had back in '96. It costs me $100 too. It's time we start asking the companies that we give publically granted monopolies to why they should be allowed to have such insane profit margins when they're not keeping us on the cutting edge of technology. They have the funds to build with, and they have that money because we give it to them. Either they should choose to do something with the monopolies the public has so gratiously granted them, or we should take them away and give them to companies that will.
Re:The submitter used the term gloat.
on
State of the Xbox
·
· Score: 1
Right, cause Sony is this tiny little company with victim written all over them.
Remember Netware? 1-2-3? Microsoft is capable of taking out industry leading players. They've done it before... You just won't see any brilliant open source developers building billion dollar chip fabs to pressure Microsoft in to further hardware innovation once they own the console market.
I'm not saying we should all be Sony or Nintendo fanboys because otherwise they'll be crushed by the evil empire. I'm just saying you shouldn't ignore the possiblilty when deciding that Microsoft is suddenly wonderful for making the Xbox.
But on the gamecube you can get 64MB cards for under $20.... It's not like Nintendo is milking their customers for money on memory cards, so why did they go through all the trouble?
Re:The submitter used the term gloat.
on
State of the Xbox
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why shouldn't people take outside opinions of Microsoft into account when judging the Xbox? What evidence do you have that they won't do the same thing in the video game console market that they've done in every other market they've become the leaders in if they manage to crush the competition? Do you look forward to a world where the Xbox 4 is essentially the last console that exists, because the Xbox 5, 6, anc 7 will just be the same thing in fancier colors and there isn't anybody else out there pushing the state of the art? Microsoft's stuff is always groundbreaking and exciting when they're playing catch up. It's the aftermath you should fear.
So instead of having some widely used removable flash memory format as a memory card or a large high speed (flash is slow compared to HDDs), high capacity cache space, they're going to build some flash memory in - essentially a soldered on memory card - and that's better? What next, are they going to put a little lithium button battery on the board and only allow three saves per console? Sounds like we're moving backwards here.
Whey the hell hasn't any of these companies used CF or SD or, hell, MemoryStick as a memory card format and stopped this silly crap?
Music CD-Rs work just fine in regular $20 CD-R drives, and tons of consumers are stupid enough to think you *need* the music ones if you want to burn music.
So is that a "rule" you think should be tied to all close elections or is it just in this case?
Well, I think it's a rule they should apply to all elections that are so close that a rerun is held, yes. I mean, if you're going to spend all that money to do it over again, shouldn't you do something to actually try to solve the problem you're claiming to want to solve?
Arguments about when there should be a rerun are another story. I'm not a big fan of re-running elections unless there is evidence of fraud. From what I've heard, fraud wasn't a signifigant issue in this particular election, so they shouldn't go changing any rules, they should just take the outcome as the law requires.
I'm going to quote you out of order here. Appologies in advance:
you don't say what "way" you feel I interpret your statements
You're right, I only implied, since I figured you knew. When you say: "You can't make up a rule when it suits you [...] and then say that it should only apply when it is to your liking." it seems to me that you're interpreting what I said to mean that I really do only want the rule to apply when it is to my liking.
But "predisposition" refers to an inclination beforehand to interpret statements in a particular way.
Yup, that's what it means, and that's what I meant. When you read my comment, you were inclined through some personal predisposition to believe that I wouldn't have suggested what I did had I agreed with the outcome of the election. I know this is true because I gave no indication that I cared one way or another about the matter, yet you accused me of wanting to make up rules only when they suit me. The truth of the matter is that I don't really have any personal stake in this particular election. I don't live in or anywhere near Washington state. So, if not for a predisposition to interpret what I have said a particular way, how could you have come to that conclusion about what I think?
If I had to speculate, I'd guess that you support the results of the third recount in Washington, and that fierce political debate in that area has caused you to react to comments about the subject emotionally instead objectively. Since my suggestion would have put your long awaited positive outcome into question you probably assumed without even thinking about it that I was arguing for the other side... But then that's just speculation.
At 10k/year school better be something weather I make it or not.
What kind of attitude is that? Schools have an admissions process to keep people with that kind of attitude out so you won't be wasting your money or their time.
All of the information your school has is available for far less money
That's true.
On the other hand, a lot of the information you get in school comes from experience and from the experiences of the people you work with and are taught by. Sure you can get all that knowledge on your own, but almost certainly not as quickly, and you'd have to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
Anybody who is worth their salt can guide themselves just as well as a professor with 200+ students to deal with.
Here's your biggest inaccuracy. First of all in the later years of a college education you should have smaller scale relationships with certain professors (typically project/paper advisors or your thesis review committee). Secondly, you may be able to guide yourself, but not "just as well" as somebody who already has experience learning the lessons you're trying to teach yourself. In the right environment you should be able to avoid the rat holes that can slow down your learning process because somebody with experience is looking over your shoulder just enough to keep you on the right path.
Yes. I assumed that they were logical, self-consistent, and rational. My bad.
No, what you assumed is that I suggested something be done, but only when the outcome would suit me. I was logical and self-consistent. You just have poor reading comprehension and a predisposition to my opinions; at least, that's the only rational explination for why you'd think otherwise given the text of this thread thus far.
Sprint doesn't want the Treo 650 to have the WiFi features since they want you to subscribe to the $15/mo Vision (CDMA 1xRTT) service. It might cost more per month for PDA phones.
But they make you pay for that when you have a Treo 650 anyway. It's not like you could use this to get around paying Sprint $15 a month.
The "network is the computer" was a false start because the bandwidth was not there.
The bandwidth was there on corporate networks, yet the decentrailazation of corporate computing happened anyway.
The fact of the matter is that companies will never trust their business critical processes to an application service provider. That's why the major ASPs failed in the '90s even while corporations *did* have the bandwidth to use their services. This means that it's never going to take of in the consumer market because the business market is where the money is. Consumer software is the drippings of the business computing market with some eye candy added. If the base technology can't catch on in the corporate world, it will never end up on the home desktop.
Lots of really smart people have made the prediction you are making many times in the past and have been wrong, not because they didn't have a solid technical vision, but because they forgot the MBAs rule the world, not the engineers.
Because if the idea is sound, then it should have applied to the Bush/Gore Presidential race, too.
They didn't re-run the 2000 presidential election. If they did, like they're merely considering here, perhaps it would have been a good idea.
You can't make up a rule when it suits you (e.g., if neither candidate has a substantial majority, have a new race with new candidates) and then say that it should only apply when it is to your liking.
You're assuming an awful lot about my opinions there, aren't you?
The parent to your reply had a point. Since the situation wasn't similar, and you brought up an emotionally heated but unrelated event, you were in fact trolling.
The problem is that the difference between a trojan and legit adware is that legit adware is backed by a company that can sue an anti-virus company. The two can be identical in every other way.
Maybe one day your endgame will come, but I think it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.
I think it's going to get better because it gets a lot worse. We're just waiting for the straw that breaks the average consumer's back. Remember that the average user isn't running into the kinds of restrictions more technical users are dealing with at this point, and they also don't keep up with what's coming out in the future. As soon as something that is sufficiently obnoxious restricts the average user change will come rapidly.
The RIAA/MPAA are dinosaur organizations who don't realize the meteor has already struck and they are soon to die. So they go around frantically foraging all the food they can while the doomsday clouds loom above. Information and content is cheap. Dirt cheap.
It's worse than you say. The RIAA and MPAA are cartels of content distributors. Sure, they may finance the production of some content and play favorites with the content they've got their fingers in, but they were built to distruibute content because in the past that was hard part for the people who made music and movies. Now, you don't need trucks, newspaper ads and shelfspace to distribute anymore. Distrubution is cheap and easy. There is no reason to pay them for it anymore. The message shouldn't be "adapt" it should be "go away". It's worse for the RIAA than the MPAA because arguably you still need the MPAA around to deliver huge spools of film to theaters, but that will change soon, and when it does you'll start to see movies get funded by people outside the film distribution industry just like you're currently seeing a new explosion of independant music with financially successful musicians. As the creators of the content (think directors, producers, actors, writers) see that they aren't dependant on the cartel anymore they'll realize they can make more money and gain greater artistic independance if they cut them out of the loop. The noose will close from both ends. The only way the traditional distribution cartels will continue to exist is if our governments grant them guaranteed profits through legislation, and even that can't last forever. This is the end game.
till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and...
And roads...
In Connecticut about 40 years ago, before the I-84 and I-91 interchange in downtown Hartford, the state used eminent domain to take a strip of land that stretched from New Britain to West Hartford then south to Wethersfield (about 20 miles through densely populated citys) to build a road. They built most of the road, but it was never opened because it ran close to a neighborhood who's residents managed to win a lawsuit claiming the traffic would cause air polution that would make their neighborhood unliveable. The land and completed road sat growing weeds until a few years ago when they converted a section of it into the state Rte. 9 extension. In that case they used eminent doman to take land from hundreds of people for pretty much no good reason at all. In many cases this was in the form of just taking people's back yards and leaving them with a house on almost no land that faced an abandoned roadway. Nice, huh?
And the reference to the razor model wasn't to suggest that games are disposable, just they're something you need to keep buying in order to keep the product "usable"
Yes, I know that's what you're saying, and I'm saying you're wrong.
You don't have to keep buying games to keep the console useable. Plenty of people are happy with their two or three EA sports titles for the life of the console. Plus, since games aren't disposable there's a used game market, a rental market, etc... There are plenty of ways to keep your gaming experience fresh without giving your console manufacturer any more money.
If you still have doubts though... These are all publically traded companies. Only Microsoft hides their Xbox figures behind a bigger division. You can go see for yourself that they pull a profit on the hardware. After the death of Sega, anybody that doesn't have a few billion in the bank would be foolish not to.
Says the business model of every single video game console ever.
Again, says who?
You're right about the Xbox, but you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of this for any other machine. Nintendo even claims they've made a profit or broken even on every system they've ever sold.
Because if you cut out the money they get from people buying games, the "Gillette Razor Model" doesn't quite work, now does it?
That model doesn't fit anyway. Games aren't disposable. Everybody but Microsoft understands that.
Nintendo too... I went to three gamestops on Christmas Eve (looking for Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance for GameCube) and every one of them had at least two DSs in stock. They were sold out of PS2s and Xboxes. Even used ones.
I wish people would just chill out and see what happens rather than turning on their obnoxious inner fanboy and going to bat for some company that doesn't give two shits about anything but their wallet (Or their parent's wallet as seems more likely to be the case). These silly flame wars certainly aren't going to sway any opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
All he did was pass on information that was passed on to him from an insider in violation of that person's contract. You can hardly call what he did "prediction." Really he just passed on information that somebody else had given him. No educated analysis required.
Not only that, but Apple probably wouldn't be giving him such a hard time if he'd tell them who leaked the information to him.
This is nothing to fret about. ... US of A is just a pretty big country to have anything decent in terms of % numbers.
Since when does something being hard give you an excuse to do a crappy job at it?
Plus, as others have pointed out in this thread, they percentage of Americans how live in Urban areas is about the same as that of Canada, yet the Canadians managed the #3 spot... Not only that, but in Seoul, people have tens of megabits of throughut. I don't know about you, but I live in a fairly urban part of the US, and I'm stuck with the same 768k upstream I had back in '96. It costs me $100 too. It's time we start asking the companies that we give publically granted monopolies to why they should be allowed to have such insane profit margins when they're not keeping us on the cutting edge of technology. They have the funds to build with, and they have that money because we give it to them. Either they should choose to do something with the monopolies the public has so gratiously granted them, or we should take them away and give them to companies that will.
Right, cause Sony is this tiny little company with victim written all over them.
Remember Netware? 1-2-3? Microsoft is capable of taking out industry leading players. They've done it before... You just won't see any brilliant open source developers building billion dollar chip fabs to pressure Microsoft in to further hardware innovation once they own the console market.
I'm not saying we should all be Sony or Nintendo fanboys because otherwise they'll be crushed by the evil empire. I'm just saying you shouldn't ignore the possiblilty when deciding that Microsoft is suddenly wonderful for making the Xbox.
But on the gamecube you can get 64MB cards for under $20.... It's not like Nintendo is milking their customers for money on memory cards, so why did they go through all the trouble?
Why shouldn't people take outside opinions of Microsoft into account when judging the Xbox? What evidence do you have that they won't do the same thing in the video game console market that they've done in every other market they've become the leaders in if they manage to crush the competition? Do you look forward to a world where the Xbox 4 is essentially the last console that exists, because the Xbox 5, 6, anc 7 will just be the same thing in fancier colors and there isn't anybody else out there pushing the state of the art? Microsoft's stuff is always groundbreaking and exciting when they're playing catch up. It's the aftermath you should fear.
Hard Drive... Yes! ... Flash based HD... Yes!!!
So instead of having some widely used removable flash memory format as a memory card or a large high speed (flash is slow compared to HDDs), high capacity cache space, they're going to build some flash memory in - essentially a soldered on memory card - and that's better? What next, are they going to put a little lithium button battery on the board and only allow three saves per console? Sounds like we're moving backwards here.
Whey the hell hasn't any of these companies used CF or SD or, hell, MemoryStick as a memory card format and stopped this silly crap?
That article doen't specify... Do you know if those are read/write, or just read-only?
Oh if only that were true.
Music CD-Rs work just fine in regular $20 CD-R drives, and tons of consumers are stupid enough to think you *need* the music ones if you want to burn music.
So is that a "rule" you think should be tied to all close elections or is it just in this case?
Well, I think it's a rule they should apply to all elections that are so close that a rerun is held, yes. I mean, if you're going to spend all that money to do it over again, shouldn't you do something to actually try to solve the problem you're claiming to want to solve?
Arguments about when there should be a rerun are another story. I'm not a big fan of re-running elections unless there is evidence of fraud. From what I've heard, fraud wasn't a signifigant issue in this particular election, so they shouldn't go changing any rules, they should just take the outcome as the law requires.
I'm going to quote you out of order here. Appologies in advance:
you don't say what "way" you feel I interpret your statements
You're right, I only implied, since I figured you knew. When you say: "You can't make up a rule when it suits you [...] and then say that it should only apply when it is to your liking." it seems to me that you're interpreting what I said to mean that I really do only want the rule to apply when it is to my liking.
But "predisposition" refers to an inclination beforehand to interpret statements in a particular way.
Yup, that's what it means, and that's what I meant. When you read my comment, you were inclined through some personal predisposition to believe that I wouldn't have suggested what I did had I agreed with the outcome of the election. I know this is true because I gave no indication that I cared one way or another about the matter, yet you accused me of wanting to make up rules only when they suit me. The truth of the matter is that I don't really have any personal stake in this particular election. I don't live in or anywhere near Washington state. So, if not for a predisposition to interpret what I have said a particular way, how could you have come to that conclusion about what I think?
If I had to speculate, I'd guess that you support the results of the third recount in Washington, and that fierce political debate in that area has caused you to react to comments about the subject emotionally instead objectively. Since my suggestion would have put your long awaited positive outcome into question you probably assumed without even thinking about it that I was arguing for the other side... But then that's just speculation.
Um, Ctrl-+.
Enjoy.
At 10k/year school better be something weather I make it or not.
What kind of attitude is that? Schools have an admissions process to keep people with that kind of attitude out so you won't be wasting your money or their time.
All of the information your school has is available for far less money
That's true.
On the other hand, a lot of the information you get in school comes from experience and from the experiences of the people you work with and are taught by. Sure you can get all that knowledge on your own, but almost certainly not as quickly, and you'd have to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
Anybody who is worth their salt can guide themselves just as well as a professor with 200+ students to deal with.
Here's your biggest inaccuracy. First of all in the later years of a college education you should have smaller scale relationships with certain professors (typically project/paper advisors or your thesis review committee). Secondly, you may be able to guide yourself, but not "just as well" as somebody who already has experience learning the lessons you're trying to teach yourself. In the right environment you should be able to avoid the rat holes that can slow down your learning process because somebody with experience is looking over your shoulder just enough to keep you on the right path.
Yes. I assumed that they were logical, self-consistent, and rational. My bad.
No, what you assumed is that I suggested something be done, but only when the outcome would suit me. I was logical and self-consistent. You just have poor reading comprehension and a predisposition to my opinions; at least, that's the only rational explination for why you'd think otherwise given the text of this thread thus far.
Sprint doesn't want the Treo 650 to have the WiFi features since they want you to subscribe to the $15/mo Vision (CDMA 1xRTT) service. It might cost more per month for PDA phones.
But they make you pay for that when you have a Treo 650 anyway. It's not like you could use this to get around paying Sprint $15 a month.
The "network is the computer" was a false start because the bandwidth was not there.
The bandwidth was there on corporate networks, yet the decentrailazation of corporate computing happened anyway.
The fact of the matter is that companies will never trust their business critical processes to an application service provider. That's why the major ASPs failed in the '90s even while corporations *did* have the bandwidth to use their services. This means that it's never going to take of in the consumer market because the business market is where the money is. Consumer software is the drippings of the business computing market with some eye candy added. If the base technology can't catch on in the corporate world, it will never end up on the home desktop.
Lots of really smart people have made the prediction you are making many times in the past and have been wrong, not because they didn't have a solid technical vision, but because they forgot the MBAs rule the world, not the engineers.
Because if the idea is sound, then it should have applied to the Bush/Gore Presidential race, too.
They didn't re-run the 2000 presidential election. If they did, like they're merely considering here, perhaps it would have been a good idea.
You can't make up a rule when it suits you (e.g., if neither candidate has a substantial majority, have a new race with new candidates) and then say that it should only apply when it is to your liking.
You're assuming an awful lot about my opinions there, aren't you?
The parent to your reply had a point. Since the situation wasn't similar, and you brought up an emotionally heated but unrelated event, you were in fact trolling.
...they should have to pick two new candidates. Clearly neither of these two have sufficient support. Why bother running another deadlocked election?
The problem is that the difference between a trojan and legit adware is that legit adware is backed by a company that can sue an anti-virus company. The two can be identical in every other way.
Maybe one day your endgame will come, but I think it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.
I think it's going to get better because it gets a lot worse. We're just waiting for the straw that breaks the average consumer's back. Remember that the average user isn't running into the kinds of restrictions more technical users are dealing with at this point, and they also don't keep up with what's coming out in the future. As soon as something that is sufficiently obnoxious restricts the average user change will come rapidly.
The RIAA/MPAA are dinosaur organizations who don't realize the meteor has already struck and they are soon to die. So they go around frantically foraging all the food they can while the doomsday clouds loom above. Information and content is cheap. Dirt cheap.
It's worse than you say. The RIAA and MPAA are cartels of content distributors. Sure, they may finance the production of some content and play favorites with the content they've got their fingers in, but they were built to distruibute content because in the past that was hard part for the people who made music and movies. Now, you don't need trucks, newspaper ads and shelfspace to distribute anymore. Distrubution is cheap and easy. There is no reason to pay them for it anymore. The message shouldn't be "adapt" it should be "go away". It's worse for the RIAA than the MPAA because arguably you still need the MPAA around to deliver huge spools of film to theaters, but that will change soon, and when it does you'll start to see movies get funded by people outside the film distribution industry just like you're currently seeing a new explosion of independant music with financially successful musicians. As the creators of the content (think directors, producers, actors, writers) see that they aren't dependant on the cartel anymore they'll realize they can make more money and gain greater artistic independance if they cut them out of the loop. The noose will close from both ends. The only way the traditional distribution cartels will continue to exist is if our governments grant them guaranteed profits through legislation, and even that can't last forever. This is the end game.
till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and...
And roads...
In Connecticut about 40 years ago, before the I-84 and I-91 interchange in downtown Hartford, the state used eminent domain to take a strip of land that stretched from New Britain to West Hartford then south to Wethersfield (about 20 miles through densely populated citys) to build a road. They built most of the road, but it was never opened because it ran close to a neighborhood who's residents managed to win a lawsuit claiming the traffic would cause air polution that would make their neighborhood unliveable. The land and completed road sat growing weeds until a few years ago when they converted a section of it into the state Rte. 9 extension. In that case they used eminent doman to take land from hundreds of people for pretty much no good reason at all. In many cases this was in the form of just taking people's back yards and leaving them with a house on almost no land that faced an abandoned roadway. Nice, huh?
At least when your land is taken, they typically pay you fair market value for it. Good luck getting that chunk of your paycheck back.
And the reference to the razor model wasn't to suggest that games are disposable, just they're something you need to keep buying in order to keep the product "usable"
Yes, I know that's what you're saying, and I'm saying you're wrong.
You don't have to keep buying games to keep the console useable. Plenty of people are happy with their two or three EA sports titles for the life of the console. Plus, since games aren't disposable there's a used game market, a rental market, etc... There are plenty of ways to keep your gaming experience fresh without giving your console manufacturer any more money.
If you still have doubts though... These are all publically traded companies. Only Microsoft hides their Xbox figures behind a bigger division. You can go see for yourself that they pull a profit on the hardware. After the death of Sega, anybody that doesn't have a few billion in the bank would be foolish not to.
Says the business model of every single video game console ever.
Again, says who?
You're right about the Xbox, but you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of this for any other machine. Nintendo even claims they've made a profit or broken even on every system they've ever sold.
Because if you cut out the money they get from people buying games, the "Gillette Razor Model" doesn't quite work, now does it?
That model doesn't fit anyway. Games aren't disposable. Everybody but Microsoft understands that.
Nintendo too... I went to three gamestops on Christmas Eve (looking for Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance for GameCube) and every one of them had at least two DSs in stock. They were sold out of PS2s and Xboxes. Even used ones.
I wish people would just chill out and see what happens rather than turning on their obnoxious inner fanboy and going to bat for some company that doesn't give two shits about anything but their wallet (Or their parent's wallet as seems more likely to be the case). These silly flame wars certainly aren't going to sway any opinions.
Sony is selling the PSP for a loss.
Says who?