The 5 1/4 inch floppy was the core of PC storage and data manipulation technology for years. It was vastly, vastly more important than USB is today. Its like the Hard drive, CD/DVD drive and the internet combined. I agree USB 5 1/4 exist, my point is that few have them, people don't know other people using 5 1/4 inch media anymore.
I see. So all those biologists, chemists, research labs, studies and their payrolls as well as the documentation of how the drugs were developers are a careful ruse to not let anyone on to the fact that the research is all freely available.
8" floppies were common on systems for minis all during the 1980s. For example high end Xerox printers like the Docutech still used them into the 1990s. They never really were very big on PCs though IBM and other manufacturers offered them. My guess is that those 8" floppies weren't PC floppies ever.
Why is there a large anti-freedom and anti-private movement in the US and world nowadays?
Because wages have been stagnant in the United States and depressed in most of the first world, while productivity has skyrocketed. "Freedom" is failing to deliver on its promise of a better life for most people. An economic system is graded on if it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e. utility and the last 30 years of conservative economics have been a miserable failure. Conversely the generation before people saw an explosion of living standards and quality of life.
So they logically conclude that conservative economics is not a good choice for them to bring up their quality of life.
I use it. I don't like the latency and jitter on IP based phone solutions when you talk to 3rd parties. Add cell phone latency to that and it can really uncomfortable. PSTN solutions like free conferencing are much better. If I lose my free conferencing I be willing to pay for a conference calling solution if it were reasonable.
Because some things are expensive to invent and easy to copy. For example drugs. Without strong patent protection and very high fees generated from it pharmaceutical research would mostly stop.
No government entity can be on the board of the standards group.
Who do you think enforces patent law and licensing agreements? The government needs involvement because you can't have the committee deciding one thing and governments disagreeing. And no governments are not going to agree to blindly follow some committee that is not subject to their input.
I agree. And the law should be changed to allow for patenting branding elements but not functionality. The problem is that isn't the law right now.
As for Apple's not being great or innovative I disagree. I think the decade of other competitors like RIM, the earlier versions of Android, Palm, Windows Phone... show how innovative Apple's ideas were.
Or Asus sells their own external storage devices to their customers that are Asus branded for use with Asus machines. They have a pretty popular gaming line, which could drive enough volume. And that would give an advantage to their server line and their workstation line over the competition.
They haven't had a single plan. The different divisions have had long terms plans some successful some not. But Microsoft hasn't been coordinating these plans since the divisions had different personalities. So those plans have often been at odds with each other and sometimes even contradicted each other. Balmer seems to have spent the last year getting their various divisions on board the Windows 8 / touch / Metro... strategy. The next question is whether Microsoft can get the OEMs onboard.
There is nothing to get rich off of. Microsoft has a long tradition of accurately publicly announcing their strategy. Shareholders don't get to sue because a strategy publicly announced and explicated repeatedly didn't work out.
Two, Microsoft has made it clear they are not interested in profitable shrinkage. They see consumer desktop as too important. They know how they moved from consumer to enterprise to beat IBM, DEC, Unisys and they do not intend to make the same mistakes. Quite simply they believe, and I think they are right, if they are knocked out of consumer by 2020 the enterprise world will look quite different by 2030 and they will find themselves supporting nothing but a few remaining legacy functions.
You can make a very good case for profitable shrinkage as being the best money making strategy for Microsoft. That is not however the strategy they choose.
I remember the same arguments being made in the early 1990s by the people who were really using workstations about those x86 "workstations" I remember the same arguments being made about a decade ago about laptops I remember the same arguments being made about mainframes and minis to client server.
Phones and tablets are about a decade behind laptops in terms of computational power. I most certainly did use/. in previous years on laptops which have less CPU, Ram and storage than my current iPhone. And I can see lots of way to resolve the keyboard problem, just look at how much voice is genuinely being used already.
First off there is a pretty good version of Office for Mac. I don't know whether Access would sell that many more copies.
Second, what advantage is there in putting SQL Server on Linux? Microsoft has to just charge you for the SQL Server anyway. Its not like the NT kernel isn't a pretty good kernel and that SQL Server has been optimized for NT for 20 years, when it was Sybase's.
As for being more valuable broken up. How? Where does this extra growth or revenue come from?
Apple's server seems to me to not be laughable at all. Rather it fulls an important niche that Windows Home Server used to fill, before Microsoft crippled it: an easy to manage small business server. For 20, 30, 50 laptops, desktops, tablets and phones it is a terrific server to managed by a dentist or a office manager in a plumbing company.
Lets assume we have family father mother + 2 kids:
2005: Dad own a windows laptop replacing every 3 1/2 years (.3 windows licenses a year) Mom has a netbook replacing every 2 years (licenses are say 1/2 priced so.25 licenses a year) The 2 kids share a desktop which is changed every 5 years (.2 licenses a year)
Total =.75 licenses / year
2015:
Dad own an Apple laptop replacing the windows version every 7 (.15 windows licenses a year) Mom has a tablet replacing every 2 years (0 windows licenses a year) The 2 kids mainly use their phones but sometimes share a desktop which is changed every 7 years (.14 licenses a year)
This is the same Bill Ayers who said some tens of millions of people would have to die in his revolution, right? They were in the best interests of his ideology, an ideology that this country was at the time fighting against.
The new left ideology to the best of my knowledge only existed in UK and America. No we were not "fighting against it". I think possibly you mean we were in a cold war with Soviet Communism at the time. New left had started as a critique of classical communism with its focus on labor related issues, and attacked it for being irrelevant to the 1st world. So no, the ideology of SDS was Anglo not Soviet.
Romney has. End of story.
You know he hasn't. It doesn't help anything to simply state untrue things. He has released 1 year, that is not the norm, it is not what is the tradition. It is far less than anyone has done who has come nearly this far. The media is asking for nothing more than what has been the standard for all major candidates since the late 1960s. This issue was raised in the primaries repeatedly by his opponents and Romney's answers then were that he was not following the norm but would after the primaries.
Actually, nothing made him qualified to be president. He must be the most under-qualified president we've had in scores of years.
I agree with you he's undeer-qualified, and did at the time. I didn't think anyone in the field: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Obama or Clinton was qualified; though McCain was closer than the rest. I would have liked candidates who had served in the legislature and then taken a cabinet positions; or governor and then legislature but these were not running. Obama had been an excellent senator, though not there long enough; where he really showed his skill was his organization skills in the campaign against Clinton. In terms of under-qualified: GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon (though close), John Kennedy were all under-qualified when they assumed office. 1996 and then 1956 are the last time I can think of where both party's candidates were qualified.
That being the case he didn't Obama didn't run on his biography but rather promised to end the war in Iraq, while the Republican candidate was promising to fight indefinitely and expand America's war efforts. Also that through his tremendous oratorical skills he would reunite the county around a centrist program. He ran on the issues: Iraq and polarization, not his biography.
That's wholly different that Mitt Romney who started being talked about for President when he passed a model of Nixon / Dole healthcare law in Massachusetts. Romney in 2008 was going to run on the issues. But by 2012 his main reason for running was taken by a Democratic president and passed into law. In terms of his economic specifics that were on his website early on they are the same sort of plans that various Obama commissions had recommended and are probably the sorts of plans Obama would pass into law in slightly modified form if the Republicans in Congress would agree. During the primaries he bought into more Tea Party style economic plans but can't defend those when questioned.
Thus he can't run on the issues. So instead he's running on his experience as a LBO guy at Bain, which somehow gives him some tremendous insight into economics which will allow him as president to turn the country's economy around. His acts at Bain are mostly private. Moreover what has come to light is rather unappealing. And that problem is going to dog him right through election day. It wasn't the liberal media who picked Mitt Romney. Frankly Governor Romney running on the positions he held as Governor would be up a half-dozen points in the polls.
Skull and Bones was a big deal for Bush, covered extensively
How was it a big deal? And how was it covered in any depth? People knew he was a member of a rich Yale secret society and that's about it. There was no serious coverage of what Bush did in Skull
$15 for recent PC purchasers $40 for anyone with XP on up, but they are bundling media center $60 for anyone with XP on up who wants physical media unclear if you get media center
And at the least the $60 is going to be a retail cost so the street price should be quite a bit lower. None of these is remotely close to $400 which is what I was responding to.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked neither side is fighting corporate interests nor claims to be.
The 5 1/4 inch floppy was the core of PC storage and data manipulation technology for years. It was vastly, vastly more important than USB is today. Its like the Hard drive, CD/DVD drive and the internet combined. I agree USB 5 1/4 exist, my point is that few have them, people don't know other people using 5 1/4 inch media anymore.
I see. So all those biologists, chemists, research labs, studies and their payrolls as well as the documentation of how the drugs were developers are a careful ruse to not let anyone on to the fact that the research is all freely available.
Even on 56k modems I rarely got anything like 30kbs. I think about 12k was pretty much the max I ever got. DSL was a huge step up.
Exactly. But there are still some of 3 1/2 inch USB drives around or you know where to find a computer that has them. 5 1/4 is a different story.
8" floppies were common on systems for minis all during the 1980s. For example high end Xerox printers like the Docutech still used them into the 1990s. They never really were very big on PCs though IBM and other manufacturers offered them. My guess is that those 8" floppies weren't PC floppies ever.
25 years ago, the 5 1/4 inch drive was just about losing out to the 3 1/2 but still outsold it. No not everyone has a 5 1/4 inch reader anymore.
Why is there a large anti-freedom and anti-private movement in the US and world nowadays?
Because wages have been stagnant in the United States and depressed in most of the first world, while productivity has skyrocketed. "Freedom" is failing to deliver on its promise of a better life for most people. An economic system is graded on if it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e. utility and the last 30 years of conservative economics have been a miserable failure. Conversely the generation before people saw an explosion of living standards and quality of life.
So they logically conclude that conservative economics is not a good choice for them to bring up their quality of life.
Thank you for a knowledgeable comment.
I use it. I don't like the latency and jitter on IP based phone solutions when you talk to 3rd parties. Add cell phone latency to that and it can really uncomfortable. PSTN solutions like free conferencing are much better. If I lose my free conferencing I be willing to pay for a conference calling solution if it were reasonable.
I think you are reading it backwards. My point was that design patents do cover functionality.
Good point. But it appears that USB hardware is cheaper than esata, I don't know if that reflects costs of manufacturer but I'd assume so.
Also you could have it fall back to the standard.
Because some things are expensive to invent and easy to copy. For example drugs. Without strong patent protection and very high fees generated from it pharmaceutical research would mostly stop.
No government entity can be on the board of the standards group.
Who do you think enforces patent law and licensing agreements? The government needs involvement because you can't have the committee deciding one thing and governments disagreeing. And no governments are not going to agree to blindly follow some committee that is not subject to their input.
I agree. And the law should be changed to allow for patenting branding elements but not functionality. The problem is that isn't the law right now.
As for Apple's not being great or innovative I disagree. I think the decade of other competitors like RIM, the earlier versions of Android, Palm, Windows Phone... show how innovative Apple's ideas were.
Or Asus sells their own external storage devices to their customers that are Asus branded for use with Asus machines. They have a pretty popular gaming line, which could drive enough volume. And that would give an advantage to their server line and their workstation line over the competition.
Good explanation, I was going to write that. You should get an account, AC.
They haven't had a single plan. The different divisions have had long terms plans some successful some not. But Microsoft hasn't been coordinating these plans since the divisions had different personalities. So those plans have often been at odds with each other and sometimes even contradicted each other. Balmer seems to have spent the last year getting their various divisions on board the Windows 8 / touch / Metro... strategy. The next question is whether Microsoft can get the OEMs onboard.
There is nothing to get rich off of. Microsoft has a long tradition of accurately publicly announcing their strategy. Shareholders don't get to sue because a strategy publicly announced and explicated repeatedly didn't work out.
Two, Microsoft has made it clear they are not interested in profitable shrinkage. They see consumer desktop as too important. They know how they moved from consumer to enterprise to beat IBM, DEC, Unisys and they do not intend to make the same mistakes. Quite simply they believe, and I think they are right, if they are knocked out of consumer by 2020 the enterprise world will look quite different by 2030 and they will find themselves supporting nothing but a few remaining legacy functions.
You can make a very good case for profitable shrinkage as being the best money making strategy for Microsoft. That is not however the strategy they choose.
I remember the same arguments being made in the early 1990s by the people who were really using workstations about those x86 "workstations"
I remember the same arguments being made about a decade ago about laptops
I remember the same arguments being made about mainframes and minis to client server.
Phones and tablets are about a decade behind laptops in terms of computational power. I most certainly did use /. in previous years on laptops which have less CPU, Ram and storage than my current iPhone. And I can see lots of way to resolve the keyboard problem, just look at how much voice is genuinely being used already.
First off there is a pretty good version of Office for Mac. I don't know whether Access would sell that many more copies.
Second, what advantage is there in putting SQL Server on Linux? Microsoft has to just charge you for the SQL Server anyway. Its not like the NT kernel isn't a pretty good kernel and that SQL Server has been optimized for NT for 20 years, when it was Sybase's.
As for being more valuable broken up. How? Where does this extra growth or revenue come from?
Apple's server seems to me to not be laughable at all. Rather it fulls an important niche that Windows Home Server used to fill, before Microsoft crippled it: an easy to manage small business server. For 20, 30, 50 laptops, desktops, tablets and phones it is a terrific server to managed by a dentist or a office manager in a plumbing company.
Technologies can substitute for one another.
Lets assume we have family father mother + 2 kids:
2005: .25 licenses a year)
Dad own a windows laptop replacing every 3 1/2 years (.3 windows licenses a year)
Mom has a netbook replacing every 2 years (licenses are say 1/2 priced so
The 2 kids share a desktop which is changed every 5 years (.2 licenses a year)
Total = .75 licenses / year
2015:
Dad own an Apple laptop replacing the windows version every 7 (.15 windows licenses a year)
Mom has a tablet replacing every 2 years (0 windows licenses a year)
The 2 kids mainly use their phones but sometimes share a desktop which is changed every 7 years (.14 licenses a year)
total = .3 licenses / year
That's a big drop.
This is the same Bill Ayers who said some tens of millions of people would have to die in his revolution, right? They were in the best interests of his ideology, an ideology that this country was at the time fighting against.
The new left ideology to the best of my knowledge only existed in UK and America. No we were not "fighting against it". I think possibly you mean we were in a cold war with Soviet Communism at the time. New left had started as a critique of classical communism with its focus on labor related issues, and attacked it for being irrelevant to the 1st world. So no, the ideology of SDS was Anglo not Soviet.
Romney has. End of story.
You know he hasn't. It doesn't help anything to simply state untrue things. He has released 1 year, that is not the norm, it is not what is the tradition. It is far less than anyone has done who has come nearly this far. The media is asking for nothing more than what has been the standard for all major candidates since the late 1960s. This issue was raised in the primaries repeatedly by his opponents and Romney's answers then were that he was not following the norm but would after the primaries.
Actually, nothing made him qualified to be president. He must be the most under-qualified president we've had in scores of years.
I agree with you he's undeer-qualified, and did at the time. I didn't think anyone in the field: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Obama or Clinton was qualified; though McCain was closer than the rest. I would have liked candidates who had served in the legislature and then taken a cabinet positions; or governor and then legislature but these were not running. Obama had been an excellent senator, though not there long enough; where he really showed his skill was his organization skills in the campaign against Clinton. In terms of under-qualified: GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon (though close), John Kennedy were all under-qualified when they assumed office. 1996 and then 1956 are the last time I can think of where both party's candidates were qualified.
That being the case he didn't Obama didn't run on his biography but rather promised to end the war in Iraq, while the Republican candidate was promising to fight indefinitely and expand America's war efforts. Also that through his tremendous oratorical skills he would reunite the county around a centrist program. He ran on the issues: Iraq and polarization, not his biography.
That's wholly different that Mitt Romney who started being talked about for President when he passed a model of Nixon / Dole healthcare law in Massachusetts. Romney in 2008 was going to run on the issues. But by 2012 his main reason for running was taken by a Democratic president and passed into law. In terms of his economic specifics that were on his website early on they are the same sort of plans that various Obama commissions had recommended and are probably the sorts of plans Obama would pass into law in slightly modified form if the Republicans in Congress would agree. During the primaries he bought into more Tea Party style economic plans but can't defend those when questioned.
Thus he can't run on the issues. So instead he's running on his experience as a LBO guy at Bain, which somehow gives him some tremendous insight into economics which will allow him as president to turn the country's economy around. His acts at Bain are mostly private. Moreover what has come to light is rather unappealing. And that problem is going to dog him right through election day. It wasn't the liberal media who picked Mitt Romney. Frankly Governor Romney running on the positions he held as Governor would be up a half-dozen points in the polls.
Skull and Bones was a big deal for Bush, covered extensively
How was it a big deal? And how was it covered in any depth? People knew he was a member of a rich Yale secret society and that's about it. There was no serious coverage of what Bush did in Skull
So far the pricing announced is:
$15 for recent PC purchasers
$40 for anyone with XP on up, but they are bundling media center
$60 for anyone with XP on up who wants physical media unclear if you get media center
And at the least the $60 is going to be a retail cost so the street price should be quite a bit lower. None of these is remotely close to $400 which is what I was responding to.