I'm also getting sick of people on Slashdot trashing America.
I'm also sick of people on Slashdot trashing Slashdot (figure that one out).
There really is nothing quite like sitting at dinner with an American girl explaining to her dining companions, all or almost all American, what a bunch of heathens we are, and how much we could learn from those overseas. What really bothers me is that this is intended to somehow exempt them from judgement. Americans explaining how dumb their countrymen are really do not sound any more intelligent for having done so.
Corporate America is willing to pay to steal the last shred of legitimacy from an already specious source of information.
Not only can we count on unedited accounts from the mouths of non-specialists... we can count on those non-specialists being paid off by corporate interests to spout off opinions that those corporations will not have to take any responsibility for.
I, unfortunately, once told an insanely gorgeous woman who studies, essentially how humans are destroying the world, that I didn't think that humans were really the worst thing that's happened to the planet.
Hrmm. I don't know. I honestly don't think that any amount of CPU power could help the situation on AI problems that need a significant amount of CPU boost.
My understanding, from an EA developer who works on a Sims project, is that quite a bit of AI is involved in "The Sims" games.
It has to do with the fact that both the XBox 360 and the PS3's Cell CPU use "in-order" processing, which, to greatly simplify, means they've intentionally crippled the ability to make clever A.I. and dynamic, unpredictable, wide-open games in favor of beautiful water reflections and explosion debris that flies through the air prettily.
I'm sorry, I completely fail to follow why this is a limiting factor in the games artificial intelligence. Could somebody please explain for me?
While I agree that there is a strong socialist swing in the US, I do not agree that capitalism does not work.
Also, I certainly wouldn't carry a grudge against someone merely because they have become successful.
There are still capitalists in the US, and we will get our chance when people start using the words that they mean. People do not want this level of control, that's why politicians make sure to avoid words like socialism and police state, even if that is what they are driving towards.
Even if Bill Gates works 24 hours a day to earn his money it still doesn't add up right.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you are not a capitalist, as you seem to have a problem with Mr. Gates merely because he has made a lot of money on a very successful business.
I'm a capitalist. I don't believe that he owes anybody anything because of his wealth, and he does give philanthropically.
Not that I know if you are a supporter of Free Software, but would you take this attitude if Torvalds or Raymond or Stallman made this kind of money?
You're pushing down the wrong avenue for this kind of argument. The communism argument was a different thread. Now, if you want to argue that anticompetitive tactics are poor for the economy and industry overall, well, you could build a solid argument. No, getting pissed off just because Mr. Gates has made a lot of money is just not valid in my opinion. Will you be taking pot shots at Onasis or Trump next?
What does a welfare recipient do that counts as work?
I'm not saying that to sound insensitive, I've had a couple of friends who were on welfare for a while. Sure, the one went to college, but a couple of them hung around all day playing Everquest.
I hope that they don't take offense, but I didn't perceive that as work. They eventually got jobs and moved on with their lives. That's what welfare is there fore.
Yeah, we really are jackasses when it comes to things like this.
I'm sure that next time we accidentally drop a rocket stage on another country, we'll nuke the shit out of them trying to get in on the action. I mean, the whole thing makes so much sense.
I still don't see how this clashes with the argument.
Look at this as a simple contraints optimization/linear programming problem. The goal of the system is to drive profit up.
If Microsoft were poor at this, then they wouldn't have so much money. If they did this better, they would have still more money. There is no scenario in which the optimization, from the viewpoint of the company doing the selling, is better when they have less money.
The point isn't to distribute more copies of Windows, or to stimulate the economy, or to give consumers a good value. It's to pump your consumers for as much money is they can possibly give you.
What has that got to do with rent seeking? It seems as though that's just a manner of getting finer grained control of what you charge people (with a few caveats that people are likely to rebel against).
Are you sure that you weren't reading at a threshold too high to see the entire conversation?
Right you are. That is one of the biggest problems facing open source right now.
You get a handful of well-educated people arguing for an idea. Then you get a mob of people who just want to bitch at something... Bill Gates is just their target.
If you want to bitch about something, target on it, make sure it's the truth, and then try to correct it (instead of mindlessly bitching).
Honestly, do you think that MS was able to rise to such a strong position without a lot of help from a lot of entities? You know that IBM did a lot of soul searching about the time that Windows 95 and OS2 were floating around. The American public has to be swayed. Offer a cheaper computer, with Linux, OpenOffice, and so forth... do you really think that the question "is it compatible?" is coming out of the mouth of a person who really fully grasps the ramifications of that statement?
Wake up, the people who want to drive us into a police state certainly aren't smart enough to keep capitalism alive. You're going to need another approach, and spreading lies on a message board won't help.
Apparently you don't understand what it means to charge too much.
Charging too much puts you in the poorhouse. Charging what the market is willing to bear makes you wealthy.
It sounds to me as if they are charging correctly. Now, if you want to argue that they have monopolist tactics and such, well, you could build an argument, but to say that charging too much made them wealthy merely shows that you are arguing that MS should be some sort of charitable organization.
I don't think that I would ever go to any company VP (and I know a few) and tell them "You know, we make too much money around here, lets lower prices."
If you charge consumers the price of packaging, then that is what they will feel it is worth.
Toss in a manual or something, make the box a little heavier, charge the printing cost, and you get a bit of free advertisement as well (and heck, you know that people might buy the box just to get the manual).
Now, toss in a bit on top for the Mozilla project, the FSF, the Apache Foundation, or whoever is selling the software, and you have something that is eye catching and benefits us all.
It's funny how people reject a cheap or free product as crap, but you know that they do.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting sick of Americans trashing America.
I'm also getting sick of people on Slashdot trashing America.
I'm also sick of people on Slashdot trashing Slashdot (figure that one out).
There really is nothing quite like sitting at dinner with an American girl explaining to her dining companions, all or almost all American, what a bunch of heathens we are, and how much we could learn from those overseas. What really bothers me is that this is intended to somehow exempt them from judgement. Americans explaining how dumb their countrymen are really do not sound any more intelligent for having done so.
Apparently you seem to think that most people who have time to write lengthy blogs have jobs or something.
Corporate America is willing to pay to steal the last shred of legitimacy from an already specious source of information.
Not only can we count on unedited accounts from the mouths of non-specialists... we can count on those non-specialists being paid off by corporate interests to spout off opinions that those corporations will not have to take any responsibility for.
This can apparently only be used for good.
...you insensitive clod!
I would think that an autistic sauvant might actually be some sort of super-moderator.
You rule.
I, unfortunately, once told an insanely gorgeous woman who studies, essentially how humans are destroying the world, that I didn't think that humans were really the worst thing that's happened to the planet.
Fortunately, she still talks to me.
Do you really feel that 200 years has proved that socialism is a good system?
Your arguments don't agree. Is socialism a new invention, or a time-proven strategy for a long lasting regime?
Hrmm. I don't know. I honestly don't think that any amount of CPU power could help the situation on AI problems that need a significant amount of CPU boost.
My understanding, from an EA developer who works on a Sims project, is that quite a bit of AI is involved in "The Sims" games.
It has to do with the fact that both the XBox 360 and the PS3's Cell CPU use "in-order" processing, which, to greatly simplify, means they've intentionally crippled the ability to make clever A.I. and dynamic, unpredictable, wide-open games in favor of beautiful water reflections and explosion debris that flies through the air prettily.
I'm sorry, I completely fail to follow why this is a limiting factor in the games artificial intelligence. Could somebody please explain for me?
While I agree that there is a strong socialist swing in the US, I do not agree that capitalism does not work.
Also, I certainly wouldn't carry a grudge against someone merely because they have become successful.
There are still capitalists in the US, and we will get our chance when people start using the words that they mean. People do not want this level of control, that's why politicians make sure to avoid words like socialism and police state, even if that is what they are driving towards.
Even if Bill Gates works 24 hours a day to earn his money it still doesn't add up right.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you are not a capitalist, as you seem to have a problem with Mr. Gates merely because he has made a lot of money on a very successful business.
I'm a capitalist. I don't believe that he owes anybody anything because of his wealth, and he does give philanthropically.
Not that I know if you are a supporter of Free Software, but would you take this attitude if Torvalds or Raymond or Stallman made this kind of money?
You're pushing down the wrong avenue for this kind of argument. The communism argument was a different thread. Now, if you want to argue that anticompetitive tactics are poor for the economy and industry overall, well, you could build a solid argument. No, getting pissed off just because Mr. Gates has made a lot of money is just not valid in my opinion. Will you be taking pot shots at Onasis or Trump next?
Certainly, but I think that for the most part, people want to behave liek children, and be credited as behaving as adults.
That's why it's so easy to become a tyrant.
I'd still like to see the rationale since he says that he's worked it out.
Divide by zero IS infinite.
What does a welfare recipient do that counts as work?
I'm not saying that to sound insensitive, I've had a couple of friends who were on welfare for a while. Sure, the one went to college, but a couple of them hung around all day playing Everquest.
I hope that they don't take offense, but I didn't perceive that as work. They eventually got jobs and moved on with their lives. That's what welfare is there fore.
Yeah, we really are jackasses when it comes to things like this.
I'm sure that next time we accidentally drop a rocket stage on another country, we'll nuke the shit out of them trying to get in on the action. I mean, the whole thing makes so much sense.
That's just how we American's think, right?
Yes, I agree.
It's certainly not in Microsoft's interest that consumers be educated about anything aside from their product line though.
I still don't see how this clashes with the argument.
Look at this as a simple contraints optimization/linear programming problem. The goal of the system is to drive profit up.
If Microsoft were poor at this, then they wouldn't have so much money. If they did this better, they would have still more money. There is no scenario in which the optimization, from the viewpoint of the company doing the selling, is better when they have less money.
The point isn't to distribute more copies of Windows, or to stimulate the economy, or to give consumers a good value. It's to pump your consumers for as much money is they can possibly give you.
What has that got to do with rent seeking? It seems as though that's just a manner of getting finer grained control of what you charge people (with a few caveats that people are likely to rebel against).
Are you sure that you weren't reading at a threshold too high to see the entire conversation?
I apologize, but I honestly don't follow your argument. Could you flesh it out some more?
Right you are. That is one of the biggest problems facing open source right now.
You get a handful of well-educated people arguing for an idea. Then you get a mob of people who just want to bitch at something... Bill Gates is just their target.
If you want to bitch about something, target on it, make sure it's the truth, and then try to correct it (instead of mindlessly bitching).
Honestly, do you think that MS was able to rise to such a strong position without a lot of help from a lot of entities? You know that IBM did a lot of soul searching about the time that Windows 95 and OS2 were floating around. The American public has to be swayed. Offer a cheaper computer, with Linux, OpenOffice, and so forth... do you really think that the question "is it compatible?" is coming out of the mouth of a person who really fully grasps the ramifications of that statement?
Wake up, the people who want to drive us into a police state certainly aren't smart enough to keep capitalism alive. You're going to need another approach, and spreading lies on a message board won't help.
Mod the parent way the hell up.
Apparently you don't understand what it means to charge too much.
Charging too much puts you in the poorhouse. Charging what the market is willing to bear makes you wealthy.
It sounds to me as if they are charging correctly. Now, if you want to argue that they have monopolist tactics and such, well, you could build an argument, but to say that charging too much made them wealthy merely shows that you are arguing that MS should be some sort of charitable organization.
I don't think that I would ever go to any company VP (and I know a few) and tell them "You know, we make too much money around here, lets lower prices."
Though marketed as a device to enable people to keep track of spouses, how long before such technology becomes intrusive in our lives?
Even though this is fake, it's interesting that the submitter did not think that this product is "intrusive in our lives."
I for one welcome our new girlfriend-stalking overlords.
Ok, sure, but have you checked out DOA XXV yet?
Nah, but really, jamming your agenda down someone's throat won't help either. Speak softly, big stick, and all of that...
If you charge consumers the price of packaging, then that is what they will feel it is worth.
Toss in a manual or something, make the box a little heavier, charge the printing cost, and you get a bit of free advertisement as well (and heck, you know that people might buy the box just to get the manual).
Now, toss in a bit on top for the Mozilla project, the FSF, the Apache Foundation, or whoever is selling the software, and you have something that is eye catching and benefits us all.
It's funny how people reject a cheap or free product as crap, but you know that they do.