I said unpopular, not a failure. I figure having only 5% of the available market is unpopular, unlike some other offerings out there which may adoption rates of 10% or more.
But, but, this is happening in a recession. Don't you know that?!? Aren't you filled with dread for the economy? This can only mean the economy is in a depression, the company is going to fail, and the world will end. Never mind that this company lays off people every year or two. This is obviously a serious issue!!! Panic, damn you, PANIC!!!!/sarcasm
Let's say that Mac OSX has 5% of the market and that windows has 90% of the market. Say a game captures 50% of all Mac users. That is 50% of 5% or 2.5% of the market If that same game captures just 5% of Windows boxes then it captures 5% of 90% which is 4.5% of the market.
A nominally unpopular on Windows is still more than a success on Mac. Even allowing Linux 5% of the market, a game would need 50% on both Linux and OSX to match a mere 5% of the Windows market.
In other words, a very popular game on OS X and Linux provides less profit and market share than an unpopular game on Windows.
Yeah, but I addressed that in the second part. In EU, it is 745 years from the death of the author. In the USA, it is 95 years from the date the copyright was issued.
No, I believe people have rights, as granted by law. And, I have said so. Now, you lying sack of shit, explain why you have lied about what I have said.
You are the one violating people's rights. You are too fucking stupid to see that and really are tiresome. Perhaps you should go out and show us how you have a right to make copies by setting up shop outside the RIAA or MPAA and make and distribute copies of their protected works.
What, you are too fucking afraid to do it? Thought so.
property rights are a necessary part of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Really? Care to prove that? I can point to a number of tribes who were perfectly happy without property rights until those rights were introduced and the tribes tore themselves apart. Thos tribes prove your statement is false. Also, why can't the contents of a book be property? Is it because it puts your argument in the shitter? Maybe you can explain why anyone would create a work if they could not profit from it. That is why copy rights exists isn't it? Or do you deny that as well.
And, if life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable, how is it that those same men passed laws allowing for the capture and imprisonment of criminals (liberty, pursuit of happiness), execution of criminals(life), slavery (liberty, pursuit of happiness, and life)? Please answer how those "inalienable" rights that are inherent to all "men" were so easily passed over.
Because we have done such a wonderful job in the past. Things like killing off the wolves in Yellowstone, and changing the hydrology of Florida. Yes, we are so good at "geoengineering" that this could not possibly go wrong.
I notice that there was nothing about a right to "Copy other people's work and violate said people's rights" nor did they say there was a "right to own property".
The signers of the Declaration said THOSE specific rights, as enumerated in the Declaration, are inalienable and self-evident. The very first thing they did was pass laws allowing for imprisonment, enslavement, and execution.
Just because you think you have a right to violate other people's rights, it isn't so. Now, please, shut the fuck up, you pathetic, ignorant git.
Yeah, you keep thinking that. Meanwhile, I will keep believing my experiences in working world.
Experiences like
being told to overwrite good current data with old data, even though I have told him we have been having troubles with the tape drive, which he won't pay to replace.
being told "we can't afford a $500 tape unit for the server" by a boss who is ordering $5000 worth of new office furniture.
being told "It will be OK. We have that RAID thing." * sound familiar
being told "It won't matter if we lose the data. We will just shutdown, change the name of the company, and start again" * This is not a joke. This actually happened. Fortunately, it was for a contract consulting gig.
being told "I don't want backups in case we get sued."
being told "We can add the backup system later." then later "Why didn't you get it with a backup system?"
My personal favorite "This is what my boss has approved. He won't spend the money on a backup system."
You may think it is your job to convince the boss, but often the boss either doesn't care, doesn't have a clue, or can't do anything about it.
Oh, that was fucking hilarious. The law doesn't matter when it comes to rights? All rights are a creation of law. Even the right to live. If you don't believe me, take a look at the nature. Animals kill each other all the time. No one has any rights that are not granted by society, which means rights granted by law.
I do have the right to force you to not make even a single copy if I hold the copy right to something. All rights have limits. Your rights end where my rights begin. I guess you forgot that, didn't you? Your property rights end where my copy rights begin. Taking my work and selling it or giving it away is my right, not yours. Just like your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Or maybe you think rights can exists without law. Do you believe that? Try going to a place that is lawless, a place where one's rights are what one can enforce for oneself. Humans only have property rights because the law says we have property rights. In a lawless society, anyone who can take your property has the right to that property. If you can't stop them and turn to others to keep that property, then you are turning to society and the law.
If that person, and possibly his friends, kill and/or maim enough people that you and your friends give up and let them take what they what, he becomes chief, king, or whatever title he wants. His word and desire becomes law. If he says "All the lands I can see are mine. All of what you find, hunt, and grow on my land is mine. You will turn over to me all thing you make, grow, find, and hunt on my land and I will give you what I think you deserve. You also belong to me and if you run away, I will hunt you like the animals in the forest.", then you don't own the land and you don't own the product of your work. You are a serf and he is your lord.
You really are fucking moron, aren't you? Don't you know anything about history or government, do you? You read some book or heard some leacture by someone who has forgotten the lessons history has to teach us, and suddenly you think you understand the world. You don't, you are just an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not the one trying to limit rights. You and the other dipshit are.
And, unless you were there and knew the Founding Fathers, you don't know jack shit.
yeah yeah. fat fingers and all that. It is not easy posting only when the boss isn't.... crap here he comes....
I said unpopular, not a failure. I figure having only 5% of the available market is unpopular, unlike some other offerings out there which may adoption rates of 10% or more.
But, but, this is happening in a recession. Don't you know that?!? Aren't you filled with dread for the economy? This can only mean the economy is in a depression, the company is going to fail, and the world will end. Never mind that this company lays off people every year or two. This is obviously a serious issue!!! Panic, damn you, PANIC!!!! /sarcasm
Let's say that Mac OSX has 5% of the market and that windows has 90% of the market.
Say a game captures 50% of all Mac users. That is 50% of 5% or 2.5% of the market
If that same game captures just 5% of Windows boxes then it captures 5% of 90% which is 4.5% of the market.
A nominally unpopular on Windows is still more than a success on Mac. Even allowing Linux 5% of the market, a game would need 50% on both Linux and OSX to match a mere 5% of the Windows market.
In other words, a very popular game on OS X and Linux provides less profit and market share than an unpopular game on Windows.
You said there was no mutual benefit. I showed you were wrong. There is clear quid pro quo.
You lose again.
Yeah, but I addressed that in the second part. In EU, it is 745 years from the death of the author. In the USA, it is 95 years from the date the copyright was issued.
Not patent, copyright.
In the US, it is 95 years after the first copyright is filed.
As King Features holds the trademark on Popeye(tm), a lovable, pipe-smoking, spinach-eating sailor, I would have to be on King Feature's side.
Children age 4 to 100 around the world.
Hmm. Well, let's see. Out of tuition and fees, one has to pay for:
Do you think your tuition covered all of that?
That piece of paper you signed when you became a student, or in this guy's case graduate student working as a paid intern.
The student gets an education and a degree. The university gets money and the product of the students work and research while at the university.
It is voluntarily entered into and constitutes "an exchange of value, i.e. mutual benefit".
Thanks for playing, you lose.
Please show me where it says that in the law.
Except that this counts as work for hire. Guess you forgot about that part, didn't ya?
Something that is an improvement in the server and/or desktop world may not be an improvement in the embedded world.
The results of federally financed research should be in the public domain, not in the patent holdings of universities.
No, I believe people have rights, as granted by law. And, I have said so. Now, you lying sack of shit, explain why you have lied about what I have said.
Oh wait, you can't. So shut the fuck up.
You are the one violating people's rights. You are too fucking stupid to see that and really are tiresome. Perhaps you should go out and show us how you have a right to make copies by setting up shop outside the RIAA or MPAA and make and distribute copies of their protected works.
What, you are too fucking afraid to do it? Thought so.
Really? Care to prove that? I can point to a number of tribes who were perfectly happy without property rights until those rights were introduced and the tribes tore themselves apart. Thos tribes prove your statement is false. Also, why can't the contents of a book be property? Is it because it puts your argument in the shitter? Maybe you can explain why anyone would create a work if they could not profit from it. That is why copy rights exists isn't it? Or do you deny that as well.
And, if life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable, how is it that those same men passed laws allowing for the capture and imprisonment of criminals (liberty, pursuit of happiness), execution of criminals(life), slavery (liberty, pursuit of happiness, and life)? Please answer how those "inalienable" rights that are inherent to all "men" were so easily passed over.
Because we have done such a wonderful job in the past. Things like killing off the wolves in Yellowstone, and changing the hydrology of Florida. Yes, we are so good at "geoengineering" that this could not possibly go wrong.
*snirk* I crack myself up.
I notice that there was nothing about a right to "Copy other people's work and violate said people's rights" nor did they say there was a "right to own property".
The signers of the Declaration said THOSE specific rights, as enumerated in the Declaration, are inalienable and self-evident. The very first thing they did was pass laws allowing for imprisonment, enslavement, and execution.
Just because you think you have a right to violate other people's rights, it isn't so. Now, please, shut the fuck up, you pathetic, ignorant git.
Yeah, you keep thinking that. Meanwhile, I will keep believing my experiences in working world.
Experiences like
You may think it is your job to convince the boss, but often the boss either doesn't care, doesn't have a clue, or can't do anything about it.
Oh, that was fucking hilarious. The law doesn't matter when it comes to rights? All rights are a creation of law. Even the right to live. If you don't believe me, take a look at the nature. Animals kill each other all the time. No one has any rights that are not granted by society, which means rights granted by law.
I do have the right to force you to not make even a single copy if I hold the copy right to something. All rights have limits. Your rights end where my rights begin. I guess you forgot that, didn't you? Your property rights end where my copy rights begin. Taking my work and selling it or giving it away is my right, not yours. Just like your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Or maybe you think rights can exists without law. Do you believe that? Try going to a place that is lawless, a place where one's rights are what one can enforce for oneself. Humans only have property rights because the law says we have property rights. In a lawless society, anyone who can take your property has the right to that property. If you can't stop them and turn to others to keep that property, then you are turning to society and the law.
If that person, and possibly his friends, kill and/or maim enough people that you and your friends give up and let them take what they what, he becomes chief, king, or whatever title he wants. His word and desire becomes law. If he says "All the lands I can see are mine. All of what you find, hunt, and grow on my land is mine. You will turn over to me all thing you make, grow, find, and hunt on my land and I will give you what I think you deserve. You also belong to me and if you run away, I will hunt you like the animals in the forest.", then you don't own the land and you don't own the product of your work. You are a serf and he is your lord.
You really are fucking moron, aren't you? Don't you know anything about history or government, do you? You read some book or heard some leacture by someone who has forgotten the lessons history has to teach us, and suddenly you think you understand the world. You don't, you are just an idiot.
Not necessarily. Remember the over head of a datadump or the like. I know what you are saying, though.
I can see why you are "in training". DriveSavers is a data recovery service. Next time, RTFA.