They could completely rebrand, eliminate all the "uncool" products, associate Microsoft entirely with games and awesomeness, and bring out several new product lines associated with leisure, but that would be a moronic move since that would eliminate the largest chunk of their income.
Microsoft is not a "cool" brand. It's the brand that people are forced to use in the office because Microsoft has essentially left no choice. This is not a good reason to buy Microsoft.
But MS does have a cool brand that it controls. It has XBox. It's even managed to give Kinect its own identity. Windows phone 7 may not be able to hook onto those, but Microsoft can create a brand. Relying on the existing brand doesn't make sense if they want to appeal to the trendsetters.
This is the 21st century. Brokeback Mountain was the highest grossing film over its first Christmas weekend, made $178 million at the domestic box office and in terms of takings ranks in the top 10 romantic films of all time.
This will be a low budget film. It doesn't need to break box office records.
But a Swedish low security prison for a year isn't going to be a particular hardship. They care about human rights. You get visitors, the other inmates are going to be people convicted of white collar crimes, so aren't going to be particularly violent. I'm sure there's a good chance of getting out sooner than after a whole year.
It's one way of looking at it, and from a certain point of view, totally valid.
From another point of view, it's a load of rubbish. They still need to attract customers. They need to provide a service that will benefit you. Income is directly related to the number of customers they have.
There's plenty to offer google offering interoperability. Facebook would only lose out though. They don't want their customers to use other services. They have the market share that allows them to force everyone else to use facebook.
I do agree with the basic point though. I believe that the service that dislodges facebook will be something that allows people to pick and choose a service. The basic principle for doing this isn't too hard. The new service just needs to offer something that facebook can't.
This is the point that started off the thread. I'm not addressing whether they're right or not. the responder accepted that (at least for the sake of argument).
However, the UN has justified Internet access being a human right. If it's not, then the French government needs to explain why the UN is wrong or why it does not apply in this case.
Doesn't it rely on the phone though? My android pops up a requester asking whether I want to charge only or use as a disk drive. Presumably these devices use standard protocols.
"This is a real relationship! We love each other dearly, and have made a life here. We have friends and are part of the community. This is our home. We even have a cat!"
Gets reduced to "I must be allowed to stay because I have a cat".
If it's not a criminal charge, then there's no justification to take the rights away.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's a criminal charge and requires a fair and public trial before the right to an internet connection is taken away, or they haven't committed a criminal act so still have the basic human right to an internet connection.
The right to a fair public trial is also a human right as well though, and these alleged criminals didn't get one.
Article 10: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."
But on technical merit, we all know the quality of Windows.
It's responsive, stable, had a journalled file system as standard long before Linux did, gives a consistent interface, is compatible with just about all hardware, and can be configured without having to edit a bunch of text files.
I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but Slashdot seems to have this attitude that all the issues of Windows ME made it into Windows 7.
They do become obsolete though. Retrogaming is a niche hobby. A lot more people will have played Portal 2 this year than Final Fantasy XII, and that's only 5 years old.
And what about books and DVDs. And power tools for that matter?
I do understand the problem and agree that the developers should get a return when a second hand game is sold,
Why?
The problem is self-limiting. The number of used games available at any given time will be lower than the total number of new games sold, and few copies are resold several times. The publishers could deal with it themselves by gradually reducing the price over time.
Book, DVD, record and toy manufacturers don't expect a cut of second hand sales. Why are video games so different?
And of course, this does indirectly benefit the developers. What do you think kids do with the money they get from selling games?
People pay a premium for the screen (and to a slightly lesser extent for the battery life).
the e-paper screen is fantastic for reading books. And you can take the thing away with you on its own without worrying about how and where to recharge it. Great for travel!
If I had a tablet, I'd only use it as an ereader. Paying more for an inferior screen and battery life doesn't seem sensible to me.
Doesn't need to be completely bug free. Just adequately tested that any bugs are minor.
I worked in the games industry for 8 years and the microchip industry before that. Chips are as complex as software but rarely fail fatally. The big console companies will not permit a game to be shipped if there are class any bugs that will affect the player's enjoyment of a game. We still ship with dozens of minor issues but then so does everything with any level of complexity. AI takes a suboptimal path? We don't care. Likewise, if a car speedomoter over-reads slightly, we can live with that.
So, since you're not interested in the other 200 channels, presumably those 5 channels are worth $12 each to you, on average. Given the niche nature of most of the channels, I imagine a good number of their customers feel the same way.
why would they choose to charge you less than $12 for each channel when you are clearly willing to pay that for them?
Do they think that they'll end up paying what the cable company pays per channel? It doesn't work like that. They charge the price that will maximise profits.
Ideally they want to charge the value of each channel to each customer. they can't do that though. They need fixed pricing. If the price is too high, people will stop subscribing, too low and the profits no longer make the channel viable. But different people assign different values to different channels. They can actually charge the average amount for each channel. Many of the customers who aren't willing to pay the average price for channel A are willing to pay above average for channel B so they subscribe.
People weren't exactly happy when netflix unbundled their services. why do they think cable companies would be any different?
Well, I get what you're saying, but there are points of view here. From a certain point of view, we are indeed the product. No disagreement. From a marketing point of view, we're still a customer since they have to attract us and sell us the service to get us as a product.
Complaining is perfectly legitimate. I might want to use the service but not associate it with facebook. If I complain they'll be aware of this, and may decide to change their policy to accommodate.
They have every right not to but it's in my interest if they change, and presumably in their interest to have me as a customer. We're asking for a solution in which we both benefit. Hardly unreasonable.
Aircraft do have a fairly long lifetime. We should expect to see plenty of 767's and 777's flying for a few years yet. Maybe by the time the most recent 777's are retired this captain will have warmed to the idea of composites.
I think my problem is "what's the actual question?"
Statisticians know how long this will take, with a variance, or can work it out quite simply. The chart showing completeness is interesting though, in that it correlates with the theory so nicely, and the discontinuity near is actually quite curious. Am interested in whether there's an explanation for that.
I feel I should warn you, Loves Labours Lost is going to take some time since it contains a 27 character word (Honorificabilitudinitatibus). At a billion characters per second this will take 5 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
No it won't. Too little.
They could completely rebrand, eliminate all the "uncool" products, associate Microsoft entirely with games and awesomeness, and bring out several new product lines associated with leisure, but that would be a moronic move since that would eliminate the largest chunk of their income.
Microsoft is not a "cool" brand. It's the brand that people are forced to use in the office because Microsoft has essentially left no choice. This is not a good reason to buy Microsoft.
But MS does have a cool brand that it controls. It has XBox. It's even managed to give Kinect its own identity. Windows phone 7 may not be able to hook onto those, but Microsoft can create a brand. Relying on the existing brand doesn't make sense if they want to appeal to the trendsetters.
This is the 21st century. Brokeback Mountain was the highest grossing film over its first Christmas weekend, made $178 million at the domestic box office and in terms of takings ranks in the top 10 romantic films of all time.
This will be a low budget film. It doesn't need to break box office records.
But a Swedish low security prison for a year isn't going to be a particular hardship. They care about human rights. You get visitors, the other inmates are going to be people convicted of white collar crimes, so aren't going to be particularly violent. I'm sure there's a good chance of getting out sooner than after a whole year.
It's one way of looking at it, and from a certain point of view, totally valid.
From another point of view, it's a load of rubbish. They still need to attract customers. They need to provide a service that will benefit you. Income is directly related to the number of customers they have.
There's plenty to offer google offering interoperability. Facebook would only lose out though. They don't want their customers to use other services. They have the market share that allows them to force everyone else to use facebook.
I do agree with the basic point though. I believe that the service that dislodges facebook will be something that allows people to pick and choose a service. The basic principle for doing this isn't too hard. The new service just needs to offer something that facebook can't.
Would have been nice. Downside would have been that in a couple of years, we'd still see a sudden influx as soon as the patent expires
Uhm... yes. So it connects to my phone with a cable.
Does it somehow bypass the menu selection that mounts the phone as a disk drive?
The UN would disagree with you
This is the point that started off the thread. I'm not addressing whether they're right or not. the responder accepted that (at least for the sake of argument).
However, the UN has justified Internet access being a human right. If it's not, then the French government needs to explain why the UN is wrong or why it does not apply in this case.
Doesn't it rely on the phone though? My android pops up a requester asking whether I want to charge only or use as a disk drive. Presumably these devices use standard protocols.
It's curious how
"This is a real relationship! We love each other dearly, and have made a life here. We have friends and are part of the community. This is our home. We even have a cat!"
Gets reduced to "I must be allowed to stay because I have a cat".
If it's not a criminal charge, then there's no justification to take the rights away.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's a criminal charge and requires a fair and public trial before the right to an internet connection is taken away, or they haven't committed a criminal act so still have the basic human right to an internet connection.
The right to a fair public trial is also a human right as well though, and these alleged criminals didn't get one.
Article 10: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."
But on technical merit, we all know the quality of Windows.
It's responsive, stable, had a journalled file system as standard long before Linux did, gives a consistent interface, is compatible with just about all hardware, and can be configured without having to edit a bunch of text files.
I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but Slashdot seems to have this attitude that all the issues of Windows ME made it into Windows 7.
They do become obsolete though. Retrogaming is a niche hobby. A lot more people will have played Portal 2 this year than Final Fantasy XII, and that's only 5 years old.
And what about books and DVDs. And power tools for that matter?
I do understand the problem and agree that the developers should get a return when a second hand game is sold,
Why?
The problem is self-limiting. The number of used games available at any given time will be lower than the total number of new games sold, and few copies are resold several times. The publishers could deal with it themselves by gradually reducing the price over time.
Book, DVD, record and toy manufacturers don't expect a cut of second hand sales. Why are video games so different?
And of course, this does indirectly benefit the developers. What do you think kids do with the money they get from selling games?
People pay a premium for the screen (and to a slightly lesser extent for the battery life).
the e-paper screen is fantastic for reading books. And you can take the thing away with you on its own without worrying about how and where to recharge it. Great for travel!
If I had a tablet, I'd only use it as an ereader. Paying more for an inferior screen and battery life doesn't seem sensible to me.
The ARM? It is, but ARM is a company from the 1980's who had their key success with the original CPU.
I agree that there are still plenty of examples of British innovation but I think you need a better example.
Doesn't need to be completely bug free. Just adequately tested that any bugs are minor.
I worked in the games industry for 8 years and the microchip industry before that. Chips are as complex as software but rarely fail fatally. The big console companies will not permit a game to be shipped if there are class any bugs that will affect the player's enjoyment of a game. We still ship with dozens of minor issues but then so does everything with any level of complexity. AI takes a suboptimal path? We don't care. Likewise, if a car speedomoter over-reads slightly, we can live with that.
So, since you're not interested in the other 200 channels, presumably those 5 channels are worth $12 each to you, on average. Given the niche nature of most of the channels, I imagine a good number of their customers feel the same way.
why would they choose to charge you less than $12 for each channel when you are clearly willing to pay that for them?
Do they think that they'll end up paying what the cable company pays per channel? It doesn't work like that. They charge the price that will maximise profits.
Ideally they want to charge the value of each channel to each customer. they can't do that though. They need fixed pricing. If the price is too high, people will stop subscribing, too low and the profits no longer make the channel viable. But different people assign different values to different channels. They can actually charge the average amount for each channel. Many of the customers who aren't willing to pay the average price for channel A are willing to pay above average for channel B so they subscribe.
People weren't exactly happy when netflix unbundled their services. why do they think cable companies would be any different?
Well, I get what you're saying, but there are points of view here. From a certain point of view, we are indeed the product. No disagreement. From a marketing point of view, we're still a customer since they have to attract us and sell us the service to get us as a product.
Complaining is perfectly legitimate. I might want to use the service but not associate it with facebook. If I complain they'll be aware of this, and may decide to change their policy to accommodate.
They have every right not to but it's in my interest if they change, and presumably in their interest to have me as a customer. We're asking for a solution in which we both benefit. Hardly unreasonable.
Aircraft do have a fairly long lifetime. We should expect to see plenty of 767's and 777's flying for a few years yet. Maybe by the time the most recent 777's are retired this captain will have warmed to the idea of composites.
I think my problem is "what's the actual question?"
Statisticians know how long this will take, with a variance, or can work it out quite simply. The chart showing completeness is interesting though, in that it correlates with the theory so nicely, and the discontinuity near is actually quite curious. Am interested in whether there's an explanation for that.
I feel I should warn you, Loves Labours Lost is going to take some time since it contains a 27 character word (Honorificabilitudinitatibus). At a billion characters per second this will take 5 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years or so.