No kidding. Read the article, it's silly. So what. They created plasma "bubbles" that can grow in size, split into two bubbles, and "communicate" by "emitting electromagnetic energy." That's communication? Then lightning is communicating...
This is about the same as blowing into a straw and watching bubbles come out of your soft drink and saying you've created life because the bubbles grow, shrink, split into two, and emit carbon dioxide energy when they bubble up to the top of the liquid.
Ofcourse, thanks to modern medicine we're going to have to resort to such awful policies as one-child-per-family sooner or later
Thay may be the case, but we're a long, long ways away from that. Despite environmentalist rhetoric, this planet has plenty of resources to offer--all we need to do is have technology keep up with population. That has not been a problem recently and I don't anticipate it will be a problem anytime soon. So much of this planet is not being taken advantage of efficiently, or at all.
China may need to limit its own population because its local infrastructure and technology is incapable of keeping up with its population--but the planet itself is perfectly capable of supporting many times more human beings than are currently living.
It's unfortunate, but it's because other nations [rightly so] distrust the U.S.
Everyone picks on the U.S. because, well, we're an easy target. We're big, successful, and powerful. And it's got to rub a lot of "old powers" the wrong way. They were the head honchos in the last millenium and they probably cling to some such dreams.
The biggest, most successful everything is always the lightning rod and easy target for criticisms. In computers, Microsoft is the lightning rod. In Internet, AOL is (or maybe was) the lightning rod. In world politics it's the same. The U.S. is the biggest, richest and most powerful so the world just blames it for all its woes whether it is or not. We get criticized when we act (in Iraq) but also get criticized for not acting fast enough (in WWII). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The best response is to ignore most U.S. criticism or at least recognize that a vast majority of it is jealousy or resentment because of the overwhelming success that is the U.S. That puts most of it in perspective.
... going to the store and asking to listen to a CD before buying. I use to be able to do this at main stream stores but now I cannot because they claim it costs to much.
Yeah, it costs too much... in lost sales when you hear the CD and say "This is crap!":)
Obviously the music and movie industry are different. I'll also agree that DVDs can be competitive because they've already made quite a bit of money (hopefully) at the box office.
However, you need to realize that the customer doesn't care. The question is "I have $20 to spend... What should I spend it on? Chicago DVD with the music for $15.98 or just the music for $13.66?" A heck of a lot of people are going to go for the DVD.
It's not our problem that the RIAA has a broken business model. In fact, that's exactly the problem. That's why they are suing their customers instead of selling to them. They're trying to defend a broken business model. It's unsustainable.
They have to compete for a customer's limited entertainment budget. That budget may be split over seeing movies in the theater, buying DVDs, going on a vacation to Cancun... and maybe buying CDs. Their most direct competition is DVDs and in that area they are NOT competitive.
All they can do is lower their prices DRAMATICALLY and hope that's enough. I'm not talking $10... $10 for a music CD or $15.98 for the same music on a DVD is still a hard sell. I'm talking drop the price down to $3 - $4.99. And even there it's a crapshoot as to whether or not they'll make it. Music is free now because they've overpriced their product and driven tens of millions of customers to get their music for free online. The cat is out of the bag and it's going to be hard to put it back in--even if they lower the price of a CD to $5, a price which might have prevented the original exodus to P2P music sharing, it might be too late for that to bring people back.
Yup, I agree that the whole idea of "bounce" has been killed by spam and by viruses.
The statement "If mail filters send out one message for every copy of Sobig.F received, they are in effect doubling the amount of traffic. This makes them a part of the problem, not a part of the solution" is also what I've been saying for months. This is a condemnation of challenge/response. Challenge/response is flawed conceptually in that it assumes the return address is correct. In an age of spam (which it supposedly addresses) and viruses it is absurd to believe the return address exists and sending email to the return address just multiplies the problem.
Challenge/response was never well thought out. It shifts the burden of spam filtering to the person that sends email to that user, and tends to mailbomb innocent users that happen to have their addresses forged by spam or viruses. All so someone can supposedly enjoy a spam-free existance with no thought to the hassle they are creating for others and the spam that they are creating by mailbombibf C/R challenges to forged addresses.
Hopefully with much better filters already available Challenge/response will just disappear. It's bad technology.
I think very, very few people actually believe that their Kazaa subscription entitled them to all the music they want. I won't deny that perhaps a few people actually believed that, but it's pretty hard to even read mainline media anymore and not hear about the file sharing problem. I think the vast majority knew it wasn't right... although it is a pretty cool excuse to play if you've been targeted by the RIAA.
So... there are a *few* people that might be mad at Kazaa. Most people know that what they paid for didn't give them legal access to the music and these people aren't going to be mad at Kazaa. Just a few, very stupid gullible people can really believe in their hearts they have a reason to be mad at Kazaa.
That said, I don't think Congress will take action against Kazaa or P2P. You have a very, very small group of the public mad at them to start with. Add to the mix the significant free speech issues involved with the technology and I really doubt you're going to see anything happen against P2P.
And even if we accept the unlikely conclusion that a few people are mad at Kazaa, orders of magnitude more people are mad at the RIAA. If Congress wants to pander to get votes, they'll take action against the RIAA. Yes, I know the RIAA has deep pockets but deep pockets only work when the public isn't looking. If the public is sufficiently mad at the RIAA then what legislators need to do to get votes is take action. No amount of campaign money will help a legislator when their constituents are good and truly pissed.
I doubt Congress does anything at all in response to the RIAA lawsuits. I certainly would hope they would not intervene.
1) It could be a trap. I can't underestimate the incredibly bad PR that follow, should the RIAA promise amnesty to someone, and then a member company turns around and sues them, or the government prosecutes them.
Pretty much all the mainsteam press I've read (CNN was the latest) seems to be reporting that, yes, the lawsuits are going to rub consumers the wrong way. But they also said that the image of the recording industry is so low they almost can't do themselves any more damage even by alienating people with lawsuits.
You think that such a nasty public image might have just a little to do with their slump in sales??
2) It could be a genuine offer, only poorly thought out. This is what I wondered about in my parent post, for which I certainly didn't expect to get a "flamebait" mod.
I think they have the legal budget to produce a good contract. Of the three options I think this is the least likely.
3) It could be a purposely half-assed effort to garner good PR, with no obligations. This seems to be the most likely.
I agree. They are trying to get some good PR recognizing the fact that their lawsuits are definitely bad PR.
They get good PR, and a political feather in their cap later
Thing is, I don't think they received good PR from it. I don't think anyone trusts them, so it smells of either a trap or just a PR scheme--and people don't tend to appreciate either.
I think people are seeing the RIAA for what they are. The best thing the RIAA could do is nothing. Virtually any action that they take will only worsen their image in the eyes of the public and very possibly lead to even fewer CD sales.
"Biting the hand that feeds" you comes to mind. Yes, people may be sharing files but they're also buying CDs from time to time. With these lawsuits people will probably continue to share files in one way or another but they'll be less tempted to fund the RIAA through CD purchases.
Me: We all hate war. But war is going to happen.
You: Yes, I know, at least as long as the good old US of A continue their current foreign policy.
Bingo! I fished myself an anti-American anonymous coward. What are the chances?:)
USA has an unequaled record of military interventions abroad, between WWII and 9/11 they add up to 67 in total.
So what? In the first half of the 20th century there were two world wars. Since we've been intervening there hasn't been a single one.
And Germany caused more deaths in WWII than we have in all 67 engagements in the last 50 years.
Criticize the U.S. all you want, but I think it's fairly obvious that based on the record of the first and last half of the 20th century that U.S. intervention has saved lives, on balance, rather than cost them.
Your mileage will vary based on your degree of anti-Americanism, of course.
It's not a very high margin business? Aren't they still charging $35/year while GoDaddy charges $9/year and I believe there are other options that are even slightly cheaper? If GoDaddy can run a viable business at $9/year then I would have to say that Register.com is making an almost 300% profit, at least--unless they are terribly inefficient which isn't our problem.
I used to be a customer of Register.com. They were great when the other alternative was pretty much Network Solutions and their absurd forms to make changes to your domain records. Register.com came along and now we could control everything ourselves via webforms. Same price but didn't have to deal with NetSol, which is always good. But then more competition came along and GoDaddy offers a fine web interface and does it for about a fourth of the price.
We finished moving all our domains to GoDaddy last year.
Find me a *practical* use for a Stealth bomber other than military.
There is no other use for a Stealth bomber, but the Stealth bomber isn't itself "technology" any more than a Compaq computer is "technology." It's made up of lots and lots of internal technology, and that's what's dual use. I'll bet you anything that quite a bit of technology used in and to build the Stealth bomber also has civilian applications.
Ethics might be a good reason. It's difficult to rationalize taking blood money just because what you create might end up being used for bad purposes.
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
The whole concept that people should refuse to do work for the DoD just because some 60's-era peaceniks think their point of view is somehow morally superior to everyone elses and that the only reason scientists would do DoD work is because they have a selfish addiction to money is absurd. "Give peace a chance" and "greedy capitalists" all in a single concept, priceless!
NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen. We should be ready when it does happen and that doesn't mean that we start preparing when we see an immediate threat. If I can help my country build a more effective defense such that an attack on our country is less probable or, if there is a need for war, that fewer of my fellow citizens (our soliders) are killed in combat, AND I can make a buck doing it, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. I'll do it in a heartbeat. And I'll do it whether Bush or Clinton is president because, in the end, I'll be helping to save the lives of soldiers regardless of who sends them into combat.
If you're going to accept this whole "addicted to defense dollars" then we might as well accept the theory that many scientists that profess global warming is real are doing so to assure a continuing stream of federal research dollars.
People, the 60's are over. Even Clinton is history. Move on and stop being rebels without a cause, it gets old.
The news media almost always bends a story one way or another. Which media outlet may influence which way a story is bent. But if the media is going to be pending public opinion anyway, I for one am happy to see it being bent AGAINST the RIAA.
Nice kushy, liberal-style rendition of someone with money. And I'm sure some exist. But not everyone lives like that, even rich people.
There are many people with millions of dollars that don't live a "millionaire" lifestyle, don't necessarily have a person to do everything for them, don't have to catch a chartered flight and they (or their son) may or may not have a trip to the CD store anytime soon.
Millionaires can--and certainly do--download music for the same reason most people do... because it's just a heck of a lot more convenient than going to the store to buy a CD. That it's free is just a bonus.
Disregarding the possibility of Microsoft using political manipulation to legislate Free Software out of existance, I agree with you, but I do wonder how far off "the end" might be considering that $50 Billion can go quite a long way.
Oh, I understand that. I'm not saying they'll disappear tomorrow. $50 billion guarantees that (it was $40... is it $50 now?).
But even $50 billion will only go so far and if quarter profits turn into consistent quarter losses there'll be a big enough shake-up at Microsoft long before they burn $50 billion. The Microsoft we know and hate will be forced to evolve into something else long before they burn through that much. Otherwise, even with $50 billion their stock price will start diving and that hits Bill and everyone else's net worth real quick. So Microsoft doesn't have $50 billion to burn through before they must make changes... as soon as their quarter-to-quarter profits start consistently falling (not even dropping to zero or negative, even, just falling on a quarter-to-quarter basis) we'll see big changes.
I'm not convinced that the Free Software meme has quite reached the tipping point as yet, but simple and honest advocacy can get it there especially if Microsoft keeps irritating and alienating its customers with tactics like those demonstrated in the article.
I don't know about Free Software in general, but Linux is getting close to the tipping point, in my opinion. So many companies are using it on servers now and it's slowly hitting some desktops, especially in corporations and governments. At some point this is going to snowball and the trickle is going to turn into a flood.
I personally don't care if "free software" or pay software wins. I love Linux and it's great and I love that it's free, but I also use Win4Lin which cost me $89 to run legacy Windows apps under Linux. So I don't need everything free. I don't even need everything open source. Sometimes free, open-source will be the best option and sometimes you'll find a better product if you're willing to pay a few bucks.
However, I *DO* think that Linux is getting close to the tipping point. And Microsoft's whole empire is based around Windows. As soon as more and more people start installing Linux on the desktop or jumping ship to Mac Windows is going to lose a lot of momentum. That's going to hit their development tool lines as well as their Office line. They'll either have to make Office available for Linux or will see a continually falling marketshare for Office which is their bread and butter.
Unfortunately (for Microsoft), the old line is true... When you're at the top the only place you can go is down. Microsoft is already over its hill. You can't argue that their percentage of the OS market is declining. They might not be in panic mode yet, but after seeing their marketshare grow through the 90's they are now seeing a reversal in that trend.
I know that. I read LOTR as a child. I remember kind of liking it at the time, which is saying a lot since I wasn't much for reading fiction of any kind.
Mostly what I hate is the Harry Potter type of fantasy where the plot is really about 1-line but somehow they make a 3-hour movie out of it by inserting little 10-minute scenes that really contribute nothing to the overall storyline. I.e., in the first Harry Potter where they have the ballgame or whatever it's called. They could have taken that whole sequence out and the story would not have suffered. The same can be said for lots of other little "incidents." That kind of piece-meal storyline where the movie is made up of a bunch of 5 or 10-minute unimportant sequences just rubs me as a complete waste of my time.
LOTR doesn't really suffer from that problem, which is a major reason why I can sit through LOTR while Harry Potter has me looking at my watch within about 10 minutes. I only saw Harry Potter because my wife wanted to, and I was quite surprised she wanted to. Oh well.
Anonymous P2P. There are already some options out there, Google for them. Anonymous P2P is possible but the added hassle and overhead hasn't been worth it until now. Now there is a good reason to use it and I think we'll find that anonymous P2P becomes popular pretty quick. Then, the RIAA won't be able to sue anyone at all.
Private networks. I think you'll see more "private networks" where you need to know someone in the network to get you in. I.e., P2P as it is now but the user and 100 of his closest friends, so to speak. 100 is more than enough if each of those users is sharing an average of 100 files. No risk of being caught because the RIAA doesn't know you exist and even if they do they aren't going to get invited into the private group.
Linked private networks. Above concept, but each network could have one or more "gateways" to other private networks. So if you're in private network #1 (with 100 members and 10,000 files) and you're in network #2 (with 100 members and 10,000 files) then you could serve as a gateway between the two. If someone in network #1 looks for a file, your node automatically queries network #2. The responses are routed back through you to the original requester. If the user wants to download them, they go through you. So at that point both networks 1 and 2 have access to 200 nodes even though they only know and trust 100. Wash, rinse, repeat and you have a very large secure network that is very insulated against exterior threats. Could also be more robust since there'd be a sense of community so I think you'd see less terminated downloads, etc.
My opinion... It'll be interesting to see what happens. The sooner the RIAA dies and stops suing people the better. Same with SCO and DirecTV.
Not a bad idea. Can't you legally distribute some amount of a song free of charge? Even free of ASCAP, etc.? I thought it was 30 seconds, but I'm not sure. In any case, I believe as long as the amount of music you distribute--even blatantly in high quality--is less than the threshold there is no crime. So if everyone shared clips that were no more than that threshold the final client could download them and piece them together.
I may be completely wrong on this. I'd love to know one way or the other. But I'm pretty sure there is some threshold in seconds below which absolutely any reproduction is permitted--I think the intended purpose is to be able to review, criticize it in the media, but I'm not sure if there are any restrictions to the rule.
Science is possible... fantasy is impossible. Perhaps that's the problem.
That's obviously it. Science fiction used to be fantasy, an esape from reality. Now much science fiction is, arguably, just looking 25, 50, or 100 years ahead of our technological capabilities. It's not that much of an escape from reality... it almost forces you to think where reality is going.
That said, for the most part I've always hated fantasy. Popular stuff like LOTR, Harry Potter. It just rubs me the wrong way. More Harry Potter than LOTR, but they both just sort of bother me. I need *some* link to reality to really get into a story--completely suspending my brain for a movie like LOTR or Harry Potter just doesn't work.
But based on ticket sales I can see I'm in the minoriry.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about the same as blowing into a straw and watching bubbles come out of your soft drink and saying you've created life because the bubbles grow, shrink, split into two, and emit carbon dioxide energy when they bubble up to the top of the liquid.
Thay may be the case, but we're a long, long ways away from that. Despite environmentalist rhetoric, this planet has plenty of resources to offer--all we need to do is have technology keep up with population. That has not been a problem recently and I don't anticipate it will be a problem anytime soon. So much of this planet is not being taken advantage of efficiently, or at all.
China may need to limit its own population because its local infrastructure and technology is incapable of keeping up with its population--but the planet itself is perfectly capable of supporting many times more human beings than are currently living.
Everyone picks on the U.S. because, well, we're an easy target. We're big, successful, and powerful. And it's got to rub a lot of "old powers" the wrong way. They were the head honchos in the last millenium and they probably cling to some such dreams.
The biggest, most successful everything is always the lightning rod and easy target for criticisms. In computers, Microsoft is the lightning rod. In Internet, AOL is (or maybe was) the lightning rod. In world politics it's the same. The U.S. is the biggest, richest and most powerful so the world just blames it for all its woes whether it is or not. We get criticized when we act (in Iraq) but also get criticized for not acting fast enough (in WWII). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The best response is to ignore most U.S. criticism or at least recognize that a vast majority of it is jealousy or resentment because of the overwhelming success that is the U.S. That puts most of it in perspective.
And the alternative you propose is...?
Yeah, it costs too much... in lost sales when you hear the CD and say "This is crap!" :)
127.0.0.1 sitefinder.verisign.com
And you're good to go.
However, you need to realize that the customer doesn't care. The question is "I have $20 to spend... What should I spend it on? Chicago DVD with the music for $15.98 or just the music for $13.66?" A heck of a lot of people are going to go for the DVD.
It's not our problem that the RIAA has a broken business model. In fact, that's exactly the problem. That's why they are suing their customers instead of selling to them. They're trying to defend a broken business model. It's unsustainable.
They have to compete for a customer's limited entertainment budget. That budget may be split over seeing movies in the theater, buying DVDs, going on a vacation to Cancun... and maybe buying CDs. Their most direct competition is DVDs and in that area they are NOT competitive.
All they can do is lower their prices DRAMATICALLY and hope that's enough. I'm not talking $10... $10 for a music CD or $15.98 for the same music on a DVD is still a hard sell. I'm talking drop the price down to $3 - $4.99. And even there it's a crapshoot as to whether or not they'll make it. Music is free now because they've overpriced their product and driven tens of millions of customers to get their music for free online. The cat is out of the bag and it's going to be hard to put it back in--even if they lower the price of a CD to $5, a price which might have prevented the original exodus to P2P music sharing, it might be too late for that to bring people back.
Of course, it could apply to Canada anyway, but the original expression was in Spanish and applied to Mexico.
The statement "If mail filters send out one message for every copy of Sobig.F received, they are in effect doubling the amount of traffic. This makes them a part of the problem, not a part of the solution" is also what I've been saying for months. This is a condemnation of challenge/response. Challenge/response is flawed conceptually in that it assumes the return address is correct. In an age of spam (which it supposedly addresses) and viruses it is absurd to believe the return address exists and sending email to the return address just multiplies the problem.
Challenge/response was never well thought out. It shifts the burden of spam filtering to the person that sends email to that user, and tends to mailbomb innocent users that happen to have their addresses forged by spam or viruses. All so someone can supposedly enjoy a spam-free existance with no thought to the hassle they are creating for others and the spam that they are creating by mailbombibf C/R challenges to forged addresses.
Hopefully with much better filters already available Challenge/response will just disappear. It's bad technology.
So... there are a *few* people that might be mad at Kazaa. Most people know that what they paid for didn't give them legal access to the music and these people aren't going to be mad at Kazaa. Just a few, very stupid gullible people can really believe in their hearts they have a reason to be mad at Kazaa.
That said, I don't think Congress will take action against Kazaa or P2P. You have a very, very small group of the public mad at them to start with. Add to the mix the significant free speech issues involved with the technology and I really doubt you're going to see anything happen against P2P.
And even if we accept the unlikely conclusion that a few people are mad at Kazaa, orders of magnitude more people are mad at the RIAA. If Congress wants to pander to get votes, they'll take action against the RIAA. Yes, I know the RIAA has deep pockets but deep pockets only work when the public isn't looking. If the public is sufficiently mad at the RIAA then what legislators need to do to get votes is take action. No amount of campaign money will help a legislator when their constituents are good and truly pissed.
I doubt Congress does anything at all in response to the RIAA lawsuits. I certainly would hope they would not intervene.
Pretty much all the mainsteam press I've read (CNN was the latest) seems to be reporting that, yes, the lawsuits are going to rub consumers the wrong way. But they also said that the image of the recording industry is so low they almost can't do themselves any more damage even by alienating people with lawsuits.
You think that such a nasty public image might have just a little to do with their slump in sales??
2) It could be a genuine offer, only poorly thought out. This is what I wondered about in my parent post, for which I certainly didn't expect to get a "flamebait" mod.
I think they have the legal budget to produce a good contract. Of the three options I think this is the least likely.
3) It could be a purposely half-assed effort to garner good PR, with no obligations. This seems to be the most likely.
I agree. They are trying to get some good PR recognizing the fact that their lawsuits are definitely bad PR.
They get good PR, and a political feather in their cap later
Thing is, I don't think they received good PR from it. I don't think anyone trusts them, so it smells of either a trap or just a PR scheme--and people don't tend to appreciate either.
I think people are seeing the RIAA for what they are. The best thing the RIAA could do is nothing. Virtually any action that they take will only worsen their image in the eyes of the public and very possibly lead to even fewer CD sales.
"Biting the hand that feeds" you comes to mind. Yes, people may be sharing files but they're also buying CDs from time to time. With these lawsuits people will probably continue to share files in one way or another but they'll be less tempted to fund the RIAA through CD purchases.
You: Yes, I know, at least as long as the good old US of A continue their current foreign policy.
Bingo! I fished myself an anti-American anonymous coward. What are the chances? :)
USA has an unequaled record of military interventions abroad, between WWII and 9/11 they add up to 67 in total.
So what? In the first half of the 20th century there were two world wars. Since we've been intervening there hasn't been a single one.
And Germany caused more deaths in WWII than we have in all 67 engagements in the last 50 years.
Criticize the U.S. all you want, but I think it's fairly obvious that based on the record of the first and last half of the 20th century that U.S. intervention has saved lives, on balance, rather than cost them.
Your mileage will vary based on your degree of anti-Americanism, of course.
I used to be a customer of Register.com. They were great when the other alternative was pretty much Network Solutions and their absurd forms to make changes to your domain records. Register.com came along and now we could control everything ourselves via webforms. Same price but didn't have to deal with NetSol, which is always good. But then more competition came along and GoDaddy offers a fine web interface and does it for about a fourth of the price.
We finished moving all our domains to GoDaddy last year.
There is no other use for a Stealth bomber, but the Stealth bomber isn't itself "technology" any more than a Compaq computer is "technology." It's made up of lots and lots of internal technology, and that's what's dual use. I'll bet you anything that quite a bit of technology used in and to build the Stealth bomber also has civilian applications.
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
The whole concept that people should refuse to do work for the DoD just because some 60's-era peaceniks think their point of view is somehow morally superior to everyone elses and that the only reason scientists would do DoD work is because they have a selfish addiction to money is absurd. "Give peace a chance" and "greedy capitalists" all in a single concept, priceless!
NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen. We should be ready when it does happen and that doesn't mean that we start preparing when we see an immediate threat. If I can help my country build a more effective defense such that an attack on our country is less probable or, if there is a need for war, that fewer of my fellow citizens (our soliders) are killed in combat, AND I can make a buck doing it, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. I'll do it in a heartbeat. And I'll do it whether Bush or Clinton is president because, in the end, I'll be helping to save the lives of soldiers regardless of who sends them into combat.
If you're going to accept this whole "addicted to defense dollars" then we might as well accept the theory that many scientists that profess global warming is real are doing so to assure a continuing stream of federal research dollars.
People, the 60's are over. Even Clinton is history. Move on and stop being rebels without a cause, it gets old.
There are many people with millions of dollars that don't live a "millionaire" lifestyle, don't necessarily have a person to do everything for them, don't have to catch a chartered flight and they (or their son) may or may not have a trip to the CD store anytime soon.
Millionaires can--and certainly do--download music for the same reason most people do... because it's just a heck of a lot more convenient than going to the store to buy a CD. That it's free is just a bonus.
Oh, I understand that. I'm not saying they'll disappear tomorrow. $50 billion guarantees that (it was $40... is it $50 now?).
But even $50 billion will only go so far and if quarter profits turn into consistent quarter losses there'll be a big enough shake-up at Microsoft long before they burn $50 billion. The Microsoft we know and hate will be forced to evolve into something else long before they burn through that much. Otherwise, even with $50 billion their stock price will start diving and that hits Bill and everyone else's net worth real quick. So Microsoft doesn't have $50 billion to burn through before they must make changes... as soon as their quarter-to-quarter profits start consistently falling (not even dropping to zero or negative, even, just falling on a quarter-to-quarter basis) we'll see big changes.
I'm not convinced that the Free Software meme has quite reached the tipping point as yet, but simple and honest advocacy can get it there especially if Microsoft keeps irritating and alienating its customers with tactics like those demonstrated in the article.
I don't know about Free Software in general, but Linux is getting close to the tipping point, in my opinion. So many companies are using it on servers now and it's slowly hitting some desktops, especially in corporations and governments. At some point this is going to snowball and the trickle is going to turn into a flood.
I personally don't care if "free software" or pay software wins. I love Linux and it's great and I love that it's free, but I also use Win4Lin which cost me $89 to run legacy Windows apps under Linux. So I don't need everything free. I don't even need everything open source. Sometimes free, open-source will be the best option and sometimes you'll find a better product if you're willing to pay a few bucks.
However, I *DO* think that Linux is getting close to the tipping point. And Microsoft's whole empire is based around Windows. As soon as more and more people start installing Linux on the desktop or jumping ship to Mac Windows is going to lose a lot of momentum. That's going to hit their development tool lines as well as their Office line. They'll either have to make Office available for Linux or will see a continually falling marketshare for Office which is their bread and butter.
Unfortunately (for Microsoft), the old line is true... When you're at the top the only place you can go is down. Microsoft is already over its hill. You can't argue that their percentage of the OS market is declining. They might not be in panic mode yet, but after seeing their marketshare grow through the 90's they are now seeing a reversal in that trend.
Mostly what I hate is the Harry Potter type of fantasy where the plot is really about 1-line but somehow they make a 3-hour movie out of it by inserting little 10-minute scenes that really contribute nothing to the overall storyline. I.e., in the first Harry Potter where they have the ballgame or whatever it's called. They could have taken that whole sequence out and the story would not have suffered. The same can be said for lots of other little "incidents." That kind of piece-meal storyline where the movie is made up of a bunch of 5 or 10-minute unimportant sequences just rubs me as a complete waste of my time.
LOTR doesn't really suffer from that problem, which is a major reason why I can sit through LOTR while Harry Potter has me looking at my watch within about 10 minutes. I only saw Harry Potter because my wife wanted to, and I was quite surprised she wanted to. Oh well.
My opinion... It'll be interesting to see what happens. The sooner the RIAA dies and stops suing people the better. Same with SCO and DirecTV.
I may be completely wrong on this. I'd love to know one way or the other. But I'm pretty sure there is some threshold in seconds below which absolutely any reproduction is permitted--I think the intended purpose is to be able to review, criticize it in the media, but I'm not sure if there are any restrictions to the rule.
That's obviously it. Science fiction used to be fantasy, an esape from reality. Now much science fiction is, arguably, just looking 25, 50, or 100 years ahead of our technological capabilities. It's not that much of an escape from reality... it almost forces you to think where reality is going.
That said, for the most part I've always hated fantasy. Popular stuff like LOTR, Harry Potter. It just rubs me the wrong way. More Harry Potter than LOTR, but they both just sort of bother me. I need *some* link to reality to really get into a story--completely suspending my brain for a movie like LOTR or Harry Potter just doesn't work.
But based on ticket sales I can see I'm in the minoriry.