Is it really fair to compare the shipping version of one product with an unreleased beta version of another?
Isn't ease of installation more important that raw installation time? I mean, you only install an OS relatively rarely... Who really cares how long it takes, just make it simple...
1) Lets say the guy comes to your store once an hour, instead of weekly. 2) Since bandwidth is limited, let's make the comparison that the guy brings 100 people with him, getting in everyones way, so that he can quickly look at every item in your store. 3) In your example the guy making the glossy insert isn't profiting in any way. Lets change it to the guy places an add with your prices saying he will provide the lowest prices if you join his low price club for $FOO. W
Katz makes some valid points in this article, but really this is just a reflection of human nature. I mean look at the web... here is the largest repository of knowledge in the world available to people and what does everyone say the first time they use it? "Sure is slow..." Nobody seems to appreciate that if you want to know say, the flight speed of a coconut laden African swallow, you previously had to go to the library, find a book on the subject, and find the information in said book. The web is serveral orders of magnatude faster...
Plus, generally people just plain DO more in a day than people used to, so naturally people seem overburdened, but its not technologies fault. If anything overreliance on technology is the symptom of an underlying problem, not the problem itself.
So, if you have a shortfall in a state budget, you obviously have to either raise taxes somewhere else or cut programs. What's the big deal? Plus you left state income taxes out of your list of funding options for states. In a majority of states (obviously leaving TX, VT and the others without a state income tax) these provide a majority of state funding.
The last quarterly earnings for MSFT I could fine states MS brought in revenues of $4,331,000,000 for the quarter ending March 31st. Versus $4,400,000 for RHAT.
Or put another way, it takes Microsoft a little over 131 minutes to bring in revenues equal to what RHAT brings in during a quarter!
I'm sure the ever-changing and expanding and undocumented Windows API's have a lot to do with this.
You know, you always hear about the undocumented Windows API's that are out there? Can anyone actually show me one? Something I can get to compile with VC++? I've never seen a page listing any "ah, here is some odd functions we saw in a debugger we can't find a reference to anywhere..." or anything like that. Has anyone tried to compile a list of these calls or anything?
Oh, so every movie theatre has to show every movie? Even my 2 hour documentary Intelligent Anonymous Coward Posts on Slashdot which consists of nothing but a blank screen?
Look at our movie ratings system - if you run an unrated film, it's likely to not see more than a small handful of theatres
What, theatre owners shouldn't have the right to decide not to show unrated movies?
Re:Ratings are always censorship
on
Three on Munich
·
· Score: 1
I still dont think you've proven anything:
1) When a ratings system is in place, parents or others in positions of responsibility swiftly come to rely upon them. How many in the audience have had their parents at one time or another deny them permission to view a movie based solely on the rating given by the MPAA?
That's the point of a ratings system, to provide a rating on material so someone doesn't have to sit though the movie first or whatever.... besides, what rational person could call a parent forbidding a child from seeing a movie censorship?
2) This plan creates the framework for future censorship
Big deal, the slipperly slope argument is a bad argument in almost every case. Having computers that allow access to the internet allows this rating system to be implemented which may lead to censorship, so lets get rid of computers!
3) Economic favoritism.
If you take the time to read the proposal you will notice that this is voluntery, no something assigned by a group. Makes this case pretty hard to rationalize.
You know back in the day when the net was young(er) and we all had shell accounts....
Well, I used to find it was faster to Shell into my VAX account to FTP stuff from Sunsite (was that site ever not busy?) to grab stuff, then SLIP into my VAX accout to get stuff onto my PC at home, rather than SLIPing straight to Sunsite to grab stuff.... does that make sense?
I wasn't trying to influence that guy, he is the one who thinks my mind is welded shut or whatever...
I think tax cuts are good for everyone, not just the rich. Hell, I pay about $20,000 a year in Federal Income Taxes, and that is way too much. Its not in hope of a trickle-down effect, its because they earned the money, why should the damn government take it? Why punish those who prosper by taxing them at higher rates?
If you think you are undertaxed, the Department of the Treasury does take donations....
Of course Reagan's fiscal policies tripled the national debt, so that even now the biggest item on the budget is interest payments on the debt. Thanks Ronnie!
Actually the biggest item in the budget is Social Security payments and other entitlement programms... but hey, don't let facts get in the way of making a point!
He did succede in getting tax cuts through. The rich were very pleased with this. The poor just got poorer: he created a huge transfer of capital from the poor to the rich.
Hahahahaha... explain to me again how all this capital got transfered from the poor to the rich? I thought if you had lots of capital you were, by definition, not poor....
Oh, I see you are one of those liberal idiots who doesn't see any problem with 70% marginal tax rates, as long as you aren't paying them...
What makes you think...
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
...that you have a right to privacy over a private network anyway? I've never read anything in any literature from any of the phone companies I've dealt with that guaranteed that no one was listening in to your calls, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really fair to compare the shipping version of one product with an unreleased beta version of another?
Isn't ease of installation more important that raw installation time? I mean, you only install an OS relatively rarely... Who really cares how long it takes, just make it simple...
IBM remains what it has always been - a parasitic predator whose only goal in life is to get obscenely wealthy by feeding off the computer industry.
You say that like its a bad thing or something...
None of those sites link to specific auctions on Ebay, they don't update often enough for that sort of thing.
You moderators call this insightful?!?
Problems with your metaphor:
1) Lets say the guy comes to your store once an hour, instead of weekly.
2) Since bandwidth is limited, let's make the comparison that the guy brings 100 people with him, getting in everyones way, so that he can quickly look at every item in your store.
3) In your example the guy making the glossy insert isn't profiting in any way. Lets change it to the guy places an add with your prices saying he will provide the lowest prices if you join his low price club for $FOO. W
...shouldn't be using his computer at work to surf the net.
Just remember, your tax dollars at work!
Katz makes some valid points in this article, but really this is just a reflection of human nature. I mean look at the web... here is the largest repository of knowledge in the world available to people and what does everyone say the first time they use it? "Sure is slow..." Nobody seems to appreciate that if you want to know say, the flight speed of a coconut laden African swallow, you previously had to go to the library, find a book on the subject, and find the information in said book. The web is serveral orders of magnatude faster...
Plus, generally people just plain DO more in a day than people used to, so naturally people seem overburdened, but its not technologies fault. If anything overreliance on technology is the symptom of an underlying problem, not the problem itself.
Besides, when did knocking out Dallas contribute to armageddon?
:)
Daiktana would ship even later, if that is possible...
So, if you have a shortfall in a state budget, you obviously have to either raise taxes somewhere else or cut programs. What's the big deal? Plus you left state income taxes out of your list of funding options for states. In a majority of states (obviously leaving TX, VT and the others without a state income tax) these provide a majority of state funding.
So, what would be wrong with a Federal Income Tax? Its a hell of a lot better than the current Federal taxation system we have.
--Easier to Determine amount of tax due
--Encourages savings by only taxing consumption
Sure, for a while, but not indefinitely.
Ah, a business school graduate...
How about because if you never make a profit you WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS!
Sale of stock is not revenue, its in the equity section of the balance sheet, not on the income statement.
The last quarterly earnings for MSFT I could fine states MS brought in revenues of $4,331,000,000 for the quarter ending March 31st. Versus $4,400,000 for RHAT.
Or put another way, it takes Microsoft a little over 131 minutes to bring in revenues equal to what RHAT brings in during a quarter!
I'm sure the ever-changing and expanding and undocumented Windows API's have a lot to do with this.
You know, you always hear about the undocumented Windows API's that are out there? Can anyone actually show me one? Something I can get to compile with VC++? I've never seen a page listing any "ah, here is some odd functions we saw in a debugger we can't find a reference to anywhere..." or anything like that. Has anyone tried to compile a list of these calls or anything?
Oh, so every movie theatre has to show every movie? Even my 2 hour documentary Intelligent Anonymous Coward Posts on Slashdot which consists of nothing but a blank screen?
Look at our movie ratings system - if you run an unrated film, it's likely to not see more than a small handful of theatres
What, theatre owners shouldn't have the right to decide not to show unrated movies?
Look at our movie ratings system - if you run an unrated film, it's likely to not see more than a small handful of theatres
What, theatre owners shouldn't have the right to decide not to show unrated movies?
I still dont think you've proven anything:
1) When a ratings system is in place, parents or others in positions of responsibility swiftly come to rely upon them. How many in the audience have had their parents at one time or another deny them permission to view a movie based solely on the rating given by the MPAA?
That's the point of a ratings system, to provide a rating on material so someone doesn't have to sit though the movie first or whatever.... besides, what rational person could call a parent forbidding a child from seeing a movie censorship?
2) This plan creates the framework for future censorship
Big deal, the slipperly slope argument is a bad argument in almost every case. Having computers that allow access to the internet allows this rating system to be implemented which may lead to censorship, so lets get rid of computers!
3) Economic favoritism.
If you take the time to read the proposal you will notice that this is voluntery, no something assigned by a group. Makes this case pretty hard to rationalize.
You know back in the day when the net was young(er) and we all had shell accounts....
Well, I used to find it was faster to Shell into my VAX account to FTP stuff from Sunsite (was that site ever not busy?) to grab stuff, then SLIP into my VAX accout to get stuff onto my PC at home, rather than SLIPing straight to Sunsite to grab stuff.... does that make sense?
...I mean, they should do something about that guy putting a gun to people's heads when they sign these contracts.
What? They sign them all by themselves? So what's the whining about then?
I wasn't trying to influence that guy, he is the one who thinks my mind is welded shut or whatever...
I think tax cuts are good for everyone, not just the rich. Hell, I pay about $20,000 a year in Federal Income Taxes, and that is way too much. Its not in hope of a trickle-down effect, its because they earned the money, why should the damn government take it? Why punish those who prosper by taxing them at higher rates?
If you think you are undertaxed, the Department of the Treasury does take donations....
Of course Reagan's fiscal policies tripled the national debt, so that even now the biggest item on the budget is interest payments on the debt. Thanks Ronnie!
Actually the biggest item in the budget is Social Security payments and other entitlement programms... but hey, don't let facts get in the way of making a point!
The Net's 1960? by Jacob Weisberg
He did succede in getting tax cuts through. The rich were very pleased with this. The poor just got poorer: he created a huge transfer of capital from the poor to the rich.
Hahahahaha... explain to me again how all this capital got transfered from the poor to the rich? I thought if you had lots of capital you were, by definition, not poor....
Oh, I see you are one of those liberal idiots who doesn't see any problem with 70% marginal tax rates, as long as you aren't paying them...
...that you have a right to privacy over a private network anyway? I've never read anything in any literature from any of the phone companies I've dealt with that guaranteed that no one was listening in to your calls, etc...