Yet they grew revenues last year (and profits...).
With the overall global growth of technology, other software can capture an awful lot of absolute market without even impacting Microsoft's ability to grow. From what I can tell, for a lot of businesses, $1,000 in licensing costs isn't a lot more expensive than $0 in licensing costs (and I doubt many businesses actually send Microsoft $1,000 per seat, per year).
Their costs are extremely low (the development costs of each type of package get distributed across millions of units; man-years of effort add pennies of per unit cost). This feeds into the price discrimination others are talking about.
The country that doesn't agree needs to be able to afford a lot of space weapons. A *lot*.
Iran can't (because the society isn't nearly as crazy as the leadership, they would revolt if spending were narrowly directed to marginally useful weapons).
Basically, if the U.S. felt like it, it could destroy the entire country in about a week, using conventional weapons. The only problem is that we don't actually try to kill civilians (I suppose it can be argued that we could try harder not too...).
I'm not so sure that the end result would be more brittle or less readable.
And really, if it demands to update over the network constantly, does it need to store 130MB of localization resources and installation files that I never even use?
I think as much as anything, it hints at an attitude that people find distasteful.
Apparently, the reason should be more "because they don't know about them". Compiling some Fortran and an interface sounds a lot easier than rewriting stuff:
It is far from obvious that a Fannie/Freddie free housing market would have been as liquid as the market that existed prior to the breakdown, mostly because each of those entities was walking around with an implicit government guarantee on their actions.
They certainly aren't the only contributor to the problem, but it seems pretty clear to me that they added to the magnitude.
If you don't understand the principles of construction, better tools aren't automatically going to lead to better construction (perhaps you mean that having better tools is a worthwhile motivation for better understanding of the principles, but then, maybe the problem is that it is 'hard').
I transcode to lower bitrates all the time (for cheap earbuds, so why not...), but it isn't something I expect normal people to do. Rockbox is nice, but they don't seem to have the resources to keep up with the manufacturers, so I don't think they are very relevant.
Most people are much more concerned with "works with what I have" than they are with quality and storage efficiency. Transcoding is going to be some sort of alien language, unless their music manager does it automatically.
Yes, drug companies should clearly focus on saving lives at a net loss, and drive themselves out of business. That would be better for everybody.
There are reasons that people support government research and set up private foundations, one of them is that is isn't sane to expect a for-profit enterprise to be altruistic.
It's a horrible strategy. I don't mind phones having lots of features, but a screen big enough to be useful ends up making for an awkward phone, and a reasonably sized phone makes for an awful mp3 player.
I'm not sure that is the right way to look at it. I agree that people who have concentrated extreme amounts of wealth represent economic inefficiency, but I don't think it is obvious or necessary that a system without those inefficiencies would be better (I believe that it would have other, more troublesome inefficiencies).
In terms of GDP, by far, most of it gets consumed; currently, global GDP is in excess of 50 trillion dollars, and even the most obscene concentrator of that wealth has captured less than 0.2% of it (that's comparing lifetime concentration of wealth to annual GDP!). I suppose that taken as a group, the very richest have concentrated some significant portion of annual GDP, but how much of that is paper wealth (The market value of things like real estate and art cannot readily be translated into food, at least not by society in general; given a private buyer, they are directly translatable, but society can only take the wealth from either the buyer or seller, it can't come from both...), and how much of it is actual wealth that can be transformed into net productivity?
On some level, if Bill Gates having 50 billion dollars is obscene, then so is drinking milk or eating a steak, and I like my steak.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet they grew revenues last year (and profits...).
With the overall global growth of technology, other software can capture an awful lot of absolute market without even impacting Microsoft's ability to grow. From what I can tell, for a lot of businesses, $1,000 in licensing costs isn't a lot more expensive than $0 in licensing costs (and I doubt many businesses actually send Microsoft $1,000 per seat, per year).
Their costs are extremely low (the development costs of each type of package get distributed across millions of units; man-years of effort add pennies of per unit cost). This feeds into the price discrimination others are talking about.
Do you live in a dry county or something?
Try to keep a part of your brain sane, to go along with the part that has fun parsing and gaming legal documents.
The country that doesn't agree needs to be able to afford a lot of space weapons. A *lot*.
Iran can't (because the society isn't nearly as crazy as the leadership, they would revolt if spending were narrowly directed to marginally useful weapons).
Yes, big scary Iran.
Basically, if the U.S. felt like it, it could destroy the entire country in about a week, using conventional weapons. The only problem is that we don't actually try to kill civilians (I suppose it can be argued that we could try harder not too...).
I'm not so sure that the end result would be more brittle or less readable.
And really, if it demands to update over the network constantly, does it need to store 130MB of localization resources and installation files that I never even use?
I think as much as anything, it hints at an attitude that people find distasteful.
Apparently, the reason should be more "because they don't know about them". Compiling some Fortran and an interface sounds a lot easier than rewriting stuff:
http://www.scipy.org/F2py
It is far from obvious that a Fannie/Freddie free housing market would have been as liquid as the market that existed prior to the breakdown, mostly because each of those entities was walking around with an implicit government guarantee on their actions.
They certainly aren't the only contributor to the problem, but it seems pretty clear to me that they added to the magnitude.
If you don't understand the principles of construction, better tools aren't automatically going to lead to better construction (perhaps you mean that having better tools is a worthwhile motivation for better understanding of the principles, but then, maybe the problem is that it is 'hard').
I transcode to lower bitrates all the time (for cheap earbuds, so why not...), but it isn't something I expect normal people to do. Rockbox is nice, but they don't seem to have the resources to keep up with the manufacturers, so I don't think they are very relevant.
Coming to hate hippies is a perfectly natural part of growing up.
The magic-number-as-identity problem will not be solved by adding new magic numbers.
How big is the elephant?
Most people are much more concerned with "works with what I have" than they are with quality and storage efficiency. Transcoding is going to be some sort of alien language, unless their music manager does it automatically.
If it is effective, only a few months before the folks who do it at reasonable cost.
1 or 4, either way, you only need to rent a single backhoe.
Yes, drug companies should clearly focus on saving lives at a net loss, and drive themselves out of business. That would be better for everybody.
There are reasons that people support government research and set up private foundations, one of them is that is isn't sane to expect a for-profit enterprise to be altruistic.
The doctor makes a slurry and uses a tube.
It's a horrible strategy. I don't mind phones having lots of features, but a screen big enough to be useful ends up making for an awkward phone, and a reasonably sized phone makes for an awful mp3 player.
The knife you are looking for is often called a ham slicer. Works great with bread.
Embed a hash of the user data, it will still be easy to strip out, but it will protect against 99% of the spazzes that think you shouldn't do that.
As far as printing, it is a trivial to enable it on a protected document, messing with it will only affect people that paid you...
Or as csv, as god intended.
What good is a mint version of the original packaging?
I'm not sure that is the right way to look at it. I agree that people who
have concentrated extreme amounts of wealth represent economic
inefficiency, but I don't think it is obvious or necessary that a system
without those inefficiencies would be better (I believe that it would have
other, more troublesome inefficiencies).
In terms of GDP, by far, most of it gets consumed; currently, global GDP is
in excess of 50 trillion dollars, and even the most obscene concentrator of
that wealth has captured less than 0.2% of it (that's comparing lifetime
concentration of wealth to annual GDP!). I suppose that taken as a group,
the very richest have concentrated some significant portion of annual GDP,
but how much of that is paper wealth (The market value of things like
real estate and art cannot readily be translated into food, at least not by
society in general; given a private buyer, they are directly translatable,
but society can only take the wealth from either the buyer or seller, it can't
come from both...), and how much of it is actual wealth that can be
transformed into net productivity?
On some level, if Bill Gates having 50 billion dollars is obscene, then so
is drinking milk or eating a steak, and I like my steak.