For those that hate MS and buy and xbox to put Linux on it, these aren't customers who will later have an MS-centric media center. If you're only buying the hardware and using it for your own software you're hurting Microsoft. It doesn't get Microsoft any closer to controlling your living room.
It seems like a large amount per unit. They all calculate the average number of games a person will buy and multiply that by the amount they get back per game. I read somewhere the average console user buys 6 games. That would mean Microsoft would have to get $20 per game just be break even. If I were a game publisher selling a $50 game knowing that Microsoft got 40% of the cut I wouldn't be happy. I can't imagine Microsoft gets $20 per game. So they must be assuming people will buy more than 6 games per console on average.
Although they did say they're willing to lose up to $5 billion just to get the console into people's living rooms. Even after all the consoles and games are sold they'll still be happy to lose billions as long as more people put their hardware and software near a couch. Kinda scary considering their motives are more than just making money selling games.
Holy crap. And to think Britain is the backdrop for "1984". I would think people would get more worked up over such a similarity and spray-paint over the signs or something.
"Last year (2003), 10 police officers were shot and killed in the United States after a suspect managed to get control of an officer's weapon. Nearly one in five officers killed as part of a crime last year were shot with their own (or a partner's) weapon, according to the National Center for Law Enforcement Technology." - Gotham Gazette
1 in 5 is a lot smaller than 75% (although that's killed, not shot).
I won't use non-ad supported Windows. But I'm bombarded with ads everywhere. The last place I want them is on my desktop. Leave us alone already. I don't want any of your crap anyway! I'll gladly pay for a copy of my OS just so I can have it and be left alone. Maybe people would pay more for your OS if it was worth the money.
The American economy is a massive, chaotic, fiercely competitive ecosystem. No one company owns more than a tiny fraction of its capacity. No one company controls more than a tiny fraction of its products. In short, no one company is ever going to control the American economy.
Yet individual companies do gain huge control over parts of the economy. As bigger and bigger companies gain more and more content and attention on the internet we will see issues of control. Any time money is involved you will find battles over freedom and control.
Well, all I can tell you is that I was told this by Office developers in the usenet newsgroups. Some of the changes they made to the compiler saw their way into the VC compiler.
I think it's more like they saw IBM making money from it and decided they can't let IBM have the whole market. It's not like this was Sun's idea in the first place. IBM was the first big company to make an offer. It seems to be working for IBM, so Sun already knew the market was there. What they probably lack is a clear differentiating factor for their customers.
"when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography"
Where's the direct correlation between virtually committing murder and physical violence among children? Consuming alcohol and tobacco physically affect people directly. People are afraid virtual violence leads to real violence, but where's the proof? Especially with the rates of reported crimes dropping I'd like to see politicians showing evidence before passing laws.
Well, I've been in the industry for the last 10 years and watched it for at least 5 before that. Microsoft happened to be in the right place at the right time with an agressive attitude. If they didn't step in someone else would have. Maybe it would have taken an extra couple of years, but the industry still would have grown the same. There was plenty of buzz and support within the budding industry. And Microsoft didn't bring any new technology to the table. The necessary technologies were there without them. All that was required was someone to bring them together in the right way. Someone else would have done it eventually.
They act like drug dealers. They let people copy their software "illegally" for years until it became almost ubiquitous. Then they cracked down after everyone was already "addicted" to make huge profits.
My company runs on Mac clients and Linux servers. We never wish for a Windows app and only curse the Windows machine when we need to use it for testing.
The purpose of the book is to outline the alternatives you're talking about. Personally I've never found a standard corporate app on Windows that didn't have a good alternative on Linux and/or Mac. I spent 10 years on Windows in the financial industry. I pushed hard to get companies to switch, but they don't even want to listen to what alternatives are out there. The biggest problem is the custom apps.
BTW, MS Project is just a Gantt chart writer. An equivalent came with my Mac Mini.
If you read his book or my own online book you'll learn the many reasons to not use their software. It's not just about how bad their software is. They hurt the IT industry and therefore indirectly hurt you as users. They influence the creation of laws and who gets elected. They have a say in international policies.
I've found that most people say they're happy with MS software... until they try something else. When they learn what they've been missing they realize just how bad they have it.
Your predictions ignore non-technical issues. Oracle has brand recognition, massive marketing, and consultants. Large enterprises want a significant company backing their software. Oracle may be expensive, but they provide the services large companies want. Most IT managers are familiar with Oracle and have no idea what PostgreSQL is.
just because GWB is a punishment-oriented authoritarian doesn't mean those are the values of the people who are registered republicans
Registered Republicans chose a punishment-oriented authoritarian to be their party leader. They picked someone who they thought best represented their values. So I'd say those are the values of the registered Republicans.
If most Republicans were goal-oriented libertarians they would have chosen one to lead their party. The leader of the party generally can set the tone.
Really? I left a job for ethical reasons. And took a pay cut, too. Now at my current job a client is asking for something potentially unethical and my boss has no problem if I refuse to do it.
If more people actually lived and worked by their supposed morals we'd be a much happier society. People should say no to their employer if asked to do something they consider unethical. If you don't live by your ethics you have no ethics at all.
If she was in the military and order to shoot an unarmed child, should she have done it? According to your logic, yet, because it's her job to follow all orders.
If she believed what she was doing was unethical, and did it anyway because it's her job, she's got no ethics and should not be one of my Supreme Court justices.
Please explain how making the FULL contents of a digital copy of a copyrighted work available from a web browser... falls under fair use?
They're not making the full contents available. It's never more than 20%. That's why it's fair use. The only question is if 20% is more than fair use. But the full contents will not be available.
You've got it backwards. They're not trying to protect their rights. The guild wants to limit citizens' rights. They don't like fair use rights. They can only lobby against fair use so strongly today because their money easily influences our politicians. I agree they should be concerned about Google completely indexing books. But they should work with Google to ensure nothing beyond fair use is allowed. Instead they're trying to stop Google completely.
This isn't about the rights of the members of the guild. It's about their money.
Google isn't making books available for free. You can't simply browse through an entire book with their service. If you want more than an excerpt you'll still have to go to the publisher and buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
For those that hate MS and buy and xbox to put Linux on it, these aren't customers who will later have an MS-centric media center. If you're only buying the hardware and using it for your own software you're hurting Microsoft. It doesn't get Microsoft any closer to controlling your living room.
It seems like a large amount per unit. They all calculate the average number of games a person will buy and multiply that by the amount they get back per game. I read somewhere the average console user buys 6 games. That would mean Microsoft would have to get $20 per game just be break even. If I were a game publisher selling a $50 game knowing that Microsoft got 40% of the cut I wouldn't be happy. I can't imagine Microsoft gets $20 per game. So they must be assuming people will buy more than 6 games per console on average.
Although they did say they're willing to lose up to $5 billion just to get the console into people's living rooms. Even after all the consoles and games are sold they'll still be happy to lose billions as long as more people put their hardware and software near a couch. Kinda scary considering their motives are more than just making money selling games.
Holy crap. And to think Britain is the backdrop for "1984". I would think people would get more worked up over such a similarity and spray-paint over the signs or something.
"Last year (2003), 10 police officers were shot and killed in the United States after a suspect managed to get control of an officer's weapon. Nearly one in five officers killed as part of a crime last year were shot with their own (or a partner's) weapon, according to the National Center for Law Enforcement Technology." - Gotham Gazette
1 in 5 is a lot smaller than 75% (although that's killed, not shot).
I won't use non-ad supported Windows. But I'm bombarded with ads everywhere. The last place I want them is on my desktop. Leave us alone already. I don't want any of your crap anyway! I'll gladly pay for a copy of my OS just so I can have it and be left alone. Maybe people would pay more for your OS if it was worth the money.
The American economy is a massive, chaotic, fiercely competitive ecosystem. No one company owns more than a tiny fraction of its capacity. No one company controls more than a tiny fraction of its products. In short, no one company is ever going to control the American economy.
Yet individual companies do gain huge control over parts of the economy. As bigger and bigger companies gain more and more content and attention on the internet we will see issues of control. Any time money is involved you will find battles over freedom and control.
Well, all I can tell you is that I was told this by Office developers in the usenet newsgroups. Some of the changes they made to the compiler saw their way into the VC compiler.
They also have their own C++ compiler. Excel can't be compiled with Visual Studio.
I think it's more like they saw IBM making money from it and decided they can't let IBM have the whole market. It's not like this was Sun's idea in the first place. IBM was the first big company to make an offer. It seems to be working for IBM, so Sun already knew the market was there. What they probably lack is a clear differentiating factor for their customers.
They won't have to arm-twist. They simply stop offering licenses for XP.
And that proves my point. It's total speculation. Laws shouldn't be written purely on hypothesis.
"when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography"
Where's the direct correlation between virtually committing murder and physical violence among children? Consuming alcohol and tobacco physically affect people directly. People are afraid virtual violence leads to real violence, but where's the proof? Especially with the rates of reported crimes dropping I'd like to see politicians showing evidence before passing laws.
I didn't say they generate their content on those linux servers. I said they distribute some load across them. Ever heard of caching?
We would, but they have Akamai distribute their load across thousands of linux servers to avoid DDOS attacks. Ironic...
Well, I've been in the industry for the last 10 years and watched it for at least 5 before that. Microsoft happened to be in the right place at the right time with an agressive attitude. If they didn't step in someone else would have. Maybe it would have taken an extra couple of years, but the industry still would have grown the same. There was plenty of buzz and support within the budding industry. And Microsoft didn't bring any new technology to the table. The necessary technologies were there without them. All that was required was someone to bring them together in the right way. Someone else would have done it eventually.
My mistake, I downloaded it separately:
y _tools/ganttproject.html
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/productivit
They act like drug dealers. They let people copy their software "illegally" for years until it became almost ubiquitous. Then they cracked down after everyone was already "addicted" to make huge profits.
My company runs on Mac clients and Linux servers. We never wish for a Windows app and only curse the Windows machine when we need to use it for testing.
The purpose of the book is to outline the alternatives you're talking about. Personally I've never found a standard corporate app on Windows that didn't have a good alternative on Linux and/or Mac. I spent 10 years on Windows in the financial industry. I pushed hard to get companies to switch, but they don't even want to listen to what alternatives are out there. The biggest problem is the custom apps.
BTW, MS Project is just a Gantt chart writer. An equivalent came with my Mac Mini.
If you read his book or my own online book you'll learn the many reasons to not use their software. It's not just about how bad their software is. They hurt the IT industry and therefore indirectly hurt you as users. They influence the creation of laws and who gets elected. They have a say in international policies.
I've found that most people say they're happy with MS software... until they try something else. When they learn what they've been missing they realize just how bad they have it.
Your predictions ignore non-technical issues. Oracle has brand recognition, massive marketing, and consultants. Large enterprises want a significant company backing their software. Oracle may be expensive, but they provide the services large companies want. Most IT managers are familiar with Oracle and have no idea what PostgreSQL is.
just because GWB is a punishment-oriented authoritarian doesn't mean those are the values of the people who are registered republicans
Registered Republicans chose a punishment-oriented authoritarian to be their party leader. They picked someone who they thought best represented their values. So I'd say those are the values of the registered Republicans.
If most Republicans were goal-oriented libertarians they would have chosen one to lead their party. The leader of the party generally can set the tone.
Really? I left a job for ethical reasons. And took a pay cut, too. Now at my current job a client is asking for something potentially unethical and my boss has no problem if I refuse to do it.
If more people actually lived and worked by their supposed morals we'd be a much happier society. People should say no to their employer if asked to do something they consider unethical. If you don't live by your ethics you have no ethics at all.
If she was in the military and order to shoot an unarmed child, should she have done it? According to your logic, yet, because it's her job to follow all orders.
If she believed what she was doing was unethical, and did it anyway because it's her job, she's got no ethics and should not be one of my Supreme Court justices.
Please explain how making the FULL contents of a digital copy of a copyrighted work available from a web browser... falls under fair use?
They're not making the full contents available. It's never more than 20%. That's why it's fair use. The only question is if 20% is more than fair use. But the full contents will not be available.
You've got it backwards. They're not trying to protect their rights. The guild wants to limit citizens' rights. They don't like fair use rights. They can only lobby against fair use so strongly today because their money easily influences our politicians. I agree they should be concerned about Google completely indexing books. But they should work with Google to ensure nothing beyond fair use is allowed. Instead they're trying to stop Google completely.
This isn't about the rights of the members of the guild. It's about their money.
Google isn't making books available for free. You can't simply browse through an entire book with their service. If you want more than an excerpt you'll still have to go to the publisher and buy it.