It cemented their place as a solid second in the video game market -- a market already quite a bit bigger than the film industry. It got them so recognized as a powerhouse that they have a real chance to gun for first in the next round.
They may have lost billions doing it, but thats the cost of entry into a market that big. Especially when it gives you a prime position in the living room at a time that all home entertaiment is going digital, pipes are getting bigger and bigger, and people are starting to get used to shelling out hundreds a month on their various digital services.
Of course, if you look what happened to ATT, the breakup served to enormously increase the scope of the markets the new fragments of the company were in. They quickly grew to be as big as the original, and have since started merging back together into a company that will dominate far more of the industries.
Breaking up a monopoly doesn't have the effect a lot of people seem to think -- it briefly opens up the market to greater competition, but a company that is in a monopoly position, unless granted it by the government, didn't get there through purely illegal means. Its pieces represent just as great a competitor in the marketplace, and the odds are pretty good they will, as a collective, still dominate their industry.
Splitting up Microsoft would be no better. It would be huge for shareholders, as the ties that bind versions of applications and operating systems may weaken, more pressure would be on the pieces to be competitive, and instead of one company dominating the industry, there would be two or three.
The two big things that people tend to shout "monopoly" at MS about are the media player and browser -- and it seems people just forget how lousy real players application was, and how much better for web users and developers IE was when it put the nail in NS's coffin. There is a reason so many sites were IE-only in the mid to late 90's -- and it wasn't because of bundling.
MS, for good or bad (and there are those who fall on the good side), is a dangerous beast to mess with caselessly. Forcing them to release crippled versions of thier software, as this demonstrates, won't work -- consumers do not want it. Good or bad, consumers LIKE what Microsoft offers. THAT is why they are in their position of power. And a corporate breakup has the very high odds of making things FAR worse.
If it wasn't for people like me, Taco and company would be working 9-5 jobs writing mindless software for some generic company and the slashbots on here who think they are so smart would be somewhere else.
Some of us were here when the commentary here was by people who tended to know what they were talking about, and the discussions were on serious topics, not some latest pseudoscience or ignorant MS-bashing. And some of us who were feel its worth making an issue of the quality this place has sunk to, precisely because we have been on Slashdot since half the people here were in elementary school.
Slashdot's got all the depth of a bunch of twelve year olds standing around trying to act smarter than the other by using big words they hope the others don't know.
Slashdot is where you go for comedy and narrow minded technical uneducated opinions, not quality commentary.
And to keep on topic, FF RC3 updated without a hitch on my Mac at home this morning, but I've had no luck updating my Windows install at work. It bombs out saying a file is in use.
Have you been to Microsoft? Do you have friends who work there? Do you know anything about the company that you don't read on Slashdot?
40,000+ engineers. And yet you seem to think they've got more executives than engineers.
If you haven't walked through the building the Office team works in, or know people who work on those teams, I'm not sure your opinion is really worth anything in regards to the number of UI people they have versus OO developers.
If you haven't had conversations with executives there, and talked about their processes of determining what gets implemented and what doesn't, I'm not so sure your opinion on what the motivation of any of their teams is, either.
Now, spouting off about things one knows nothing about is certainly the Slashdot way, and making up bullshit that fits what the fanbois on here want to see is certainly a way to build up Karma, but go do it in someone else's thread. In this case you decided to reply to someone who has first hand knowledge of how things work there.
The new interface has nothing to do with being better. They have a competitor which looks just like it... Coincidence huh? Bollocks it is. The new interface is to break that link. Car manufacturers do exactly the same.
Thats like saying Ferrari changed the design of their cars because a knock-off shop started selling customized '86 Fieros with a body kit that looked like them.
Its utterly rediculous. The people who work for Microsoft aren't evil monsters -- they're engineers and designers doing their best to do their job. Their UI people know what they're doing. I'd hazard a guess they've got more UI designers than a project like OO has developers. The fact that someone has knocked off their UI doesn't mean squat to them. OO is no threat in their core business -- no company that represents a real market for MS is going to give up Office for OO. OO doesn't integrate with anything, doesn't have Outlook, doesn't have Visio, can't be managed, deployed and upgrade from a central location. Its maybe taking away from the number of people who would've stolen copies of Office.
"Another important specification for inkjet printers is ink drop size, typically measured in picoliters. The smaller the number, the more ink per square inch can be placed on the paper."
Huh? I'm pretty sure I've spilled some pretty big drops of ink, measured in centiliters onto the paper, and there was a LOT more ink per square inch than my inkjet gets on the paper.
Its worth mentioning that Warner is also the one studio that has really resisted the MPAA strong-arm tactics of treating customers as criminals. They wisely felt pricing their movie library competitively ($10 range) meant greater sales for them, and less piracy.
That is not bad statistics. If your service requires the internet (which theirs does) than the percentage of people with the internet who would be interested in your service is what matters. Giving two squirts about those who don't is a good way to distract yourself from your core market.
Well, its clear a bus carrying ten passengers is more resource efficient than ten cars. But in the case of the majority of busses, its far more polluting than ten cars, and the majority of fuel usage and pollution comes from areas that are not efficient to use a bus in -- a bus with two passengers is definitely less efficient than two cars.
There's nothing to be gained by posting irrational rants with overinflated values.
There are VERY few cars that weigh three tons. Even the big SUVs do NOT weigh that much. Their GVWR may be just touching three tons, but if you think that means they weigh that, you need to go look up what it means.
I have a very large truck -- it weights two and a quarter tons, thats it. Thats a big honkin, sits five, rides 14 inches off the ground, and can tow 8000lbs truck. I've had it up to three tons total weight once -- when I was trucking a bedload of oil around rural Maine up and down mountains.
My other car weighs about 2000lbs. Thats one ton, not three tons. Most sedans are somewhere in the 1.5-1.75 ton range.
So if you want to post irrational rants, try to use accurate numbers. And while you're at it, suggest how each human on the planet is going to make a living when transportation resources, zoning and other factors ensure commercial and industrial space is gathered together, and not dispersed throughout residential areas. Don't suggest public transportation, since that demonstrates a lack of understanding about how much they cost, how much pollution they generate, and how the numbers showing cost benefits to them do not take into account that taxes are not paid on the energy consumed by public transportation services.
I won't argue this any more with you. Clearly you also don't understand the difference between pseudo science and real science. You seem to equate what this article is talking about with real turbine and solar cell manufacturers, rather than lumping them in with the "free energy" crackpots, where it belongs.
There are countless examples of the hype in the energy market causing a bubble in valuation of these crackpot companies, just as there was during the dot com bubble, again because investors are too ignorant to understand what they are investing in. A fool and his money will be parted, after all.
Nothing in this article is talking about solutions, its quack science being hyped for financial gain. The growth in spending in these kind of companies is identical to the dot com bubble -- its investors who do not understand what they're investing in sinking money into snake oil schemes.
So your pronouncement may sound grand invoking political images of Iraq and WWII, its totally off base.
Anyone who uses Mythbusters as a real source of proof of something working versus not working either don't watch the show, or don't understand the things they're testing.
Its entertainment, not science. The fact that it could be used as a source to declare something an urban legend is a sign of the risk using Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
I remember a time when stores that sold pet supplies online, and stores that delivered what you ordered online in an orange sack within an hour were experiencing hockey stick growth.
Whats really bizarre is the sudden influx of them.
This has been an epic last few weeks for the ability of crackpots to get pseudo-science posted on here. I suspect its actually just a game the editors are playing -- trying to see how riled up they can get everyone. I suppose, though, its possible its just another example of why Slashdot either needs new editors or story moderation.
Slashdot Mirror
It cemented their place as a solid second in the video game market -- a market already quite a bit bigger than the film industry. It got them so recognized as a powerhouse that they have a real chance to gun for first in the next round.
They may have lost billions doing it, but thats the cost of entry into a market that big. Especially when it gives you a prime position in the living room at a time that all home entertaiment is going digital, pipes are getting bigger and bigger, and people are starting to get used to shelling out hundreds a month on their various digital services.
Speak for yourself, I've got m4d dr1v1n 5k1llz, y0!
Yes. Exactly.
She's not on the show anymore.
She was on an episode of Monster Garage this season, though.
What is Kari's phone number, and whats her favorite restaurant?
You must've been the plumber for the house I just bought.
Bastard.
Of course, if you look what happened to ATT, the breakup served to enormously increase the scope of the markets the new fragments of the company were in. They quickly grew to be as big as the original, and have since started merging back together into a company that will dominate far more of the industries.
Breaking up a monopoly doesn't have the effect a lot of people seem to think -- it briefly opens up the market to greater competition, but a company that is in a monopoly position, unless granted it by the government, didn't get there through purely illegal means. Its pieces represent just as great a competitor in the marketplace, and the odds are pretty good they will, as a collective, still dominate their industry.
Splitting up Microsoft would be no better. It would be huge for shareholders, as the ties that bind versions of applications and operating systems may weaken, more pressure would be on the pieces to be competitive, and instead of one company dominating the industry, there would be two or three.
The two big things that people tend to shout "monopoly" at MS about are the media player and browser -- and it seems people just forget how lousy real players application was, and how much better for web users and developers IE was when it put the nail in NS's coffin. There is a reason so many sites were IE-only in the mid to late 90's -- and it wasn't because of bundling.
MS, for good or bad (and there are those who fall on the good side), is a dangerous beast to mess with caselessly. Forcing them to release crippled versions of thier software, as this demonstrates, won't work -- consumers do not want it. Good or bad, consumers LIKE what Microsoft offers. THAT is why they are in their position of power. And a corporate breakup has the very high odds of making things FAR worse.
Notice my UID and yours, kid.
If it wasn't for people like me, Taco and company would be working 9-5 jobs writing mindless software for some generic company and the slashbots on here who think they are so smart would be somewhere else.
Some of us were here when the commentary here was by people who tended to know what they were talking about, and the discussions were on serious topics, not some latest pseudoscience or ignorant MS-bashing. And some of us who were feel its worth making an issue of the quality this place has sunk to, precisely because we have been on Slashdot since half the people here were in elementary school.
So get off your high horse
You come here for the commentary?
Slashdot's got all the depth of a bunch of twelve year olds standing around trying to act smarter than the other by using big words they hope the others don't know.
Slashdot is where you go for comedy and narrow minded technical uneducated opinions, not quality commentary.
And to keep on topic, FF RC3 updated without a hitch on my Mac at home this morning, but I've had no luck updating my Windows install at work. It bombs out saying a file is in use.
Sucks.
Have you been to Microsoft? Do you have friends who work there? Do you know anything about the company that you don't read on Slashdot?
40,000+ engineers. And yet you seem to think they've got more executives than engineers.
If you haven't walked through the building the Office team works in, or know people who work on those teams, I'm not sure your opinion is really worth anything in regards to the number of UI people they have versus OO developers.
If you haven't had conversations with executives there, and talked about their processes of determining what gets implemented and what doesn't, I'm not so sure your opinion on what the motivation of any of their teams is, either.
Now, spouting off about things one knows nothing about is certainly the Slashdot way, and making up bullshit that fits what the fanbois on here want to see is certainly a way to build up Karma, but go do it in someone else's thread. In this case you decided to reply to someone who has first hand knowledge of how things work there.
Thats like saying Ferrari changed the design of their cars because a knock-off shop started selling customized '86 Fieros with a body kit that looked like them.
Its utterly rediculous. The people who work for Microsoft aren't evil monsters -- they're engineers and designers doing their best to do their job. Their UI people know what they're doing. I'd hazard a guess they've got more UI designers than a project like OO has developers. The fact that someone has knocked off their UI doesn't mean squat to them. OO is no threat in their core business -- no company that represents a real market for MS is going to give up Office for OO. OO doesn't integrate with anything, doesn't have Outlook, doesn't have Visio, can't be managed, deployed and upgrade from a central location. Its maybe taking away from the number of people who would've stolen copies of Office.
Yeah I'm sure they're petrified about that.
Huh? I'm pretty sure I've spilled some pretty big drops of ink, measured in centiliters onto the paper, and there was a LOT more ink per square inch than my inkjet gets on the paper.
I have a lot of music and movies I'd like to research.
Its worth mentioning that Warner is also the one studio that has really resisted the MPAA strong-arm tactics of treating customers as criminals. They wisely felt pricing their movie library competitively ($10 range) meant greater sales for them, and less piracy.
They are definitely the good guys.
That is not bad statistics. If your service requires the internet (which theirs does) than the percentage of people with the internet who would be interested in your service is what matters. Giving two squirts about those who don't is a good way to distract yourself from your core market.
Well, its clear a bus carrying ten passengers is more resource efficient than ten cars. But in the case of the majority of busses, its far more polluting than ten cars, and the majority of fuel usage and pollution comes from areas that are not efficient to use a bus in -- a bus with two passengers is definitely less efficient than two cars.
There's nothing to be gained by posting irrational rants with overinflated values.
There are VERY few cars that weigh three tons. Even the big SUVs do NOT weigh that much. Their GVWR may be just touching three tons, but if you think that means they weigh that, you need to go look up what it means.
I have a very large truck -- it weights two and a quarter tons, thats it. Thats a big honkin, sits five, rides 14 inches off the ground, and can tow 8000lbs truck. I've had it up to three tons total weight once -- when I was trucking a bedload of oil around rural Maine up and down mountains.
My other car weighs about 2000lbs. Thats one ton, not three tons. Most sedans are somewhere in the 1.5-1.75 ton range.
So if you want to post irrational rants, try to use accurate numbers. And while you're at it, suggest how each human on the planet is going to make a living when transportation resources, zoning and other factors ensure commercial and industrial space is gathered together, and not dispersed throughout residential areas. Don't suggest public transportation, since that demonstrates a lack of understanding about how much they cost, how much pollution they generate, and how the numbers showing cost benefits to them do not take into account that taxes are not paid on the energy consumed by public transportation services.
Its like someone looked at my rack of XBox games and picked everyone one I've finished to be compatible, and every one I haven't to not be.
*tinfoil hat*
The truth is out there.
/., though)
(rarely on
I won't argue this any more with you. Clearly you also don't understand the difference between pseudo science and real science. You seem to equate what this article is talking about with real turbine and solar cell manufacturers, rather than lumping them in with the "free energy" crackpots, where it belongs.
There are countless examples of the hype in the energy market causing a bubble in valuation of these crackpot companies, just as there was during the dot com bubble, again because investors are too ignorant to understand what they are investing in. A fool and his money will be parted, after all.
Nothing in this article is talking about solutions, its quack science being hyped for financial gain. The growth in spending in these kind of companies is identical to the dot com bubble -- its investors who do not understand what they're investing in sinking money into snake oil schemes.
So your pronouncement may sound grand invoking political images of Iraq and WWII, its totally off base.
Anyone who uses Mythbusters as a real source of proof of something working versus not working either don't watch the show, or don't understand the things they're testing.
Its entertainment, not science. The fact that it could be used as a source to declare something an urban legend is a sign of the risk using Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
Since that WAS one of the ten.
I remember a time when stores that sold pet supplies online, and stores that delivered what you ordered online in an orange sack within an hour were experiencing hockey stick growth.
So your point is?
Whats really bizarre is the sudden influx of them.
This has been an epic last few weeks for the ability of crackpots to get pseudo-science posted on here. I suspect its actually just a game the editors are playing -- trying to see how riled up they can get everyone. I suppose, though, its possible its just another example of why Slashdot either needs new editors or story moderation.