Bingo. For all the fanboi ranting about what companies should do if they were smarterer, Microsoft just keeps on scalping them. Until they actually start losing significant market share and profit, it's all just wishful thinking.
Yes, that's exactly what they're "whinging" about. Since they're $400 out of pocket and it's apparently their responsibility to fix it, I wouldn't categorise it as "whinging" though. The deal was Give One Get One, not Donate $400 Get None.
My primary "whinge" is that I want OLPC to succeed, and it really seems like they're doing everything possible to torpedo themselves. I think they need to let some grown ups run it for a while.
ZOMG, people are specifying XP instead of Vista! Sure, but they're still buying Microsoft. Apple is topping out its niche appeal, and corporations are run by lawyers who hate and fear Google Docs with a cold reptilian passion.
Wise up, nerds. Major purchasing decisions are not taken by people live with their parents in Wyoming. They are taken by grown ups who have mortgages and orthodentist bills to pay, and those people recommend, and will continue to recommend, Microsoft because nobody ever got sacked for doing so.
The upcoming recession may see a few smaller outfits switch to freeware in the hope of chiselling a few dollars off the budget, but that's probably a sign that they're doomed, and so wouldn't have been buying M$ one way or the other.
Still, I'm swimming against the tide of opinion here, if not of history, so feel free to get excited about the prospect of the Evil Empire toppling any day now. Let's compare notes in 5 years and we can spot where you went wrong.
They don't have the funds to act like a real serious company. That would take millions of dollars of investment.
Oh, wait a second...
80,000 G1G1, at $400 per unit = $32,000,000. Since the "Give One" money really just goes into their general coffers, that's $16 million clear profit up front. A real startup would sacrifice its directors' children to be turn $16 million clear profit in 6 weeks.
[Some OLPC hippy] says that the OLPC made a decision that getting laptops to developing nations was more important that[sic] delivering them to consumers.
You Goddamn hippy retards. You. Do. Not. Fuck over your strongest advocates. Do these people actually want OLPC to fail? Because they seem to be doing their damndest to make that happen.
Patent tax revenues are backdated to the day of filing. So patent trolls are claiming that all those inventions that were suddenly extant and infringing on day 0 didn't exist as prior art on day -1. They just appeared fully formed overnight.
How can anyone working in the patent racket sleep at night? It must be where lawyers end up when even child molesters, cannibals and politicians won't employ them any more.
I've had to deal with all of that in a manufacturing environment.
Good for you. And have you ever written any open source software that attempts to cripple copying? No? Then in what way is your little anecdote even remotely related to the question asked in the post that you 'replied' to?
The government's response? They'll put "new procedures" in place to ensure that it can't blah blah again blah fight them on the beaches blah.
They're still pressing ahead with the National Database, misnamed as a National ID card (the equivelant of the USian Real ID). It's Total Information Awareness with a fluffier spin on it, but exactly the same goals: to know everything, about everyone, all the time, and Goddamn the consequences when (not if) the black hats get their greasy fingers on it.
My point, which was admittedly very badly made, is that as the environments that real humans actually care about have become more complex, that 'successful' (i.e. extant in the wild) 'AIs' have become more primitive. You could view that as lazy devolution, or as honing away the parts that nobody (in the real, funds-delivering) world actually cares about. I guess your experience indicates that it's the latter case.
Academic AI research still seems to be producing solutions to the problems of the 1980s. The method may be interesting, but if the application is (and remains) obsolete, then what is the point in funding it? If these Goddamn eggheads actually had to pay their own way, then perhaps MMO bots would be more than just scripted doofuses. The smart bots would be bushwhacking and looting the corpses of the dumb ones just before they enter town to sell their loot.
Ah, I did not know that. Thank you. And thus do Blizzard once again demonstrate that they have no Goddamn clue about supply, demand, history, or actual humans. Prohibition? Pffft.
Because they're not successful robots. Their fatality rate before breeding is 100%, the same as the "unsuccessful" ones. You can say "Ah, but..." all day long, but it's not evolution unless you propose that evolution requires a guiding outside agency.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo. For all the fanboi ranting about what companies should do if they were smarterer, Microsoft just keeps on scalping them. Until they actually start losing significant market share and profit, it's all just wishful thinking.
And until you learn the difference between revenue and profit, perhaps you should stick to masturbating to Big Iron Monthly.
Microsoft's profits rose last year. Argument over.
All that proves is that you know a lot of hippies. In my company, we're switching from Lunix to Microsoft servers.
Yes, that's exactly what they're "whinging" about. Since they're $400 out of pocket and it's apparently their responsibility to fix it, I wouldn't categorise it as "whinging" though. The deal was Give One Get One, not Donate $400 Get None.
My primary "whinge" is that I want OLPC to succeed, and it really seems like they're doing everything possible to torpedo themselves. I think they need to let some grown ups run it for a while.
Close, but Stallman has a bigger beard than God.
Sure, but what about solutions for the planet Earth?
So... did those advocates just give OLPC $400?
But it's in the first article, not the second.
ZOMG, people are specifying XP instead of Vista! Sure, but they're still buying Microsoft. Apple is topping out its niche appeal, and corporations are run by lawyers who hate and fear Google Docs with a cold reptilian passion.
Wise up, nerds. Major purchasing decisions are not taken by people live with their parents in Wyoming. They are taken by grown ups who have mortgages and orthodentist bills to pay, and those people recommend, and will continue to recommend, Microsoft because nobody ever got sacked for doing so.
The upcoming recession may see a few smaller outfits switch to freeware in the hope of chiselling a few dollars off the budget, but that's probably a sign that they're doomed, and so wouldn't have been buying M$ one way or the other.
Still, I'm swimming against the tide of opinion here, if not of history, so feel free to get excited about the prospect of the Evil Empire toppling any day now. Let's compare notes in 5 years and we can spot where you went wrong.
Also, they've unashamedly fucking over their early adopters and strongest advocates. Have they been acquired by Apple?
They don't have the funds to act like a real serious company. That would take millions of dollars of investment.
Oh, wait a second...
80,000 G1G1, at $400 per unit = $32,000,000. Since the "Give One" money really just goes into their general coffers, that's $16 million clear profit up front. A real startup would sacrifice its directors' children to be turn $16 million clear profit in 6 weeks.
You Goddamn hippy retards. You. Do. Not. Fuck over your strongest advocates. Do these people actually want OLPC to fail? Because they seem to be doing their damndest to make that happen.
Can you point to anything factually incorrect in my post, or... wait... I'm talking to a machine.
Patent tax revenues are backdated to the day of filing. So patent trolls are claiming that all those inventions that were suddenly extant and infringing on day 0 didn't exist as prior art on day -1. They just appeared fully formed overnight.
How can anyone working in the patent racket sleep at night? It must be where lawyers end up when even child molesters, cannibals and politicians won't employ them any more.
Windows 7 - Quit bitching, it cames "free" with your PC.
Windows 7 - Your last chance before we start again in C#.
Windows 7 - Because we know where you live.
Eek, does each virtual "core" need its own (per core) license?
Good for you. And have you ever written any open source software that attempts to cripple copying? No? Then in what way is your little anecdote even remotely related to the question asked in the post that you 'replied' to?
Not an idiot, just dim. But nice, I've very sure.
It doesn't even take malicious access. In the UK, some low level government peon recently snail-mailed the financial details of 25 million people on discs that went missing. Since that broke, a slew of other government agencies, from health through to defence have dumped "me too" admissions into the shitstorm.
The government's response? They'll put "new procedures" in place to ensure that it can't blah blah again blah fight them on the beaches blah.
They're still pressing ahead with the National Database, misnamed as a National ID card (the equivelant of the USian Real ID). It's Total Information Awareness with a fluffier spin on it, but exactly the same goals: to know everything, about everyone, all the time, and Goddamn the consequences when (not if) the black hats get their greasy fingers on it.
My point, which was admittedly very badly made, is that as the environments that real humans actually care about have become more complex, that 'successful' (i.e. extant in the wild) 'AIs' have become more primitive. You could view that as lazy devolution, or as honing away the parts that nobody (in the real, funds-delivering) world actually cares about. I guess your experience indicates that it's the latter case.
Academic AI research still seems to be producing solutions to the problems of the 1980s. The method may be interesting, but if the application is (and remains) obsolete, then what is the point in funding it? If these Goddamn eggheads actually had to pay their own way, then perhaps MMO bots would be more than just scripted doofuses. The smart bots would be bushwhacking and looting the corpses of the dumb ones just before they enter town to sell their loot.
Ah, I did not know that. Thank you. And thus do Blizzard once again demonstrate that they have no Goddamn clue about supply, demand, history, or actual humans. Prohibition? Pffft.
Because they're not successful robots. Their fatality rate before breeding is 100%, the same as the "unsuccessful" ones. You can say "Ah, but..." all day long, but it's not evolution unless you propose that evolution requires a guiding outside agency.
Then you're doubtless nice but dim.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 132 - 138, aka Brian Haw's Law.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 132 - 138, aka Brian Haw's Law.
Interesting "figures" that you're not quoting there. Do you have anything to back them up with, or is it a heady mix of common sense and bullshit?
Yeah... I'd concentrate a bit less on that aspect, and a bit more on not buying another game for it. Ever.