Occam's Razor says that the *simplest* explanation is likely correct. Usually this is taken to mean the theory with the fewest assumptions beyond what is normally accepted.
The truth is, if they cut the price in half, they would likely sell more than double what they are now
I read a while ago about a prof who explained to a load of music execs the profit curve you are referencing. They listened patiently while he explained that low prices meant more sales which, at the low end of the graph means more total profit. Then one put his hand up and said "yeah, but why not double the price at the low end and make twice as much money from every one of those high sales?".
They really, really, don't understand that it's our money, not their money that someone else is holding on to.
I am sick of you people coming up with this shit again and again and again. Work it out: your stupid 'God of the Gaps' approach demeans your God because each scientific discovery will shrink him. You're better off accepting scientific method as useful and arguing that God made life work that way.
I think you miss the point of P2P that worries the hell out of the *AA: It only takes *one* person to be bothered and technical enough to strip the advertising and put the show back up, and the world *will* choose to d/l the clean version. Hell, I bought my TiVo maybe 80% for the purpose of skipping ads and only 20% for the scheduling effect (I can work a VCR so...).
One way to make it hard would be to have a 70% transparent banner over some relevent part of the program - and I suspect not many people would watch that.
When someone comes up with something that is (a) hard to remove and (b) not intrusive, then what you describe will probably happen - but apart from product placement, I can't see what it could be.
If you're an ancient Greek ship captain in 1000 BC, the current theory is a flat Earth
Not so I'm afraid.
There never really were any 'flat earthers' apart from a few nutcase philosophers. The phrase only came into common use during the early arguments about evolution (about 150 years ago) when it was suggested that only stick-in-the-muds would adhere to the old beliefs and that that was "like continuing to believe the earth was flat".
I refer you to Homer describing the Greek fleet sailing away and hiding beneath the curve of the sea. They knew it was acurved, they just didn't know how to do a mercator projection!
Not to mention that Google, as a large provider of RIA services, would really, really like MS to be forced to actually follow standards.
Personally I suspect that it's not deliberate on MS's part though: if they could follow simple standards, then we wouldn't have Excel and Word doing different things with something as simple as alt-f4!
...like the 'clean room' building (nicknamed the lego block while I was there) is what's gone. Difficult to tell from the photos, but I think Mountbatten building housed the clean room stuff, and it was certainly an experimental fabrication area, whether for chips or fibre I wouldn't know.
If you stub your toe on a rock, you might well "punish" the rock by hitting it. You know it's irrational but the illusion of anthropomorphization is strong.
Could be an evolutionarily successful strategy, not an over-anthropomorphism:
Maybe it shows any watching entities that they better not mess with you because you will punish anything that goes against you, even down to a rock.
I would be quite surprised if any of those behaviours were changed, as they are all "working as designed" if not as an Oracle or Sql Server guru would expect.
That said, there may be other ways to define things so that they behave more 'normally'.
You state a couple of posts above that a EULA may be a contract, and above here that it may have a condition disallowing modification. Well, I check and sign contracts for my company all the time, and I always cross out the bit stating that I may not change stuff... then I change whatever the hell I like.
That's negotiation. If it's a contract, that's valid. If it's a licence, it isn't. It can't be both.
Justin.
Re:The real danger...
on
Zombie Lurch
·
· Score: 1
Heh, you're insightful. The tin-foil brigade is reading!
Slashdot Mirror
Occam's Razor says that the *simplest* explanation is likely correct. Usually this is taken to mean the theory with the fewest assumptions beyond what is normally accepted.
Justin.
Or, your daughter, who sews, downloads the pattern from a P2P net and creates one that looks just like it. Then you get sued.
J.
"It is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees."
Justin.
Why is it every time I read something like this I am convinced that the writer is little more than a child themselves?
Give it a while, and you will learn that while it is very useful to understand pointers, it isn't big or clever to use them.
Justin.
I read a while ago about a prof who explained to a load of music execs the profit curve you are referencing. They listened patiently while he explained that low prices meant more sales which, at the low end of the graph means more total profit. Then one put his hand up and said "yeah, but why not double the price at the low end and make twice as much money from every one of those high sales?".
They really, really, don't understand that it's our money, not their money that someone else is holding on to.
Justin.
Oh god, not again.
I am sick of you people coming up with this shit again and again and again. Work it out: your stupid 'God of the Gaps' approach demeans your God because each scientific discovery will shrink him. You're better off accepting scientific method as useful and arguing that God made life work that way.
Justin.
I don't need an imaginary friend.
You missed a word: "...Causing a luckily *NON FATAL* explostion... would have been more accurate.
Not sure what the relevence of the other stuff is, as I don't believe the CIA gave a shit about political prisoners.
I do agree it's not terrorism though.
J.
To the best of my knowledge, that joke was original in "Yes Minister" circa, ooh, 1982?
J.
I think you miss the point of P2P that worries the hell out of the *AA: It only takes *one* person to be bothered and technical enough to strip the advertising and put the show back up, and the world *will* choose to d/l the clean version. Hell, I bought my TiVo maybe 80% for the purpose of skipping ads and only 20% for the scheduling effect (I can work a VCR so...).
One way to make it hard would be to have a 70% transparent banner over some relevent part of the program - and I suspect not many people would watch that.
When someone comes up with something that is (a) hard to remove and (b) not intrusive, then what you describe will probably happen - but apart from product placement, I can't see what it could be.
J.
Just out of interest... of what standards are you speaking?
J.
J.
Not so I'm afraid.
There never really were any 'flat earthers' apart from a few nutcase philosophers. The phrase only came into common use during the early arguments about evolution (about 150 years ago) when it was suggested that only stick-in-the-muds would adhere to the old beliefs and that that was "like continuing to believe the earth was flat".
I refer you to Homer describing the Greek fleet sailing away and hiding beneath the curve of the sea. They knew it was acurved, they just didn't know how to do a mercator projection!
Justin.
I had one at IBM, but maybe I was special ;-) Or maybe I smelled :(
Justin.
Personally I suspect that it's not deliberate on MS's part though: if they could follow simple standards, then we wouldn't have Excel and Word doing different things with something as simple as alt-f4!
Justin.
Love,
The Spelling Nazis
"I'm not sure how that's going to help him if he's behind a NAT that he doesn't configure ."
He can't have requests forwarded to him. Simple as that.
Justin.
Ah but the other has withstood scrutiny by people who believe they will go to hell if they prove it wrong... ah. That may have been your point ;-)
J.
I think you misspelt "has nukes and no oil" ;-)
Justin.
...like the 'clean room' building (nicknamed the lego block while I was there) is what's gone. Difficult to tell from the photos, but I think Mountbatten building housed the clean room stuff, and it was certainly an experimental fabrication area, whether for chips or fibre I wouldn't know.
Justin.
(So'ton grad class of '93).
Could be an evolutionarily successful strategy, not an over-anthropomorphism:
Maybe it shows any watching entities that they better not mess with you because you will punish anything that goes against you, even down to a rock.
J.
...and then ScuttleMonkey can dupe them and bring up the million!
Now (1) and (2) I've seen, and I thought there was nothing left to hurt me... Damn!
I would be quite surprised if any of those behaviours were changed, as they are all "working as designed" if not as an Oracle or Sql Server guru would expect.
That said, there may be other ways to define things so that they behave more 'normally'.
Cheers,
Justin.
You state a couple of posts above that a EULA may be a contract, and above here that it may have a condition disallowing modification. Well, I check and sign contracts for my company all the time, and I always cross out the bit stating that I may not change stuff... then I change whatever the hell I like.
That's negotiation. If it's a contract, that's valid. If it's a licence, it isn't. It can't be both.
Justin.
Heh, you're insightful. The tin-foil brigade is reading!