I have two people. One decides to eat fresh food, the other not. One pays less tax, the other doesn't.
I have two families. One decides to have children, the other not. One pays less tax, the other doesn't.
They're *exactly* equivalent! You want people to VOLUNTARILY eat more fresh food. The government wants people to VOLUNTARILY have children.
If anything the food tax cut is more generous, as you get the tax cut instantly, and it doesn't require you to have taxable income in order to enjoy the tax cut.
I have to admit, it takes chutzpah to actually defend your claim that your against social engineering when you've been caught red handed. I certainly would be back-pedaling furiously now.
If you want to attack tax-cuts for kids, I'd suggest going for the fact that perhaps they don't work (i.e. the subsidy is not enough to induce people to have kids) or that the goal of people having more kids is not one you share. Personally, it looks to me like your against social engineering of goals you don't share. Fair enough, I'm the same way. But while we're both for social engineering to get more of things we like, only one of us is claiming we're against social engineering as a principle.
I just believe that social engineering in this way shouldn't be the job of the government.
Wait a moment - Consistency check!
Another reason I believe in making uncooked food stuffs (from the grocery, not McD's) sales tax free. It is (was?) that way in Texas, and NC has much lower sales tax. The most basic needed things would best be sales tax free simply because it is a larger degree of a poor person's income, and it would encourage thrift, as precooked foods would still be taxed.
That's social engineering, pure and unadulterated. In the same thread, no less!
Tax cigarettes higher because they cause more medical costs to everyone? Ok, I buy that.
Careful, if you are going to associate taxes with cost to the government, then what about children, who, if they are average tax payers, will pay about 25K each per year ($2.5 x 10^12 total revenue / 10^8 tax payers).
Over 40 working years, the average taxpayer is worth about $1,000,000 to the government over their lifetime minus the cost of schools and manifold other benefits governments provide children.
I'd say if you think taxing things that cost the government money is okay, consistency demands you provide tax cuts for things that give the government money...
If your argument is consistent, you'd also have to be against a tax break for charitable donations, which is, after all, a lifestyle choice as well. Do you think that tax breaks for charitable donations should be abolished?
Would we as a society be better of for such an abolition? It would lower our tax rates a bit.
And why should I subsidize someone else's children?
Perhaps I misconstrued. I take the following sentence to mean that you resent paying for schools, child-directed anti-poverty programs, child-directed medical subsidies, and in fact any program directed at children rather than citizens, per se.
Tax cuts are a pretty much insignificant portion of the subsidization of children that occurs. However, without *any* subsidization, I (and most economists) think there would be a *lot* fewer children.
If your sentiment was entirely confined to tax cuts, then my apologies for my over-the-top rhetoric, although the base point stands. We use the tax code to subsidize behavior we want to see more of, and the majority of society feels we all benefit from more children, just as we all benefit from more charity.
> And why should I subsidize someone else's children?
Because children are, in part, a public good. Without them, the nation or society of which you are apart would soon cease to exist. Since most people are pretty partial to their nation continuing to exist, (and before the immigration argument starts up, pretty partial to their culture continuing to exist), most governments decide to subsidize children to at least some extent.
Now indeed, you may perhaps not see your nation, culture, or society as worth preserving. Perhaps you are content to see your society cease to exist when you do. Regardless, while there are many who hold those views, they are pretty much a minority view at the moment, and being a democracy, we roughly conform to the majority's opinions.
Or to use an analogy, the reason you have to pay more taxes than the guy who gives to charity is because the majority of the population thinks that giving to charity should be encouraged. Well, the majority of the population also wants to see other people have children. (Something about planning to retire some day, no doubt...)
I hadn't realized that *literally* judging a book by its cover gets you moderated 'Informative'. It will be interesting to see how the parent rates versus postings that actually address the content of the book.
Indeed, I suspect that most pro-AGW supporters believe that there are many *other* advantages to curbing the high-energy lifestyle (such as avoiding a high-speed-into-a-brick-wall adjustment a decade or three from now). Unfortunately, this simply reinforces my thesis that for both sides the actual science is simply another talking point for much wider policy viewpoints.
The political point that the pro-AGW side took "involved" science, but it was far more a general attempt to garner the "rational" vote by securing the claim that the science is "settled". (Personally, I don't have a strong enough background to determine if this in fact the case.) However, this is by no means always a winning strategy in voter's hearts and minds. For example, even in a field where the science is almost universally considered settled by the educated, belief in evolution falls below belief in creation (13% v 55% or if you take God guided evolution, 40% v 55%).
Thus the need for non-scientists like Al Gore to make a strong case. The science is not enough to win what really counts - policy changes.
It would take a lot to convince me otherwise. I'd need proof that humans were not, in fact, releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate. We also know that there is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832. It follows that with 30% more of a greenhouse gas, the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.
For the reasons that you list, it seems common sense to me that there AGW is real.
HOWEVER, in complicated scientific fields, my common-sense has been wrong many a time. Thus, as a layman, I do not believe I can rely on what makes sense to me personally to form an opinion that I'd be willing to defend publicly.
I could be convinced otherwise, but only by a climate scientist doing credible research. And I highly doubt both scenarios. In short, I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence, but it could theoretically happen.
The trouble is that there is no way to determine what is "credible research". It's an unfortunate truth that if you are an 'unbiased' scientist who comes up with non-AGW result, you are automatically a "denier" to the pro-AGW side. Likewise if you come up with pro-AGW results, the anti-AGW side will consider you to have knuckled under to professional pressure at best, and be part of the conspiracy at worst.
Long before the controversy, we long ceased to assume any good faith on the part of the scientists who opposed our view. In such an environment, the science is not going to persuade many.
You bring up a good point. While the 'A' in AGW is immaterial to the human suffering that will occur, the 'A' is absolutely essential if there's to be any hope of seeing curbs in green-house gas related energy use. Essentially, if there's no 'A', then GW is a tragedy and millions will suffer, but "that's life", even if we could curb it. If the 'A' is real, then it's "our fault" and the ethical requirement to curb our emissions grows exponentially.
You understand now why, for scientists who consider human lives worth more than our current consumption levels, there's an almost irresistible push to find that GW is human caused.
Unfortunately, while we'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome, I think we're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.
This is true for both sides, and *both* sides know it. Simply put, the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.
AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game. The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.
Likewise, many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle, but would prefer not to have to actually say it. So they'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.
I strongly suspect that among the voters, there's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.
Proof? For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other, ask yourself this. What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one? Exactly.
(1) You're saying the transaction cost is zero? Wow. That will be news to all those electronic music stores that have gone bankrupts selling something for which the COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) is zero. Apple's music store is pretty much break-even.
(2) You also don't want to cannibalize profitable lines. Apple doesn't put out a super-budget low margin line that would sell zillions because people who are otherwise buying high-margin current product would switch to low volume products. You lose those paying $50 for a BlueRay CD when you offer it to *anyone* else at $10 unless you're very very careful (usually by making the $10 purchasers suffer enough).
Come on Mr. Hell, this is absolutely elementary business knowledge. A little more thoughtful analysis behind the suggestions, please! Mr. 'The-Internet-is-Bad' maybe overstating his case on the evils of the internet, but his thesis is true. Many people who don't consider themselves thieves feel justified in stealing digital information if it isn't at their preferred price point (which may be zero).
Apparently once COGS reaches zero, conventional morality no longer applies!
I'm assuming that reality means that attempting to make a living by selling information is a fools errand.
Have you explained to any artist who's work can be captured in a digital medium that what they are producing is worthless? In fact spending money on any intellectual idea is a beyond stupidity because everyone else should have a right to capitalize upon it without spending that money or effort?
There's no big surprise that societies with no intellectual property protection don't end up with much intellectual property.
Prosecuting your customers may be dumb, but pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist is beyond stupidity. If your going to invent a morality to justify what you do, you might as well go whole-hog and claim "property is theft" and feel free to grab anything you can.
If you were a for-profit business, then you would open the store.
Boy, I can tell that you're not in business. Businesses that *stay* in business have these things called margins. If your margins are too low, then you go out of business.
I'm not saying that Sony is necessarily in that situation with electronic distribution, but I can tell you that simply assuming that every dollar offered for your product is a good one for your company is something that even a passing understanding of business should allow you to recognize as ludicrous. Sales don't keep you alive, profit does (to say nothing about destroying your profitable market by serving an unprofitable one).
(If you need an example of successfully *not* serving markets, think of all Apple's hardware businesses.)
If you have geeky,esoteric interests, go with the Technical College. The chances of finding a real peer group with shared interests in rarefied fields are vastly higher, and frankly, you spend a lot more time in college fraternizing with your friends than in your classes. (Hmm. Maybe that's why I never got a Ph.D.)
You may find 1 in a 1,000 in your Liberal Arts college that share the same geeky interests that you do, and 1 in 50 in a Tech College. Note, it's also a reason why larger colleges are better.
It would kind of suck if you're the only inveterate D&D player on campus:-).
If you're going to be pedantic, then you're correct. But the central point remains: it's quite reasonable to have two prices, one for the product with advertising and a higher one for the product without advertising. It's the difference between broadcast TV and pay TV.
To be honest, it's completely reasonable that Sony charge for the bloatware-removal service, given that it costs them money. It's quite possible that for the el-cheapo machines (if Sony has any), that the only way they make money is from the fees that they charge the vendors to put the trial versions on the hard disk.
You want a computer without ads? Then expect to personally replace the lost income. Just like you would with TV.
(Or you can do the work yourself. If your time is worth $50/hr, it's pretty much a wash.)
I've noticed that VMWare is still charging for their Workstation product, even as they're giving away VMWare Server. From the website, it seems that they have a more or less identical set of features. (They approach the products from quite different perspectives, so it's hard to compare them.)
Can anyone knowledgeable tell me what the difference between the Workstation and Server is? (I'm currently a happy owner of an older version of Workstation and want to know if I should upgrade Workstation or switch to Server.)
My worst phone call came from someone trying to use our software and it was failing oddly. It smelled like a lack of memory problem, but he reassured me three times that he had the minimum 256K necessary to run our software (it was a while back). I start getting deeper and deeper into his machine over the phone (by now I've used up an hour and a half) and things aren't making sense. The machine claims to have 256K, but memory addresses and so on point to the machine having 128K.
Finally I have him run a diagnostic that dumps all its information in hex and have him read the results. Now it's clear. The machine only has 128K, and there must be something wrong with some of the internals making it report it has 256K.
"I'm sorry sir, but you've been misinformed. Your machine only has 128K. I'm not sure how your machine thinks it has 256K of RAM, but it's only got 128K of RAM. Maybe there's some sort of memory error."
"Oh, no, it has 128K of RAM"
"But.. but.. You told me that it had 256K. The diagnostics you read out to me said 256K.."
"Well, if I told you it had 128K, you'd have told me that your software didn't run on it."
Every time he saw the diagnostic say 128K, he'd tell me it was saying 256K. If I hadn't got the result back in a format he didn't understand, I'd probably *still* be trying to figure out what was wrong with our software.
I was too stunned to tell him that he'd just wasted two hours of both our lives, thanked him and hung up. Of course, my coworkers came running at my scream of frustration once I'd put down the phone.
There was a lot of speculation that part of the reason for Apple's switch to Intel was that Intel might offer better pricing, development, etc. on XScale, which would then find a home in new iPods. If this was indeed the case, I bet there's one steamed Steve in Cupertino.
To be honest, I really hate previews. But then, I grew up reading game reviews without a final rating (that long ago - horrors)! However, for the most part, readers value previews over almost any other feature, and they their not big fans of negative reviews.
They read previews to be excited for a few months, enjoying the anticipation of playing the greatest game ever. They're reading the magazine to get a little lift. In short, most readers *aren't* curmudgeons.
With positive previews everybody wins. Pages are filled, publishers get free publicity, stores pre-order more games, magazines get a closer relationship with the publisher, advertisers (who want happy game-buying readers) are happier, and readers get their thrill of anticipation (which takes their mind off the game they're playing now...)
Outside of a few curmugeons like me (and many of the previous posters), people no more want honesty in gaming magazines than they do in health magazines ("forget special diets - simply eat less calories and get moderate exercise" doesn't benefit anyone. The advertisers don't want it, and neither do the readers). The magazines give people what they want, and the one's that chose different paths have all gone bankrupt.
If you want *real* reviews by people who paste games that "deserve it", smaller websites that don't depend on readers or game advertising for financing (i.e. labors of love) are the only viable medium.
Remember that IBM didn't lose it's market, in fact, all the competition in its market segment (mainframes) essentially died out. Nobody cares about anti-competitive practices in that market anymore. IBM simply failed to win the *next* market segment.
If the analogy really stands up, then Microsoft will own the desktop forever, and all the rest of the competitors in that space will shrivel and die as the market becomes less relevant. The next market (network applications) will overshadow the desktop market.
It would seem to me that if one was really interested in the desktop market and wanted to see continued competition, then it's quite possible that Google winning the next war could be the worst thing that could occur. Linux could be the next Amdahl:-).
But then new competitors move in, because they can make a profit at the higher price, which forces the monolpolist to lower prices again, and keep them there, to keep out competition. If they echibit a pattern of lowering and raising prices, competitors will stay in beacuse they believe the low prices ar enot sustainable and eventually prices will rise to livable levels.
Unlikely. Why would a competitor move in, only to lose his investment when the monopolist lowers his prices again. Have a few millions dollars you'd like to invest to go up against Microsoft? No? Funny. neither does anyone else.
Monopoly market power is like a big army. You never have to actually use it because everyone knows in advance that they would lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on! Surely you understand the equivalence?
I have two people. One decides to eat fresh food, the other not. One pays less tax, the other doesn't.
I have two families. One decides to have children, the other not. One pays less tax, the other doesn't.
They're *exactly* equivalent! You want people to VOLUNTARILY eat more fresh food. The government wants people to VOLUNTARILY have children.
If anything the food tax cut is more generous, as you get the tax cut instantly, and it doesn't require you to have taxable income in order to enjoy the tax cut.
I have to admit, it takes chutzpah to actually defend your claim that your against social engineering when you've been caught red handed. I certainly would be back-pedaling furiously now.
If you want to attack tax-cuts for kids, I'd suggest going for the fact that perhaps they don't work (i.e. the subsidy is not enough to induce people to have kids) or that the goal of people having more kids is not one you share. Personally, it looks to me like your against social engineering of goals you don't share. Fair enough, I'm the same way. But while we're both for social engineering to get more of things we like, only one of us is claiming we're against social engineering as a principle.
I just believe that social engineering in this way shouldn't be the job of the government.
Wait a moment - Consistency check!
Another reason I believe in making uncooked food stuffs (from the grocery, not McD's) sales tax free. It is (was?) that way in Texas, and NC has much lower sales tax. The most basic needed things would best be sales tax free simply because it is a larger degree of a poor person's income, and it would encourage thrift, as precooked foods would still be taxed.
That's social engineering, pure and unadulterated. In the same thread, no less!
Tsk, tsk.
Tax cigarettes higher because they cause more medical costs to everyone? Ok, I buy that.
Careful, if you are going to associate taxes with cost to the government, then what about children, who, if they are average tax payers, will pay about 25K each per year ($2.5 x 10^12 total revenue / 10^8 tax payers).
Over 40 working years, the average taxpayer is worth about $1,000,000 to the government over their lifetime minus the cost of schools and manifold other benefits governments provide children.
I'd say if you think taxing things that cost the government money is okay, consistency demands you provide tax cuts for things that give the government money...
If your argument is consistent, you'd also have to be against a tax break for charitable donations, which is, after all, a lifestyle choice as well. Do you think that tax breaks for charitable donations should be abolished?
Would we as a society be better of for such an abolition? It would lower our tax rates a bit.
From the article I replied to:
And why should I subsidize someone else's children?
Perhaps I misconstrued. I take the following sentence to mean that you resent paying for schools, child-directed anti-poverty programs, child-directed medical subsidies, and in fact any program directed at children rather than citizens, per se.
Tax cuts are a pretty much insignificant portion of the subsidization of children that occurs. However, without *any* subsidization, I (and most economists) think there would be a *lot* fewer children.
If your sentiment was entirely confined to tax cuts, then my apologies for my over-the-top rhetoric, although the base point stands. We use the tax code to subsidize behavior we want to see more of, and the majority of society feels we all benefit from more children, just as we all benefit from more charity.
> And why should I subsidize someone else's children?
Because children are, in part, a public good. Without them, the nation or society of which you are apart would soon cease to exist. Since most people are pretty partial to their nation continuing to exist, (and before the immigration argument starts up, pretty partial to their culture continuing to exist), most governments decide to subsidize children to at least some extent.
Now indeed, you may perhaps not see your nation, culture, or society as worth preserving. Perhaps you are content to see your society cease to exist when you do. Regardless, while there are many who hold those views, they are pretty much a minority view at the moment, and being a democracy, we roughly conform to the majority's opinions.
Or to use an analogy, the reason you have to pay more taxes than the guy who gives to charity is because the majority of the population thinks that giving to charity should be encouraged. Well, the majority of the population also wants to see other people have children. (Something about planning to retire some day, no doubt...)
I hadn't realized that *literally* judging a book by its cover gets you moderated 'Informative'. It will be interesting to see how the parent rates versus postings that actually address the content of the book.
Indeed, I suspect that most pro-AGW supporters believe that there are many *other* advantages to curbing the high-energy lifestyle (such as avoiding a high-speed-into-a-brick-wall adjustment a decade or three from now). Unfortunately, this simply reinforces my thesis that for both sides the actual science is simply another talking point for much wider policy viewpoints.
The political point that the pro-AGW side took "involved" science, but it was far more a general attempt to garner the "rational" vote by securing the claim that the science is "settled". (Personally, I don't have a strong enough background to determine if this in fact the case.) However, this is by no means always a winning strategy in voter's hearts and minds. For example, even in a field where the science is almost universally considered settled by the educated, belief in evolution falls below belief in creation (13% v 55% or if you take God guided evolution, 40% v 55%).
Thus the need for non-scientists like Al Gore to make a strong case. The science is not enough to win what really counts - policy changes.
It would take a lot to convince me otherwise. I'd need proof that humans were not, in fact, releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate. We also know that there is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832. It follows that with 30% more of a greenhouse gas, the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.
For the reasons that you list, it seems common sense to me that there AGW is real.
HOWEVER, in complicated scientific fields, my common-sense has been wrong many a time. Thus, as a layman, I do not believe I can rely on what makes sense to me personally to form an opinion that I'd be willing to defend publicly.
I could be convinced otherwise, but only by a climate scientist doing credible research. And I highly doubt both scenarios. In short, I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence, but it could theoretically happen.
The trouble is that there is no way to determine what is "credible research". It's an unfortunate truth that if you are an 'unbiased' scientist who comes up with non-AGW result, you are automatically a "denier" to the pro-AGW side. Likewise if you come up with pro-AGW results, the anti-AGW side will consider you to have knuckled under to professional pressure at best, and be part of the conspiracy at worst.
Long before the controversy, we long ceased to assume any good faith on the part of the scientists who opposed our view. In such an environment, the science is not going to persuade many.
You bring up a good point. While the 'A' in AGW is immaterial to the human suffering that will occur, the 'A' is absolutely essential if there's to be any hope of seeing curbs in green-house gas related energy use. Essentially, if there's no 'A', then GW is a tragedy and millions will suffer, but "that's life", even if we could curb it. If the 'A' is real, then it's "our fault" and the ethical requirement to curb our emissions grows exponentially.
You understand now why, for scientists who consider human lives worth more than our current consumption levels, there's an almost irresistible push to find that GW is human caused.
Unfortunately, while we'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome, I think we're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.
This is true for both sides, and *both* sides know it. Simply put, the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.
AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game. The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.
Likewise, many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle, but would prefer not to have to actually say it. So they'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.
I strongly suspect that among the voters, there's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.
Proof? For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other, ask yourself this. What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one? Exactly.
Flame-bait? Flame-bait? Maybe a failed attempt at self-deprecating humour, but flame-bait?
*sigh*.
The article's about *Canada*. Who the heck is reading it?
(1) You're saying the transaction cost is zero? Wow. That will be news to all those electronic music stores that have gone bankrupts selling something for which the COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) is zero. Apple's music store is pretty much break-even.
(2) You also don't want to cannibalize profitable lines. Apple doesn't put out a super-budget low margin line that would sell zillions because people who are otherwise buying high-margin current product would switch to low volume products. You lose those paying $50 for a BlueRay CD when you offer it to *anyone* else at $10 unless you're very very careful (usually by making the $10 purchasers suffer enough).
Come on Mr. Hell, this is absolutely elementary business knowledge. A little more thoughtful analysis behind the suggestions, please! Mr. 'The-Internet-is-Bad' maybe overstating his case on the evils of the internet, but his thesis is true. Many people who don't consider themselves thieves feel justified in stealing digital information if it isn't at their preferred price point (which may be zero).
Apparently once COGS reaches zero, conventional morality no longer applies!
I'm assuming that reality means that attempting to make a living by selling information is a fools errand.
Have you explained to any artist who's work can be captured in a digital medium that what they are producing is worthless? In fact spending money on any intellectual idea is a beyond stupidity because everyone else should have a right to capitalize upon it without spending that money or effort?
There's no big surprise that societies with no intellectual property protection don't end up with much intellectual property.
Prosecuting your customers may be dumb, but pretending that intellectual property doesn't exist is beyond stupidity. If your going to invent a morality to justify what you do, you might as well go whole-hog and claim "property is theft" and feel free to grab anything you can.
If you were a for-profit business, then you would open the store.
Boy, I can tell that you're not in business. Businesses that *stay* in business have these things called margins. If your margins are too low, then you go out of business.
I'm not saying that Sony is necessarily in that situation with electronic distribution, but I can tell you that simply assuming that every dollar offered for your product is a good one for your company is something that even a passing understanding of business should allow you to recognize as ludicrous. Sales don't keep you alive, profit does (to say nothing about destroying your profitable market by serving an unprofitable one).
(If you need an example of successfully *not* serving markets, think of all Apple's hardware businesses.)
If you have geeky,esoteric interests, go with the Technical College. The chances of finding a real peer group with shared interests in rarefied fields are vastly higher, and frankly, you spend a lot more time in college fraternizing with your friends than in your classes. (Hmm. Maybe that's why I never got a Ph.D.)
:-).
You may find 1 in a 1,000 in your Liberal Arts college that share the same geeky interests that you do, and 1 in 50 in a Tech College. Note, it's also a reason why larger colleges are better.
It would kind of suck if you're the only inveterate D&D player on campus
The sooner it stops pretending to be a 1981 IBM PC, the better it will be for everyone.
I'm not certain that IBM believes that the open PC market was better for everyone.
If you're going to be pedantic, then you're correct. But the central point remains: it's quite reasonable to have two prices, one for the product with advertising and a higher one for the product without advertising. It's the difference between broadcast TV and pay TV.
To be honest, it's completely reasonable that Sony charge for the bloatware-removal service, given that it costs them money. It's quite possible that for the el-cheapo machines (if Sony has any), that the only way they make money is from the fees that they charge the vendors to put the trial versions on the hard disk.
You want a computer without ads? Then expect to personally replace the lost income. Just like you would with TV.
(Or you can do the work yourself. If your time is worth $50/hr, it's pretty much a wash.)
I've noticed that VMWare is still charging for their Workstation product, even as they're giving away VMWare Server. From the website, it seems that they have a more or less identical set of features. (They approach the products from quite different perspectives, so it's hard to compare them.)
Can anyone knowledgeable tell me what the difference between the Workstation and Server is? (I'm currently a happy owner of an older version of Workstation and want to know if I should upgrade Workstation or switch to Server.)
Many thanks.
My worst phone call came from someone trying to use our software and it was failing oddly. It smelled like a lack of memory problem, but he reassured me three times that he had the minimum 256K necessary to run our software (it was a while back). I start getting deeper and deeper into his machine over the phone (by now I've used up an hour and a half) and things aren't making sense. The machine claims to have 256K, but memory addresses and so on point to the machine having 128K.
Finally I have him run a diagnostic that dumps all its information in hex and have him read the results. Now it's clear. The machine only has 128K, and there must be something wrong with some of the internals making it report it has 256K.
"I'm sorry sir, but you've been misinformed. Your machine only has 128K. I'm not sure how your machine thinks it has 256K of RAM, but it's only got 128K of RAM. Maybe there's some sort of memory error."
"Oh, no, it has 128K of RAM"
"But.. but.. You told me that it had 256K. The diagnostics you read out to me said 256K.."
"Well, if I told you it had 128K, you'd have told me that your software didn't run on it."
Every time he saw the diagnostic say 128K, he'd tell me it was saying 256K. If I hadn't got the result back in a format he didn't understand, I'd probably *still* be trying to figure out what was wrong with our software.
I was too stunned to tell him that he'd just wasted two hours of both our lives, thanked him and hung up. Of course, my coworkers came running at my scream of frustration once I'd put down the phone.
There was a lot of speculation that part of the reason for Apple's switch to Intel was that Intel might offer better pricing, development, etc. on XScale, which would then find a home in new iPods. If this was indeed the case, I bet there's one steamed Steve in Cupertino.
To be honest, I really hate previews. But then, I grew up reading game reviews without a final rating (that long ago - horrors)! However, for the most part, readers value previews over almost any other feature, and they their not big fans of negative reviews.
They read previews to be excited for a few months, enjoying the anticipation of playing the greatest game ever. They're reading the magazine to get a little lift. In short, most readers *aren't* curmudgeons.
With positive previews everybody wins. Pages are filled, publishers get free publicity, stores pre-order more games, magazines get a closer relationship with the publisher, advertisers (who want happy game-buying readers) are happier, and readers get their thrill of anticipation (which takes their mind off the game they're playing now...)
Outside of a few curmugeons like me (and many of the previous posters), people no more want honesty in gaming magazines than they do in health magazines ("forget special diets - simply eat less calories and get moderate exercise" doesn't benefit anyone. The advertisers don't want it, and neither do the readers). The magazines give people what they want, and the one's that chose different paths have all gone bankrupt.
If you want *real* reviews by people who paste games that "deserve it", smaller websites that don't depend on readers or game advertising for financing (i.e. labors of love) are the only viable medium.
Remember that IBM didn't lose it's market, in fact, all the competition in its market segment (mainframes) essentially died out. Nobody cares about anti-competitive practices in that market anymore. IBM simply failed to win the *next* market segment.
:-).
If the analogy really stands up, then Microsoft will own the desktop forever, and all the rest of the competitors in that space will shrivel and die as the market becomes less relevant. The next market (network applications) will overshadow the desktop market.
It would seem to me that if one was really interested in the desktop market and wanted to see continued competition, then it's quite possible that Google winning the next war could be the worst thing that could occur. Linux could be the next Amdahl
But then new competitors move in, because they can make a profit at the higher price, which forces the monolpolist to lower prices again, and keep them there, to keep out competition. If they echibit a pattern of lowering and raising prices, competitors will stay in beacuse they believe the low prices ar enot sustainable and eventually prices will rise to livable levels.
Unlikely. Why would a competitor move in, only to lose his investment when the monopolist lowers his prices again. Have a few millions dollars you'd like to invest to go up against Microsoft? No? Funny. neither does anyone else.
Monopoly market power is like a big army. You never have to actually use it because everyone knows in advance that they would lose.