What amazes me is WHY would the USA government have been involved in such socialistic crap such as embargoes, rather than letting the citizenry sample the good and bad of all and choose for themselves.
Because it's not about keeping the citizenry from sampling. It's about economic pressure.
Granted - the original reasons for the embargo may no longer hold true. You could even argue that history has shown that the overall strategy was flawed. The policy offers a lot for critics to focus on.
But if you're going to be critical of the policy, at least educate yourself about it. Or, having been educated, be honest about it.
What I find interesting is that you've described numerous places that they set aside for commercials but don't have buyers to fill. But what happens once they sell all those slots? What happens if they end up with more customers than current slots?
Having said all that - I realize I'm off on a tangent. The original point was that there are (relatively) few commercials right now. Ten years from now might be very different. But that is then, this is now. Point taken.
Please feel free to explain why subscription radio is so different. Also, please feel free to let me know who you're quoting because it certainly wasn't me.
One of the selling points on CATV was less commercials. It certainly wasn't ad-free; local TV station broadcasts still contained commercials when put on the wire. But it wasn't anything like it is now. Granted - it didn't take long to ramp up the commercials. By the late 80s, things had changed.
It would depend on how they're collecting samples. Back in the late 90's I was doing a gig at a JSC building where they happened to also be working on long-term, closed life support environments. One of the projects involved recycling urine and big collection drums showed up in the buliding restrooms. My memory is a bit fuzzy on the the details of the collection device but it was a pretty simple affair - little more than a big red plastic drum with a suitably large collection port on the side and a sign that read "please donate urine." We sysadmin types joked about drug testing (we'd all taken wiz-quizzes as part of employment). But if such a thing was going on, they'd have to do a lot of individual testing to catch the individual spiking the barrel as it were. There would be much simpler ways to do this.
Or do you think that those commercials are an accurate display of the Mac vs. PC world? If you do than you've been fooled by one of the great showmen of our times.
Yes, Jobs is an insanely great showman (ha!). Yes, Apple is trading heavily on an image (one largely crafted under Jobs' direction). And finally - yes, Apple's amusing little commercials aren't very good guides on the issues involved in picking a computing platform.
But comparing them to Comcast? Wow. Talk about reality distortion.
Let's cover a few more real facts about Apple. They produce good products. They have slick designs. And they run slick commercials that make a lot out of real issues facing their competitors (while not really highlighting their own shortcomings). All of that is being directed towards rather specific markets.
I should note that I'm probably not part of those markets and not a real Apple fan. I almost got an Apple][ back in the day - but didn't. I'm intrigued by the new OSX systems but not enough to seriously consider buying one. And the only Apple product I've ever owned in a couple decades of being an electronics consumer is an iPod - and even then I'm not really buying in on the image. But I'm willing to allow that Apple does good work. Even if it's not quite as insanely great as some would have me believe.
I define free as having no monetary cost. So, in my opinion, Skype is free. (I'm not the AC you replied to.)
I define "free" as "coming with a fruit basket." Unfortunately, that means very little software is free. In my opinion, of course.
All kidding aside - this is a tiresome, old argument. When people here are talking about Free Software, they're not talking fees or price-tags. Free Software is not Freeware (or at least it's not always the same thing). If you want to be a part of the conversation, it would help if you kept up with the language.
The point being that WinNT's POSIX layer wasn't very useful but it enabled Microsoft to check off a box on Government requirements. The drive behind document standards seems to come from Government sector(s). So OOXML not being implementable seems to be old, familiar ground.
Getting away from the meta-meme though - I really don't think calling Microsoft names, although fun, does anything but raise a cloud of dust over the abuses (alleged) of the ISO process.. and in that sense does benefit M$.
It wasn't a big deal at one point. It was just a little swipe taken while, for the most part, bigger points were made. But somewhere Microsoft criticism hit counter-culture mainstream. And the name-calling became the point. The real issues seem to be lost on the slew of johnny-come-lately bashers.
Now, when someone includes the cute little dig, it almost becomes a visual queue that identifies the individual as another wanna-be. And as you pointed out, that can unfortunately obscure otherwise excellent points and real issues.
Sockpuppets and meme seeding just seem to be strange background behavior to an already odd culture.;)
That may be true in an IT environment, but are the majority of Microsoft Office users in an IT environment? Or maybe it's just me in an unusual situation -- I'm a consultant and all of my customers require deliverables in MS Office format, and the appearance of OO.o documents saved in MS Office formats and re-opened in MS Office just isn't up to the professional standards required of me (for precisely the reasons we object to OOXML).
Oh - you're not alone. I've definitely seen the same kind of thing (although I might have better luck than you using oo.o). But the issue really is who's defining that requirement.
Most end users don't care. They have no idea of the issues involved. They just want to do their work. But that doesn't mean the issues aren't important and won't affect them. That's why you have IT folks that are in the business of hashing this stuff out and building systems for end users.
I've seen IT departments shift entire ways of doing business. I've seen IT departments humbled in the face of end user revolts. I've seen IT departments scrambling to make something work the way end users expect. And I've seen absolutely horrid systems that are barely functional because they've had little or no IT expertise involved in planning them. In short - I've seen the full gambit.
When these issues surface at work, it's usually in the realm of IT planners trying to hash out long term plans or respond to various external requirements. It probably helps that I'm usually involved with industries that are government related. If the Government decides that an open data format is a requirement, you can bet that the end users will be learning how to make their applications do so... or learning new applications.
Trouble is, the vast vast majority of Microsoft users will have no interest in this whole fiasco. The "more people" who want to escape will be lost in the noise. The things that concern the majority of/. readers are rarely the things that concern the corporate suits who make the purchasing decisions.
Maybe. I'm not so sure anymore. I used to expect certain things to show up on Slashdot that wouldn't show up at work - or at least would only show up among a small subset of folks at work. But I've seen a change over the years.
I've seen these issues shared among IT workers far more often these days. I have to admit - I'm still surprised when they surface. But I've noted that its only the die-hard Microsoft shops / groups that still toe the expected Microsoft line.
As an ironic aside, the 'M$' meme, according to Google Meme Search, was originally planted by one of the thousands of Microsoft employees who frequent Slashdot in an attempt to equate Microsoft and Money and drive up stock.
The deal feel through because of Jerry Yang's ego. Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders and he didn't do it because he let his pride/ego get in the way.
Or he did it because he knew it was the wrong thing for Yahoo! and the wrong thing for shareholders who are interested in the long view. But hey - this horse has been worked before.
I doubt the merger would have been agreed upon without this sort of stipulation, in either case.
Depends on who's in the position of strength. Pixar has been producing hit after hit, charging popular culture with its own imagery. Of course, the Disney emblem gets stamped on top of that because Disney distributes. But the underlying role is all Pixar - a role that Disney had in previous decades. Meanwhile, Disney produced an occasional boxoffice hit and a slew of related direct-to-DVD rehashes to throughly milk those few successes. They also produce disposable pop icons. And occasionally fall back on their historical success by the false-scarcity tactic of re-releasing old classics from their "vault".... for a limited time, of course.
It hasn't been working out well for Disney. I couldn't say its all about their box office. But I know folks who work for the Mouse and I'm hearing tales of decline at Disney's flagship parks (even beyond Disney's customary employee burn-out rate). Disney is stumbling.
It seems to me that Disney needed Pixar a lot more than Pixar needed Disney. Granted - Pixar gets things out of that deal. And I wouldn't be surprised if a bigger piece of the Disney kingdom was a part of that deal.
I see you misunderstood my mentioning the lack of evidence that he didn't kill her. That's not evidence in itself, but again in conjunction with the mountain of other circumstantial evidence you'd have to believe in fairies and magic to have any reasonable doubt about his guilt.
The way I read your post, it was more than a mere mention. It seemed that you were making a major point on the apparent lack of proof towards innocence. And that's what I take exception to. And frankly, it seems like you're still pushing the point.
As dodongo points out, the process is about presenting evidence to prove guilt and never about proving innocence. The prosecution presents evidence of guilt and the defense attempts to either remove it from consideration or cast doubt on it in one way or another. Again - the defense never, ever has to present counter evidence to prove innocence. And it really seems like you're still making a point over the defense not doing this.
I agree that prosecution can be done without witnesses or smoking guns. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient. But the case is all about proof of guilt and never about proof of innocence. I'm not sure you're understanding that.
While RightSaidFred99 and I are certainly having a vigorous discussion about this, I'm going to side with him on this one... You do NOT, ever, ever, ever, EVER -- repeat after me, EVER! -- prove innocence in a courtroom. You are found guilty or not guilty; liable or not liable, but you are NEVER found 'innocent'.
Actually - you're arguing the same point I am. It seems that I wasn't as clear.
Good point, except..for all the evidence. It's hilarious to me that you dweebs are _still_ lamenting the jury's decision. And I do understand the concept of reaching the right decision the wrong way. Only, you know...all the evidence.
Use your purportedly big old nerd noggins and consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her. Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her?
Cool. You're halfway there. Now you just need to get your head around the concept of proving guilt vs. proving innocence. It's kind of a cornerstone of the US judicial system (and what is so wrong with the "trial by media" situation).
On a related note - I'm not surprised by this turn of events. I found the situation really fishy and had suspected the man was guilty. But that's not the point here. I'm also troubled with how the jury came to its conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
What amazes me is WHY would the USA government have been involved in such socialistic crap such as embargoes, rather than letting the citizenry sample the good and bad of all and choose for themselves.
Because it's not about keeping the citizenry from sampling. It's about economic pressure.
Granted - the original reasons for the embargo may no longer hold true. You could even argue that history has shown that the overall strategy was flawed. The policy offers a lot for critics to focus on.
But if you're going to be critical of the policy, at least educate yourself about it. Or, having been educated, be honest about it.
Its hard to tell the players apart these days. Even if you have a program.
(That's been redacted - but by someone who doesn't understand how a PDF works)
"I'd tap that!"
What I find interesting is that you've described numerous places that they set aside for commercials but don't have buyers to fill. But what happens once they sell all those slots? What happens if they end up with more customers than current slots?
Having said all that - I realize I'm off on a tangent. The original point was that there are (relatively) few commercials right now. Ten years from now might be very different. But that is then, this is now. Point taken.
Please feel free to explain why subscription radio is so different. Also, please feel free to let me know who you're quoting because it certainly wasn't me.
One of the selling points on CATV was less commercials. It certainly wasn't ad-free; local TV station broadcasts still contained commercials when put on the wire. But it wasn't anything like it is now. Granted - it didn't take long to ramp up the commercials. By the late 80s, things had changed.
What's replacing radio?
Not sure. But something certainly is:
Radio's Popularity Declining Unevenly
CBS Acquires Last.fm Seeking To Overcome Declining Radio Business
In decline: TV, radio, newspapers, books, mags
Radio Keeps Declining, Wall Street Keeps Getting Surprised
Actually, I don't think XM has commercials. I think they simply fund themselves on your subscription.
You could have been describing cable TV in the 80s. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. I would expect subscription radio will follow suit.
It would depend on how they're collecting samples. Back in the late 90's I was doing a gig at a JSC building where they happened to also be working on long-term, closed life support environments. One of the projects involved recycling urine and big collection drums showed up in the buliding restrooms. My memory is a bit fuzzy on the the details of the collection device but it was a pretty simple affair - little more than a big red plastic drum with a suitably large collection port on the side and a sign that read "please donate urine." We sysadmin types joked about drug testing (we'd all taken wiz-quizzes as part of employment). But if such a thing was going on, they'd have to do a lot of individual testing to catch the individual spiking the barrel as it were. There would be much simpler ways to do this.
Or do you think that those commercials are an accurate display of the Mac vs. PC world? If you do than you've been fooled by one of the great showmen of our times.
Yes, Jobs is an insanely great showman (ha!). Yes, Apple is trading heavily on an image (one largely crafted under Jobs' direction). And finally - yes, Apple's amusing little commercials aren't very good guides on the issues involved in picking a computing platform.
But comparing them to Comcast? Wow. Talk about reality distortion.
Let's cover a few more real facts about Apple. They produce good products. They have slick designs. And they run slick commercials that make a lot out of real issues facing their competitors (while not really highlighting their own shortcomings). All of that is being directed towards rather specific markets.
I should note that I'm probably not part of those markets and not a real Apple fan. I almost got an Apple][ back in the day - but didn't. I'm intrigued by the new OSX systems but not enough to seriously consider buying one. And the only Apple product I've ever owned in a couple decades of being an electronics consumer is an iPod - and even then I'm not really buying in on the image. But I'm willing to allow that Apple does good work. Even if it's not quite as insanely great as some would have me believe.
I'm entirely uncomfortable with the idea that Diablo III is the new face of Dianetics.
There's a sucker born every minute.
I define free as having no monetary cost. So, in my opinion, Skype is free. (I'm not the AC you replied to.)
I define "free" as "coming with a fruit basket." Unfortunately, that means very little software is free. In my opinion, of course.
All kidding aside - this is a tiresome, old argument. When people here are talking about Free Software, they're not talking fees or price-tags. Free Software is not Freeware (or at least it's not always the same thing). If you want to be a part of the conversation, it would help if you kept up with the language.
The point being that WinNT's POSIX layer wasn't very useful but it enabled Microsoft to check off a box on Government requirements. The drive behind document standards seems to come from Government sector(s). So OOXML not being implementable seems to be old, familiar ground.
Getting away from the meta-meme though - I really don't think calling Microsoft names, although fun, does anything but raise a cloud of dust over the abuses (alleged) of the ISO process.. and in that sense does benefit M$.
It wasn't a big deal at one point. It was just a little swipe taken while, for the most part, bigger points were made. But somewhere Microsoft criticism hit counter-culture mainstream. And the name-calling became the point. The real issues seem to be lost on the slew of johnny-come-lately bashers.
Now, when someone includes the cute little dig, it almost becomes a visual queue that identifies the individual as another wanna-be. And as you pointed out, that can unfortunately obscure otherwise excellent points and real issues.
Sockpuppets and meme seeding just seem to be strange background behavior to an already odd culture. ;)
That may be true in an IT environment, but are the majority of Microsoft Office users in an IT environment? Or maybe it's just me in an unusual situation -- I'm a consultant and all of my customers require deliverables in MS Office format, and the appearance of OO.o documents saved in MS Office formats and re-opened in MS Office just isn't up to the professional standards required of me (for precisely the reasons we object to OOXML).
Oh - you're not alone. I've definitely seen the same kind of thing (although I might have better luck than you using oo.o). But the issue really is who's defining that requirement.
Most end users don't care. They have no idea of the issues involved. They just want to do their work. But that doesn't mean the issues aren't important and won't affect them. That's why you have IT folks that are in the business of hashing this stuff out and building systems for end users.
I've seen IT departments shift entire ways of doing business. I've seen IT departments humbled in the face of end user revolts. I've seen IT departments scrambling to make something work the way end users expect. And I've seen absolutely horrid systems that are barely functional because they've had little or no IT expertise involved in planning them. In short - I've seen the full gambit.
When these issues surface at work, it's usually in the realm of IT planners trying to hash out long term plans or respond to various external requirements. It probably helps that I'm usually involved with industries that are government related. If the Government decides that an open data format is a requirement, you can bet that the end users will be learning how to make their applications do so... or learning new applications.
Repeat after me:
"No implementation of OOXML exists. No implementation of OOXML exists. No implementation of OOXML exists."
These kinds of niggling little details worked so well for the POSIX requirements in government IT.
Trouble is, the vast vast majority of Microsoft users will have no interest in this whole fiasco. The "more people" who want to escape will be lost in the noise. The things that concern the majority of /. readers are rarely the things that concern the corporate suits who make the purchasing decisions.
Maybe. I'm not so sure anymore. I used to expect certain things to show up on Slashdot that wouldn't show up at work - or at least would only show up among a small subset of folks at work. But I've seen a change over the years.
I've seen these issues shared among IT workers far more often these days. I have to admit - I'm still surprised when they surface. But I've noted that its only the die-hard Microsoft shops / groups that still toe the expected Microsoft line.
As an ironic aside, the 'M$' meme, according to Google Meme Search, was originally planted by one of the thousands of Microsoft employees who frequent Slashdot in an attempt to equate Microsoft and Money and drive up stock.
How's that meme working out for you?
The deal feel through because of Jerry Yang's ego. Taking the deal was the right thing to do for the shareholders and he didn't do it because he let his pride/ego get in the way.
Or he did it because he knew it was the wrong thing for Yahoo! and the wrong thing for shareholders who are interested in the long view. But hey - this horse has been worked before.
The incentive is there, draw your own conclusions.
And her's a mat to help you!
Do they do white damage?
I doubt the merger would have been agreed upon without this sort of stipulation, in either case.
Depends on who's in the position of strength. Pixar has been producing hit after hit, charging popular culture with its own imagery. Of course, the Disney emblem gets stamped on top of that because Disney distributes. But the underlying role is all Pixar - a role that Disney had in previous decades. Meanwhile, Disney produced an occasional boxoffice hit and a slew of related direct-to-DVD rehashes to throughly milk those few successes. They also produce disposable pop icons. And occasionally fall back on their historical success by the false-scarcity tactic of re-releasing old classics from their "vault".... for a limited time, of course.
It hasn't been working out well for Disney. I couldn't say its all about their box office. But I know folks who work for the Mouse and I'm hearing tales of decline at Disney's flagship parks (even beyond Disney's customary employee burn-out rate). Disney is stumbling.
It seems to me that Disney needed Pixar a lot more than Pixar needed Disney. Granted - Pixar gets things out of that deal. And I wouldn't be surprised if a bigger piece of the Disney kingdom was a part of that deal.
I see you misunderstood my mentioning the lack of evidence that he didn't kill her. That's not evidence in itself, but again in conjunction with the mountain of other circumstantial evidence you'd have to believe in fairies and magic to have any reasonable doubt about his guilt.
The way I read your post, it was more than a mere mention. It seemed that you were making a major point on the apparent lack of proof towards innocence. And that's what I take exception to. And frankly, it seems like you're still pushing the point.
As dodongo points out, the process is about presenting evidence to prove guilt and never about proving innocence. The prosecution presents evidence of guilt and the defense attempts to either remove it from consideration or cast doubt on it in one way or another. Again - the defense never, ever has to present counter evidence to prove innocence. And it really seems like you're still making a point over the defense not doing this.
I agree that prosecution can be done without witnesses or smoking guns. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient. But the case is all about proof of guilt and never about proof of innocence. I'm not sure you're understanding that.
While RightSaidFred99 and I are certainly having a vigorous discussion about this, I'm going to side with him on this one... You do NOT, ever, ever, ever, EVER -- repeat after me, EVER! -- prove innocence in a courtroom. You are found guilty or not guilty; liable or not liable, but you are NEVER found 'innocent'.
Actually - you're arguing the same point I am. It seems that I wasn't as clear.
Good point, except..for all the evidence. It's hilarious to me that you dweebs are _still_ lamenting the jury's decision. And I do understand the concept of reaching the right decision the wrong way. Only, you know...all the evidence.
Use your purportedly big old nerd noggins and consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her. Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her?
Cool. You're halfway there. Now you just need to get your head around the concept of proving guilt vs. proving innocence. It's kind of a cornerstone of the US judicial system (and what is so wrong with the "trial by media" situation).
On a related note - I'm not surprised by this turn of events. I found the situation really fishy and had suspected the man was guilty. But that's not the point here. I'm also troubled with how the jury came to its conclusion.