You do not realize that this $60 Billion is paper-money only, there is hardly any cash. All this money is
stuck in other people's projects. It will probably take them 10 - 20 years to be able to cash all their assets if they can at all.
Please check your figures before you post. According to Microsoft's 8-K filed 23 April 2004, as of 31 March 2004, they had $9.348 billion in cash and cash equivalents, and an additional $47.059 billion in short-term investments. (See FreeEdgar for the 8-K and other reports.)
This is exactly what I don't want to see happen. DirecTV is using all that precious satellite bandwidth to rebroadcast hundreds of local stations. Some of that bandwidth comes from new satellites, and some of it from spot beaming, but some of it comes from cranking up the compression ratios on the other channels. DBS television just doesn't look so good these days. I used to have a DirecTV setup, and wouldn't mind doing so again, but the picture quality keeps getting worse and worse. I'm considering a satellite radio, but it would be awful if they went down this road.
Games don't need a hard drive, a dvd drive, USB port, or ethernet port.
Have you ever been in the business of developing games?
- Games need storage -- the more, the better. Having a hard drive means that large-scale persistent changes can be made to worlds. It opens up entirely new types of console games.
- Games need high-capacity media. Consumers want more music, more graphics, larger worlds. DVD is the logical next step.
- Games need some method of input. For the Xbox, USB was a great choice.
- Games need high-bandwidth, low-latency connections for multiplayer. Building a 10Base-T port into the back was an incredibly smart move.
Microsoft has made it clear they view Xbox as a game machine, and they have specifically and highly vocally disavowed Sony's strategy of building a game machine that's an entertainment hub. They could be lying, or they could change their minds, but there's no evidence for either of those scenarios.
It's a relief to find out that you know more about libertarianism than leading libertarians themselves. Whew! I was misguided there for a while. For example, from the Libertarian Party website:
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.
Policymakers shouldn't ban any category of technology as the marketplace works through these difficult issues. Likewise, force should not be used to "aid" the sharing of IP, such as emerging calls for the imposition of compulsory licensing requirements on record companies. Such forced "contracts," with their accompanying price controls and regulatory dynamics, have no place in a nascent industry that desperately needs to embrace voluntary deals. If companies go too far in locking up information, other companies (and consumers) have the option of dealing with less-restrictive entrepreneurs.
Clearly the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party have been misleading me as to the true nature of libertarianism. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Many of the comments on this story remind me of the fact that so many people on the Net describe themselves as libertarian in nature (or something close to it), except when it comes to something they want that belongs to someone else.
Example: Pharma patent rights. A true libertarian would say that, for the durations of their patents, pharma companies have the right to license their creations at any price they choose, or even not at all. $1/dose, $10,000/dose, or "we're not selling" would all be valid. Instead, we get Slashdotters arguing that drug companies should be forced to give away their creations, or to sell them at a "fair" price (i.e., a price not determined by the free market).
Example: Music distribution. A true libertarian would say that, subject to their owning the copyright, record labels have the right to license songs however and to whomever they wish. If they want to license a song so that listeners can enjoy it every other Tuesday, then that's their right. Instead, we get Slashdotters arguing that record labels should be forced to distribute their songs on standardized, "fair" terms (i.e., terms not determined by the free market).
If you want to believe that the government has a role in all this sort of stuff, and should have this kind of power, that's fine, though I'm not on your side. But don't come crying to Slashdot when the government uses all its wisdom and power to tell you what you can do with your computer and your Internet connection. To argue for freedom of speech on the one hand and government control of private intellectual property on the other is intellectually dishonest at best.
Free Internet access... subsidized by all citizens... for people with portable computers or PDAs, 802.11b cards, and the desire to surf the Internet in parks.
I like the idea of people putting up homegrown free wireless networks. It's very cool. Why start talking about government funding? Let the people who want the service band together, pay for it, set it up, and run it.
Trust me, you don't want the government involved in this.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what I don't want to see happen. DirecTV is using all that precious satellite bandwidth to rebroadcast hundreds of local stations. Some of that bandwidth comes from new satellites, and some of it from spot beaming, but some of it comes from cranking up the compression ratios on the other channels. DBS television just doesn't look so good these days. I used to have a DirecTV setup, and wouldn't mind doing so again, but the picture quality keeps getting worse and worse. I'm considering a satellite radio, but it would be awful if they went down this road.
-- Frank
Games don't need a hard drive, a dvd drive, USB port, or ethernet port.
Have you ever been in the business of developing games?
- Games need storage -- the more, the better. Having a hard drive means that large-scale persistent changes can be made to worlds. It opens up entirely new types of console games.
- Games need high-capacity media. Consumers want more music, more graphics, larger worlds. DVD is the logical next step.
- Games need some method of input. For the Xbox, USB was a great choice.
- Games need high-bandwidth, low-latency connections for multiplayer. Building a 10Base-T port into the back was an incredibly smart move.
Microsoft has made it clear they view Xbox as a game machine, and they have specifically and highly vocally disavowed Sony's strategy of building a game machine that's an entertainment hub. They could be lying, or they could change their minds, but there's no evidence for either of those scenarios.
-- Frank
It's a relief to find out that you know more about libertarianism than leading libertarians themselves. Whew! I was misguided there for a while. For example, from the Libertarian Party website:
We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.
And from the Cato Institute website:
Policymakers shouldn't ban any category of technology as the marketplace works through these difficult issues. Likewise, force should not be used to "aid" the sharing of IP, such as emerging calls for the imposition of compulsory licensing requirements on record companies. Such forced "contracts," with their accompanying price controls and regulatory dynamics, have no place in a nascent industry that desperately needs to embrace voluntary deals. If companies go too far in locking up information, other companies (and consumers) have the option of dealing with less-restrictive entrepreneurs.
Clearly the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party have been misleading me as to the true nature of libertarianism. Thanks for setting the record straight.
-- Frank
Many of the comments on this story remind me of the fact that so many people on the Net describe themselves as libertarian in nature (or something close to it), except when it comes to something they want that belongs to someone else.
Example: Pharma patent rights. A true libertarian would say that, for the durations of their patents, pharma companies have the right to license their creations at any price they choose, or even not at all. $1/dose, $10,000/dose, or "we're not selling" would all be valid. Instead, we get Slashdotters arguing that drug companies should be forced to give away their creations, or to sell them at a "fair" price (i.e., a price not determined by the free market).
Example: Music distribution. A true libertarian would say that, subject to their owning the copyright, record labels have the right to license songs however and to whomever they wish. If they want to license a song so that listeners can enjoy it every other Tuesday, then that's their right. Instead, we get Slashdotters arguing that record labels should be forced to distribute their songs on standardized, "fair" terms (i.e., terms not determined by the free market).
If you want to believe that the government has a role in all this sort of stuff, and should have this kind of power, that's fine, though I'm not on your side. But don't come crying to Slashdot when the government uses all its wisdom and power to tell you what you can do with your computer and your Internet connection. To argue for freedom of speech on the one hand and government control of private intellectual property on the other is intellectually dishonest at best.
-- Frank
Free Internet access... subsidized by all citizens... for people with portable computers or PDAs, 802.11b cards, and the desire to surf the Internet in parks.
I like the idea of people putting up homegrown free wireless networks. It's very cool. Why start talking about government funding? Let the people who want the service band together, pay for it, set it up, and run it.
Trust me, you don't want the government involved in this.
-- Frank