First: I never said that MicroToast provided a great product, or at a great value. Other Toast companies produced high quality products at a fraction of the cost, but the MicroToast bread/toaster relationship stopped them.
Microsoft has never taken a chance in it's life. They wait for another company to create demand for a product, then they move in, clone or buy out the competition, and claim to be innovative after using their monopoly power to crush the competition*. No successful Microsoft product is unique, and usually, it's based heavily on an already existing products by other companies.
*Note: You don't need Internet Explorer or Microsoft Passport to use Hotmail.
I agree to a point, but I'd still like the company to lose it's monopoly *now*, rather than in a decade, just because I want to see innovation again. Monopolies are still quite bad for the industry (for instance: If MS had the same market share as Linux or something else, do you think it would have taken 6 years to release a stable OS?), and as a person who has seen what innovation and competition hand in hand can do for an industry(look at AMD and Intel), I can't wait for the day when there is competition again.
Rather than think of it in that way, think of it like this:
You design toasters. Problem is, most bread will only bake in MicroToast toasters(why is irrelevant at this point, but I point the blame to International Bread Machines). Those toasters rely on undocumented mechanisms to toast the bread, which includes a complex chemical process. Now, the battle becomes that nobody can design a toaster, and MicroToast quickly gets a huge market share; they use their monopoly to make you buy MicroToast bread. Now, the problem for you becomes that you must either produce your own bread to begin with and try to get others to invest in baking bread for your toaster, or try to reverse engineer the MicroToast toaster so your toaster can toast MicroToast(and MicroToast Toaster compatible) bread, but the second is impossible thanks to the undocumented bread toasting mechanism.
A mistake most people seem to make is assuming that you need top-of-the-line hardware to play games. How about.....NO! Really, your entire comparison is extremely weak. "I use a five year old console because I don't want the best graphics card money can buy"? Understand this: You don't need to buy new hardware every 9 months if you're willing to put up with console quality graphics. Hell, a Geforce 2 MX-200 is pretty easy to get for the price of a new game, and at console resolution (640x480), it runs current games just fine. The arguement you present reads like "I drive a pickup truck rather than a car because I don't like how sports cars made later will be faster".
Remember these, and you'll live a lot longer.
1)You don't need the newest hardware to run the latest games. That Nvidia TNT2 many years ago will still run most, if not all, games on the market right now. It'll likely play them well too, as long as you turn down some graphics features. You don't even need more than a gigahertz to play the latest games.
2)If you buy a PC to play games, you can just set it up and let it sit there. Install the latest drivers at the time you install the card, and leave it at that. Driver updates are nice, and with nvidia, they generally speed up the card, but they really aren't nessessary if the program you want to run works.
3)It's entirely possible to build a computer which will last for quite a while for less than the price of that ultra-high end video card. Buy intelligently, and choose low cost, high performance components, and you'll have a system which is inexpensive to maintain, and is cheaper to keep up with than the latest console. For instance: I've got a Geforce 2 MX 200 right now. It'll last for quite a while, and judging from the benchmarks in this article, it'll probably run Unreal 2 at decent speeds if I'm willing run at 640x480x16bits, which I am. Even then, I can spend another 100 bucks(the price of maybe two games, quite reasonable) for a Geforce 4 MX when it comes out in march.
Get mo'slo or Turbo to scale back the processor. While many sound cards don't work anymore, win98 still plays most, if not all games, under DOS.
old DOS compatibility is one of the primary factors behind me not upgrading to XP, and not staying with ME(it's sad performance being the other reason).
Have you tried anything to fix it? I know about such things (being an ex-s3 Savage4 owner myself, I know all about catering to crappy drivers), so I may be able to help you.
Try some of these first.
1) If you are running an AMD chip, try the fix mentioned a few days ago. I haven't had any problems with that, but maybe I'm lucky.
2) Are you sure you're running cool enough? It's possible that your case is too hot, and is causing instability.
3) Ensure that there are no cables by your video card. Try your best to isolate power cables from the rest of the machine to reduce EM and RF interference. The interference caused by 12v is likely small, but I've had problems with that in the past.
4) Are you sure you don't have anything overclocked? If you do, set it back to it's normal speed.
5)It's also possible that your motherboard slightly overclocks it's bus(not uncommon) to get a small boost. This could in turn overclock your AGP bus, and cause problems with your card. I had this problem with the Savage4, but then it was an overclocked PCI bus making things unstable. I had similar symptoms to yours.
In the end, remember that video cards can be *very* tempermental if they are stressed in the wrong places. If most people are having no problems, ensure the hardware isn't at fault.
I assure you -- nvidias aren't unstable. I've been using my MX oc'd to 195/195 for a while now, and it's up to 8-10 hour gaming sessions without a glitch or a crash, even with several of those a week.
I suppose you bought an s3 card then?:)
Besides that, Nvidia cards are currently the industry standard. Games are designed to run on those cards. That's a very important distinction, and it has the same effect as when 3dfx was king -- it'll work.
Is there any point? With Geforce 4 MXs around the corner at a very affordable price(it looks like they'll debut at around 100-120 dollars), does it really matter if todays uber-cards get whipped?
Granted, some people spent big bucks for their Geforce 3 Tis, but they will still be able to play games, just not at the bleeding edge anymore. That's a main point of the video card industry -- it's fast, so don't feel bad when your card is not high end enough to run at max detail anymore.
Instead, I think I'll just bother with people in my own country.
The question is asked("why do people hate America?"), and you can't take the answer. I'm sorry if the rest of the world thinks that the US is filled with arrogant pricks. I can't stop that either. I know what I've seen, and I know that not all Americans are like that, not all Americans are ignorant either, but there is definitely a large group like that, who are also very vocal, and give the states a bad name. The only thing I can suggest is to remind the people that they have a duty, living under a democracy(okay, a democratic republic), to stay informed. Is it hard work? Hell yeah! But if you guys aren't willing to do it, just get it over with, and hold the despotic coronation of GWB for the world to see.
-MS started out small, then became intensely big overnight, thanks to IBM. Somehow, I can't see IBM making that costly(I'm talking billions of dollars siphoned into MS) mistake twice. I don't think Microsoft would have survived in the PC software industry if Bill had to survive on his own.
-While it is concievable that MS might make a dramatic shift over to the right side of the law and morality, they haven't yet, and nothing short of the elimination of several top execs would likely change that. Power corrupts, and MS has power in spades.
For the third, I fail to see your point. Please elabourate how all that bad code helps MS.
Finally, I think any analysis of why windows is successful is moot in light of the fact that MS was virtually handed the monopoly by IBM. MS lied to IBM about having an OS ready, bought QDOS with 50 grand of his mothers money, and still becomes huge. From there, MS had the simplist, most effective platform for launching Windows. Think of it; you have a near monopoly on the desktop, and you just use that to advertise this "windows" thing. Hell, it's even easier if you just make sure all the DOS machines out there have windows included, and it slowly becomes the standard.
One last thing I'll dispute; I'm not sure that MS has created or shipped the most code. Think about it; remove any code which they bought from another company, any code re-released, like Windows 95/OSR2/98/ME, NT,2000,XP, and you get a much smaller number than you start with. It's concieveable that some other company could have topped MS. Possibly not in something as obvious as desktop OSs, but theres been a lot of companies to come and go over the years...
Thank you, I don't even care that you said I was an asshole. I'm steaming from this shit. Do you know what it's like when you are doing something and the connection dies every 10 mins? Try putting up with that for at least a month... I've thought about suicide and blaming Bill Gates in the note.
First, I didn't call you an asshole, I just said you came off that way.
secondly, I know exactly what that's like, and because of it, I swore I'd never buy a PC Chips motherboard again. the damn modem never worked on it. It'd kick off, and it'd do things even worse sometimes, like just sit there, not sending or recieving. The worst part is that to fix the modem, I needed to get on the internet, but the internet sucked with that modem... All I can say is that I'm glad PC Chips has cleaned up their image. I have their 830LMR board right now, and it runs like a clock, and it's the fastest board on the benchmarks.
I can sympathise with that guy though. I read the entire thread, and while he comes off badly, he has a valid point.
It's like;
"my USB cable modem doesn't work under XP. It works under 2000, NT, 98, 95, and ME."
"You should buy another USB port."
"but it's not a hardware problem. It works under every other MS OS."
"You should buy a new USB cable modem."
"But it's not hardware, it's XP. I've established that."
"Try the drivers. Probably never worked under XP."
"But Microsoft Certified them. They've tested the drivers, and the drivers worked, according to them."
"Yeah, probably the drivers."
"But it's not. The fact that the modem works under 2000 proves it. Besides, if it didn't work, and MS certified it, then MS is at fault anyway..."
"You're being blind here. It's the drivers."
"Listen, fucknut, it can't be the drivers. It can't be the hardware. It must be XP. I'm asking for suggestions on how I could get XP to work with my cable modem."
"You're being blind, retard, it's obviously the drivers! Sometimes manufacturers fuck up. Get over it."
"That's it. This conversation is over. I just returned XP and am using 98 again."
Interesting read(and quite humorous), since everybody else came off as calm, but the fact remains, the process of elimination did point to XP, and everybody kept on insisting that he should run out and buy more hardware.
I also understand why he was pissed off though. He went out and paid 200 bucks for XP, and it didn't work as advertised. The fact that people blamed his hardware for some reason only made the situation worse.
Everyone but intel did at the time. That's why AMD first came out with 3dNow!.(why the hell did they include the punctuation in the name?!), because they couldn't keep up with the intel FPU otherwise. Conversely, that's why Intel is pushing SSE2 on the p4 so hard, because the p4 has a really slow FPU as well.
The reason seems to be that nobody is comparing the Durons to P4s. If AMD started putting 1600+ on their Duron CPUs, it would look pretty bad when a 1.2MHZ Celeron caught up with it, just like Intel looks bad when the P4 isn't grossly more powerful than the Athlon, despite a several hundred megahertz gap in speed, and a few hundred dollar difference in price.
as for the intel is wrong in marketing the p4 vs the AMD is wrong for marketing the Athlon 2000+ people, remember this: It's marketing. There is no good, no evil. Just trying to manipulate the public into buying your product. Such is Marketing.
It's impossible to "take off the anti-MS-colored glasses" when talking about MS buying out their competition. The fact that they can't write software to save their mothers lives doesn't help this arguement(really, I'm biased there). I think it's safer to let multiple small companies battle it out for these things, than let one monolithic company do it and assume they will do it better somehow. I sure as hell don't trust Microsoft, with it's "Press OK to continue, Press Cancel to skip" antics lately, to make a UI anything more than sub-par.
So all you wannaba hardware engineers think it's as simple as just bunging cheap parts together? Get real. The overheads in buying a complete system come from the engineering and testing that goes into it. And it's worth it - it's a fact that manufacturer-built systems have less hardware-based system crashes than systems built by some geeky know-it-all wanker.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong...
It's all a matter of knowing what you're doing. Buy RAM from reliable sources, check out all the components before you spend the cash. It's quite simple to build a totally reliable, very cheap, crap free PC yourself.
I'd really like to hear where you get you "facts" from, and I'd like to hear what you think makes complete systems "engineered and tested" any better than the one a knowlegeable individual could put together. I'd like to know what special powers geeky know-it-alls on some computer companies dime have that make them any different than the rest of us, especially when a lot of us are highly experienced, highly trained professionals.
So far, I've run this on a Cyrix M333(it really runs at about 250MHZ on a socket 7 architecture), a 333MHZ PII, a 550MHZ mobile celeron, and it's been almost as fast as BeOS on all those machines(BeOS was the fastest modern OS I've ever seen -- it ran sweetly on a p90, which is more than I can say about Windows "we won't install on anything less than a p200" ME.)
My next IT hire is going to build his/her own computer, if it cant, it doesnt get hired.
Man...It's truly insane if they don't. parts are so much cheaper than ready-made systems, I often wonder why everyone with the skill doesn't use it, and save a few hundred by building their own PC.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this whole arguement is moot. Maybe the US should nuke every country without the suffix "of America" in the title. I'm getting tired of trying to figure out the best way to guide your nation.
But you forget, when we're talking about job progression in the sense that the article is, it is quite dangerous. I assure you that your children will be negatively affected if you have to move every six months to keep a job.
*This* is what my point is. You will be in trouble if you aren't willing to relocate every six months. You will have to climb that ladder whether you want to or not.
As an excuse of why a person can't spend all his time moving from job to job, "time with my family" is a damn good one. Take it from a man who has lived the life of a corporate nomad, and has finally settled down in a nice town. It's the life for a batchelor. It's not the life for anybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
First: I never said that MicroToast provided a great product, or at a great value. Other Toast companies produced high quality products at a fraction of the cost, but the MicroToast bread/toaster relationship stopped them.
Microsoft has never taken a chance in it's life. They wait for another company to create demand for a product, then they move in, clone or buy out the competition, and claim to be innovative after using their monopoly power to crush the competition*. No successful Microsoft product is unique, and usually, it's based heavily on an already existing products by other companies.
*Note: You don't need Internet Explorer or Microsoft Passport to use Hotmail.
I agree to a point, but I'd still like the company to lose it's monopoly *now*, rather than in a decade, just because I want to see innovation again. Monopolies are still quite bad for the industry (for instance: If MS had the same market share as Linux or something else, do you think it would have taken 6 years to release a stable OS?), and as a person who has seen what innovation and competition hand in hand can do for an industry(look at AMD and Intel), I can't wait for the day when there is competition again.
Rather than think of it in that way, think of it like this:
You design toasters. Problem is, most bread will only bake in MicroToast toasters(why is irrelevant at this point, but I point the blame to International Bread Machines). Those toasters rely on undocumented mechanisms to toast the bread, which includes a complex chemical process. Now, the battle becomes that nobody can design a toaster, and MicroToast quickly gets a huge market share; they use their monopoly to make you buy MicroToast bread. Now, the problem for you becomes that you must either produce your own bread to begin with and try to get others to invest in baking bread for your toaster, or try to reverse engineer the MicroToast toaster so your toaster can toast MicroToast(and MicroToast Toaster compatible) bread, but the second is impossible thanks to the undocumented bread toasting mechanism.
Understand?
I've tried for years to find a product that runs better, faster, and is easier to use than Office
Try Cetus Wordpad.
A mistake most people seem to make is assuming that you need top-of-the-line hardware to play games. How about.....NO! Really, your entire comparison is extremely weak. "I use a five year old console because I don't want the best graphics card money can buy"? Understand this: You don't need to buy new hardware every 9 months if you're willing to put up with console quality graphics. Hell, a Geforce 2 MX-200 is pretty easy to get for the price of a new game, and at console resolution (640x480), it runs current games just fine. The arguement you present reads like "I drive a pickup truck rather than a car because I don't like how sports cars made later will be faster".
Remember these, and you'll live a lot longer.
1)You don't need the newest hardware to run the latest games. That Nvidia TNT2 many years ago will still run most, if not all, games on the market right now. It'll likely play them well too, as long as you turn down some graphics features. You don't even need more than a gigahertz to play the latest games.
2)If you buy a PC to play games, you can just set it up and let it sit there. Install the latest drivers at the time you install the card, and leave it at that. Driver updates are nice, and with nvidia, they generally speed up the card, but they really aren't nessessary if the program you want to run works.
3)It's entirely possible to build a computer which will last for quite a while for less than the price of that ultra-high end video card. Buy intelligently, and choose low cost, high performance components, and you'll have a system which is inexpensive to maintain, and is cheaper to keep up with than the latest console. For instance: I've got a Geforce 2 MX 200 right now. It'll last for quite a while, and judging from the benchmarks in this article, it'll probably run Unreal 2 at decent speeds if I'm willing run at 640x480x16bits, which I am. Even then, I can spend another 100 bucks(the price of maybe two games, quite reasonable) for a Geforce 4 MX when it comes out in march.
Get mo'slo or Turbo to scale back the processor. While many sound cards don't work anymore, win98 still plays most, if not all games, under DOS.
old DOS compatibility is one of the primary factors behind me not upgrading to XP, and not staying with ME(it's sad performance being the other reason).
Have you tried anything to fix it? I know about such things (being an ex-s3 Savage4 owner myself, I know all about catering to crappy drivers), so I may be able to help you.
Try some of these first.
1) If you are running an AMD chip, try the fix mentioned a few days ago. I haven't had any problems with that, but maybe I'm lucky.
2) Are you sure you're running cool enough? It's possible that your case is too hot, and is causing instability.
3) Ensure that there are no cables by your video card. Try your best to isolate power cables from the rest of the machine to reduce EM and RF interference. The interference caused by 12v is likely small, but I've had problems with that in the past.
4) Are you sure you don't have anything overclocked? If you do, set it back to it's normal speed.
5)It's also possible that your motherboard slightly overclocks it's bus(not uncommon) to get a small boost. This could in turn overclock your AGP bus, and cause problems with your card. I had this problem with the Savage4, but then it was an overclocked PCI bus making things unstable. I had similar symptoms to yours.
In the end, remember that video cards can be *very* tempermental if they are stressed in the wrong places. If most people are having no problems, ensure the hardware isn't at fault.
I assure you -- nvidias aren't unstable. I've been using my MX oc'd to 195/195 for a while now, and it's up to 8-10 hour gaming sessions without a glitch or a crash, even with several of those a week.
:)
I suppose you bought an s3 card then?
Besides that, Nvidia cards are currently the industry standard. Games are designed to run on those cards. That's a very important distinction, and it has the same effect as when 3dfx was king -- it'll work.
Is there any point? With Geforce 4 MXs around the corner at a very affordable price(it looks like they'll debut at around 100-120 dollars), does it really matter if todays uber-cards get whipped?
Granted, some people spent big bucks for their Geforce 3 Tis, but they will still be able to play games, just not at the bleeding edge anymore. That's a main point of the video card industry -- it's fast, so don't feel bad when your card is not high end enough to run at max detail anymore.
Instead, I think I'll just bother with people in my own country.
The question is asked("why do people hate America?"), and you can't take the answer. I'm sorry if the rest of the world thinks that the US is filled with arrogant pricks. I can't stop that either. I know what I've seen, and I know that not all Americans are like that, not all Americans are ignorant either, but there is definitely a large group like that, who are also very vocal, and give the states a bad name. The only thing I can suggest is to remind the people that they have a duty, living under a democracy(okay, a democratic republic), to stay informed. Is it hard work? Hell yeah! But if you guys aren't willing to do it, just get it over with, and hold the despotic coronation of GWB for the world to see.
A few more points, just food for thought.
-MS started out small, then became intensely big overnight, thanks to IBM. Somehow, I can't see IBM making that costly(I'm talking billions of dollars siphoned into MS) mistake twice. I don't think Microsoft would have survived in the PC software industry if Bill had to survive on his own.
-While it is concievable that MS might make a dramatic shift over to the right side of the law and morality, they haven't yet, and nothing short of the elimination of several top execs would likely change that. Power corrupts, and MS has power in spades.
For the third, I fail to see your point. Please elabourate how all that bad code helps MS.
Finally, I think any analysis of why windows is successful is moot in light of the fact that MS was virtually handed the monopoly by IBM. MS lied to IBM about having an OS ready, bought QDOS with 50 grand of his mothers money, and still becomes huge. From there, MS had the simplist, most effective platform for launching Windows. Think of it; you have a near monopoly on the desktop, and you just use that to advertise this "windows" thing. Hell, it's even easier if you just make sure all the DOS machines out there have windows included, and it slowly becomes the standard.
One last thing I'll dispute; I'm not sure that MS has created or shipped the most code. Think about it; remove any code which they bought from another company, any code re-released, like Windows 95/OSR2/98/ME, NT,2000,XP, and you get a much smaller number than you start with. It's concieveable that some other company could have topped MS. Possibly not in something as obvious as desktop OSs, but theres been a lot of companies to come and go over the years...
Thank you, I don't even care that you said I was an asshole. I'm steaming from this shit. Do you know what it's like when you are doing something and the connection dies every 10 mins? Try putting up with that for at least a month... I've thought about suicide and blaming Bill Gates in the note.
First, I didn't call you an asshole, I just said you came off that way.
secondly, I know exactly what that's like, and because of it, I swore I'd never buy a PC Chips motherboard again. the damn modem never worked on it. It'd kick off, and it'd do things even worse sometimes, like just sit there, not sending or recieving. The worst part is that to fix the modem, I needed to get on the internet, but the internet sucked with that modem... All I can say is that I'm glad PC Chips has cleaned up their image. I have their 830LMR board right now, and it runs like a clock, and it's the fastest board on the benchmarks.
I can sympathise with that guy though. I read the entire thread, and while he comes off badly, he has a valid point.
It's like;
"my USB cable modem doesn't work under XP. It works under 2000, NT, 98, 95, and ME."
"You should buy another USB port."
"but it's not a hardware problem. It works under every other MS OS."
"You should buy a new USB cable modem."
"But it's not hardware, it's XP. I've established that."
"Try the drivers. Probably never worked under XP."
"But Microsoft Certified them. They've tested the drivers, and the drivers worked, according to them."
"Yeah, probably the drivers."
"But it's not. The fact that the modem works under 2000 proves it. Besides, if it didn't work, and MS certified it, then MS is at fault anyway..."
"You're being blind here. It's the drivers."
"Listen, fucknut, it can't be the drivers. It can't be the hardware. It must be XP. I'm asking for suggestions on how I could get XP to work with my cable modem."
"You're being blind, retard, it's obviously the drivers! Sometimes manufacturers fuck up. Get over it."
"That's it. This conversation is over. I just returned XP and am using 98 again."
Interesting read(and quite humorous), since everybody else came off as calm, but the fact remains, the process of elimination did point to XP, and everybody kept on insisting that he should run out and buy more hardware.
I also understand why he was pissed off though. He went out and paid 200 bucks for XP, and it didn't work as advertised. The fact that people blamed his hardware for some reason only made the situation worse.
If you really want fast crap, do it like this [goatse.cx]
You must be mistaken; do you realize how long it takes to mangle yourself like that?
Everyone but intel did at the time. That's why AMD first came out with 3dNow!.(why the hell did they include the punctuation in the name?!), because they couldn't keep up with the intel FPU otherwise. Conversely, that's why Intel is pushing SSE2 on the p4 so hard, because the p4 has a really slow FPU as well.
Actually, I'd like an Athlon optimized version of Windows. It'd still be crap, but it would be fast crap.
The reason seems to be that nobody is comparing the Durons to P4s. If AMD started putting 1600+ on their Duron CPUs, it would look pretty bad when a 1.2MHZ Celeron caught up with it, just like Intel looks bad when the P4 isn't grossly more powerful than the Athlon, despite a several hundred megahertz gap in speed, and a few hundred dollar difference in price.
as for the intel is wrong in marketing the p4 vs the AMD is wrong for marketing the Athlon 2000+ people, remember this: It's marketing. There is no good, no evil. Just trying to manipulate the public into buying your product. Such is Marketing.
It's impossible to "take off the anti-MS-colored glasses" when talking about MS buying out their competition. The fact that they can't write software to save their mothers lives doesn't help this arguement(really, I'm biased there). I think it's safer to let multiple small companies battle it out for these things, than let one monolithic company do it and assume they will do it better somehow. I sure as hell don't trust Microsoft, with it's "Press OK to continue, Press Cancel to skip" antics lately, to make a UI anything more than sub-par.
So all you wannaba hardware engineers think it's as simple as just bunging cheap parts together? Get real. The overheads in buying a complete system come from the engineering and testing that goes into it. And it's worth it - it's a fact that manufacturer-built systems have less hardware-based system crashes than systems built by some geeky know-it-all wanker.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong...
It's all a matter of knowing what you're doing. Buy RAM from reliable sources, check out all the components before you spend the cash. It's quite simple to build a totally reliable, very cheap, crap free PC yourself.
I'd really like to hear where you get you "facts" from, and I'd like to hear what you think makes complete systems "engineered and tested" any better than the one a knowlegeable individual could put together. I'd like to know what special powers geeky know-it-alls on some computer companies dime have that make them any different than the rest of us, especially when a lot of us are highly experienced, highly trained professionals.
So far, I've run this on a Cyrix M333(it really runs at about 250MHZ on a socket 7 architecture), a 333MHZ PII, a 550MHZ mobile celeron, and it's been almost as fast as BeOS on all those machines(BeOS was the fastest modern OS I've ever seen -- it ran sweetly on a p90, which is more than I can say about Windows "we won't install on anything less than a p200" ME.)
My next IT hire is going to build his/her own computer, if it cant, it doesnt get hired.
Man...It's truly insane if they don't. parts are so much cheaper than ready-made systems, I often wonder why everyone with the skill doesn't use it, and save a few hundred by building their own PC.
It's just a bunch of opinions.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this whole arguement is moot. Maybe the US should nuke every country without the suffix "of America" in the title. I'm getting tired of trying to figure out the best way to guide your nation.
A pinto filled with laptops should do. :)
No need. China already does optical media licensing. [tapediscbusiness.com] (scroll down to the bottom)
That's pretty clever. I was referring to something else, but you got me.
You know what I'm saying. Go after real crimes rather than the trumped up ones which aren't even close to important.
But you forget, when we're talking about job progression in the sense that the article is, it is quite dangerous. I assure you that your children will be negatively affected if you have to move every six months to keep a job.
*This* is what my point is. You will be in trouble if you aren't willing to relocate every six months. You will have to climb that ladder whether you want to or not.
As an excuse of why a person can't spend all his time moving from job to job, "time with my family" is a damn good one. Take it from a man who has lived the life of a corporate nomad, and has finally settled down in a nice town. It's the life for a batchelor. It's not the life for anybody else.