I am not a pilot (more of a passenger!) but the pitch refers to the blades biting into the air, not the actual attitude of the bird itself. I don't think a gyro would help there. Maybe some sort of altitude sensing radar might accomplish what you are thinking of though.
Enron didn't say they were LOSING money, did they? There's kind of a big difference between lying about doing well vs lying about (supposedly?) doing poorly. Aside from the commonality of lying of course.:) However, the second case doesn't make a whole lot of sense, where the first does -- if despicably.
They simply realized that by keeping the price the same (with the 3% fee included) then they make even more money off of cash buyers. It's no lose for them, since people forget that extra 3% is there in the first place.
Ok, maybe that characterization was a bit much. But my point still stands -- people should be able to do those things if they want to, whether or not you think they need to.
Don't get me wrong. I think people get way too far into "being connected" but it's still just as easy as turning it off if you find that's not for you. That's a much better solution than not having the capability to do those things, since they might be vitally important or at least useful to people.
There has only been a single killer app in 9 years? That's just outright funny.
You know, I started to craft a response to your rather single-minded "logic" but based on what you've posted, and your website, it won't make any difference. You don't even really seem rational, so I am not going to bother. However, your claim that I made some false claim based on some bullshit analogy that you made is just plain stupid. If you really are a lawyer, I suspect you are quite bad at it. That probably comes across as an ad hominem attack, but really...is there any point engaging a discussion with someone who can't even craft a coherent argument based on facts? (insert "this IS slashdot!" joke here)
It's called an investment. Almost every business loses money initially, and then (hopefully!) acheives profitability. And yes, some companies have an advantage in that they can stick it out longer in the loss phase. It's not illegal to have money to do that.
This is kind of a stupid argument. MS clearly has the monopoly position in text editors, calculators, dialer programs, system utilites (aside from AV!) and a whole raft of other things we take for granted. You have to pay for these as part of Windows too. However, for each of these things, there are in fact other products that may be better. You are not restricted from buying or downloading them, much like browsers. Do you want a stripped OS where you have to add every single function you might use, or one that includes a lot of that stuff? How is bundling such a major crime? Every single OS out there does the exact same thing.
FWIW, MS helped themselves to market share in browsers, yes...but Netscape seems to have gone out of their way to lose it by releasing shit for a product. Anyone who blames MS for Netscape's failure is overlooking the full extent of what happened. NS was ahead up to ver 3, where they were about equivalent. NS release a ver 4 that was a shitheap and MS kept making forward progress. And that's what sealed the fates. NS screwed up ver 5 too, but it didn't really matter at that point anymore...
Is having a business with multiple product lines, where some are profitable and prop up the unprofitable ones somehow illegal? Hell, it's not even immoral. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any business that doesn't do this at some level. Even from an employee perspective, you have people that don't generate a profit and are subsidized by those that do.
I agree that MS has some pretty nasty anti-competitive behaviors, but you really should come up with a better argument than that. You have to do more than say "they have a lot of money, they're.....BAD!"
What are you complaining about? If you don't want to use those features, don't get them. If you don't want to be interrupted, turn the damn phone off. Enough people DO want those kinds of things and see a reason to use them. There's no need to act like they are a bunch of idiots because they don't think the same way you do.
Umm...as a consultant, you make 200-300 times what a salaried employee makes? I'm going to have to go ahead and call bullshit on you here. Did you mean 2-3 times, maybe?:)
He was referring to targeting the military as opposed to innocent civilians. While I certainly understand your emotional reaction, disregard of the facts tends to make for a shitty argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd need to redesign your average helicopter though, since the only thing sticking up above the rotor itself is usually spinning like mad...
I am not a pilot (more of a passenger!) but the pitch refers to the blades biting into the air, not the actual attitude of the bird itself. I don't think a gyro would help there. Maybe some sort of altitude sensing radar might accomplish what you are thinking of though.
Enron didn't say they were LOSING money, did they? There's kind of a big difference between lying about doing well vs lying about (supposedly?) doing poorly. Aside from the commonality of lying of course. :) However, the second case doesn't make a whole lot of sense, where the first does -- if despicably.
The things you have to go through to get a chick to touch your nuts....
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Bradley is not as fast as the Abrams, and the Sgt York was an anti-aircraft gun.
By this presumably you mean there were more deaths due to friendly fire than deaths due to enemy fire. :)
They simply realized that by keeping the price the same (with the 3% fee included) then they make even more money off of cash buyers. It's no lose for them, since people forget that extra 3% is there in the first place.
That's not really a paradox. It's a balancing act.
That they aren't paying out now IS an investment. It's just a long term one instead of a short term one. Your time horizon is key here.
And if you must have dividends, then for heaven's sake pick a company known for paying them. MS ain't one of those companies.
Ok, maybe that characterization was a bit much. But my point still stands -- people should be able to do those things if they want to, whether or not you think they need to.
Don't get me wrong. I think people get way too far into "being connected" but it's still just as easy as turning it off if you find that's not for you. That's a much better solution than not having the capability to do those things, since they might be vitally important or at least useful to people.
Zero? Where the hell is that? :)
There has only been a single killer app in 9 years? That's just outright funny.
You know, I started to craft a response to your rather single-minded "logic" but based on what you've posted, and your website, it won't make any difference. You don't even really seem rational, so I am not going to bother. However, your claim that I made some false claim based on some bullshit analogy that you made is just plain stupid. If you really are a lawyer, I suspect you are quite bad at it. That probably comes across as an ad hominem attack, but really...is there any point engaging a discussion with someone who can't even craft a coherent argument based on facts? (insert "this IS slashdot!" joke here)
It's called an investment. Almost every business loses money initially, and then (hopefully!) acheives profitability. And yes, some companies have an advantage in that they can stick it out longer in the loss phase. It's not illegal to have money to do that.
This is kind of a stupid argument. MS clearly has the monopoly position in text editors, calculators, dialer programs, system utilites (aside from AV!) and a whole raft of other things we take for granted. You have to pay for these as part of Windows too. However, for each of these things, there are in fact other products that may be better. You are not restricted from buying or downloading them, much like browsers. Do you want a stripped OS where you have to add every single function you might use, or one that includes a lot of that stuff? How is bundling such a major crime? Every single OS out there does the exact same thing.
FWIW, MS helped themselves to market share in browsers, yes...but Netscape seems to have gone out of their way to lose it by releasing shit for a product. Anyone who blames MS for Netscape's failure is overlooking the full extent of what happened. NS was ahead up to ver 3, where they were about equivalent. NS release a ver 4 that was a shitheap and MS kept making forward progress. And that's what sealed the fates. NS screwed up ver 5 too, but it didn't really matter at that point anymore...
Is having a business with multiple product lines, where some are profitable and prop up the unprofitable ones somehow illegal? Hell, it's not even immoral. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any business that doesn't do this at some level. Even from an employee perspective, you have people that don't generate a profit and are subsidized by those that do.
I agree that MS has some pretty nasty anti-competitive behaviors, but you really should come up with a better argument than that. You have to do more than say "they have a lot of money, they're.....BAD!"
What are you complaining about? If you don't want to use those features, don't get them. If you don't want to be interrupted, turn the damn phone off. Enough people DO want those kinds of things and see a reason to use them. There's no need to act like they are a bunch of idiots because they don't think the same way you do.
Umm...as a consultant, you make 200-300 times what a salaried employee makes? I'm going to have to go ahead and call bullshit on you here. Did you mean 2-3 times, maybe? :)
Wow. So all 50 states agreed to this, or are you just talking out of your ass?
Prolly not so tasty, thoough.
It wasn't?
:)
Sorry!
But Utah stole it from the Tunisians!
Ford has a flying car? Where the hell have I been?
He was referring to targeting the military as opposed to innocent civilians. While I certainly understand your emotional reaction, disregard of the facts tends to make for a shitty argument.
Wow. And we've got a lot of military folks in the US, which borders a country or two that has lots of oil...you're onto something there!
Not if you're careful about it.