Enjoy it while you can, because it's going to be just like cable
Just like cable, I'll decide when the annoyance factor outweighs the benefits. You're probably right - the commercials will increase. Cable has commercials too, but millions of people still subscribe. Why? Because they feel that 100+ channels with commercials is better than 5-10 channels with commercials. Satellite radio is no different. People will still subscribe because 100+ channels are better than the 5-10 locally available.
So, I guess I see it that I get to enjoy the limited commercials now, but will still be willing to pay for the availability of a larger number of channels later. Just like cable. As many people as I hear bitching about cable/satellite TV, most of them still subscribe to it. The same will be with satellite radio... those who bitch about it will probably still subscribe.
since only some percentage of the book fans will go and see it, only targetting a movie at the book fans can easily amount to cinematic suicide.
I suspect that their intent is to create "buzz", but getting people talk about it and ask whether or not it's a real product, etc. From all appearances, it's working.
Suffice it to say that most of the audence that saw it with me had no idea they had just seen a movie trailer; they actually believed that someone was going to start selling a "fully automated domestic assistant" some time next year.
Something tells me that these people probably aren't the target audience of the film anyway.
if I'm paying ANY money for my service.. I expect 0 ads.
Then go with Sirius. Their music channels are 100% commercial free. They're also $3/mo more than XM.
It's just different business models... one is cheaper with a few ads, one is more expensive with less ads. XM is betting that more people will tolerate a few ads to save a few bucks, while Sirius is betting that people will pay a few bucks more to avoid all the ads.
So far, XM is winning - but they also had a long head start (10-12 months, IIRC).
Personally, I tolerate the 2-3 breaks per hour of a few minutes each for the difference in price. I also liked the equipment choices that XM had at the time I bought mine.
only commercials are the brief spots advertising upcoming shows
Well, that's not exactly true.
FWIW, I'm a happy XM subscriber. The channels that are advertised as commercial free (I don't seem to listen to any of them) only have spots on their other channels or upcoming programs, but those that have commercials play standard pay-for-play advertisements. Seems that their major account right now is On-Star, so I hear a lot of their commercials. There's also a couple of insurance companies, etc.
All that said, it's still significantly better than broadcast radio. Commercial breaks are on the order of 2-3 times per hour, for 2-3 minutes TOPS each. During my normal workday commute (45-60 minutes), on broadcast radio I might hear 3-4 songs, whereas on my XM channels (with commercials), I hear 12-15. That's worth $10 a month for me.
AIX is still a dominant player in the commerical Unix world. It has heavy usage in engineering, statistical analysis, and database applications. I won't get into the AIX sucks/Solaris sucks/HP sucks/etc debates, but suffice it to say that AIX is a mature, stable commercial Unix-like operating system with an excellent support structure behind it.
If you're an AIX admin, there's not as many jobs out there for you - but they *are* out there, and they pay pretty well if you know what you're doing.
With all due respect, your passive awareness of speed is hardly quantifiable. It's also extremely unlikely that either platform was taxed with hundreds (or even dozens) of clients simultaneously, as is real world for an enterprise-ish file server.
Not a dis', just noting that performance on a small scale server at home isn't applicable to deciding a platform for larger business solutions.
I suppose it comes down to the difference between the intent of the test, versus the method of the test.
In this case, the method of the test was to use CIFS to measure performance against Windows and Linux PCs (using whatever implementation of that protocol is available for the platform).
If the intent of the test is to determine which platform is a better file server, the test plan is poorly spec'd. If the intent is to determine which platform can better serve CIFS clients, this probably wasn't a half bad test.
If the intent is to determine which platform makes a better "server" (which from reading the report, it wasn't), clearly there are lots of elements missing from the test.
Re:Next we tested IIS on both Linux and Windows
on
What's Microsoft Up To?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why didn't they test NFS? Or AFS for that matter?
Because the test was commissioned and paid for by Microsoft. They knew the results before they paid for the test - the test was ordered in such a way as to make the results a forgone conclusion.
If you were going to contruct a biased test of Linux vs. Microsoft, wanting Linux to prove better - you'd choose products and tests that would favor Linux... just as Microsoft did here. Take a native protocol to Microsoft and stack it up against a re-implementation on another operating system... sounds pretty weighted against Linux to me.
Of course there are lots of ways to make an unbiased performance comparison - such as using multiple protocols, etc... but why would Microsoft pay for that? I'm not saying that either system was better or worse than the other - just that this particular test doesn't prove anything except that Microsoft know how to spec a test so that their products appear faster.
For what it's worth, I don't own either. Looks like the ZZ is at least a way to get more people interested/excited in the hobby, and the Bits provide a growth path if you want to get more serious about it.
Lets make that a loud rock band in a bar with a cover charge, instead of a theater. If they catch you sneaking in without paying the cover, they can have you arrested, again, for tresspass.
But you are perfectly free to stand on the sidewalk outside and listen.
The problem with this is that standing on the sidewalk, you do NOT receive the same benefits as those ticket paying customers. You get a reduced benefit, namely sound quality, stage view, drink service, etc.
With iDVD, you get FULL benefit of the software once you've illegally modified it. There is no degredation of your benefit based on the fact that you're illegally using it.
People are more likely to buy a Mac in order to use this free software.
I'm sure that's Apple's intention, yes.
The total number of DVD burners from all manufacturers, including Apple will increase if people have the software to use it.
Agreed. How eager do you think Apple is to support the sale of their competitor's products?
If Apple require you to buy their burner to use the software, then it is not free. It costs the same as the burner.
I'm not disputing that. You're absolutely right, looked at from the right angle, iDVD isn't free - it's included for use with purchased and profit producing Apple DVD hardware.
They are not entitled to a profit just because they have spent money on it. The market doesn't work like that. If they feel they deserve to make a profit on the software, then they should sell it for a profit.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. They *are* entitled to make a profit on it if they wrote it to support only their hardware. For what it's worth, they ARE selling it for a profit. By making it compatible only with Apple DVD drives, they're guaranteed that they sell DVD drives for it's use. If you crack the software, you've circumvented that protection and deprived Apple of revenue. To counter the arguments I can already feel coming about "If it didn't support non-Apple drives, I'd never use it, so they're not losing revenue" this is akin to "It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't have paid for the ticket in the first place." The argument just doesn't hold water, sorry.
If their business model costs them more money than they make, then they don't deserve to make a profit
Presumably, their business model does allow them to make a profit, assuming that people don't illegally modify their code.
Slashdot Mirror
I do.
Just like cable, I'll decide when the annoyance factor outweighs the benefits. You're probably right - the commercials will increase. Cable has commercials too, but millions of people still subscribe. Why? Because they feel that 100+ channels with commercials is better than 5-10 channels with commercials. Satellite radio is no different. People will still subscribe because 100+ channels are better than the 5-10 locally available.
So, I guess I see it that I get to enjoy the limited commercials now, but will still be willing to pay for the availability of a larger number of channels later. Just like cable. As many people as I hear bitching about cable/satellite TV, most of them still subscribe to it. The same will be with satellite radio... those who bitch about it will probably still subscribe.
I suspect that their intent is to create "buzz", but getting people talk about it and ask whether or not it's a real product, etc. From all appearances, it's working.
Something tells me that these people probably aren't the target audience of the film anyway.
Then go with Sirius. Their music channels are 100% commercial free. They're also $3/mo more than XM.
It's just different business models... one is cheaper with a few ads, one is more expensive with less ads. XM is betting that more people will tolerate a few ads to save a few bucks, while Sirius is betting that people will pay a few bucks more to avoid all the ads.
So far, XM is winning - but they also had a long head start (10-12 months, IIRC).
Personally, I tolerate the 2-3 breaks per hour of a few minutes each for the difference in price. I also liked the equipment choices that XM had at the time I bought mine.
Well, that's not exactly true.
FWIW, I'm a happy XM subscriber. The channels that are advertised as commercial free (I don't seem to listen to any of them) only have spots on their other channels or upcoming programs, but those that have commercials play standard pay-for-play advertisements. Seems that their major account right now is On-Star, so I hear a lot of their commercials. There's also a couple of insurance companies, etc.
All that said, it's still significantly better than broadcast radio. Commercial breaks are on the order of 2-3 times per hour, for 2-3 minutes TOPS each. During my normal workday commute (45-60 minutes), on broadcast radio I might hear 3-4 songs, whereas on my XM channels (with commercials), I hear 12-15. That's worth $10 a month for me.
Thanks, Clippy!
AIX is still a dominant player in the commerical Unix world. It has heavy usage in engineering, statistical analysis, and database applications. I won't get into the AIX sucks/Solaris sucks/HP sucks/etc debates, but suffice it to say that AIX is a mature, stable commercial Unix-like operating system with an excellent support structure behind it.
If you're an AIX admin, there's not as many jobs out there for you - but they *are* out there, and they pay pretty well if you know what you're doing.
No, but you get a prize for being an idiot and driving the joke completely into the ground.
With all due respect, your passive awareness of speed is hardly quantifiable. It's also extremely unlikely that either platform was taxed with hundreds (or even dozens) of clients simultaneously, as is real world for an enterprise-ish file server.
Not a dis', just noting that performance on a small scale server at home isn't applicable to deciding a platform for larger business solutions.
In this case, the method of the test was to use CIFS to measure performance against Windows and Linux PCs (using whatever implementation of that protocol is available for the platform).
If the intent of the test is to determine which platform is a better file server, the test plan is poorly spec'd. If the intent is to determine which platform can better serve CIFS clients, this probably wasn't a half bad test.
If the intent is to determine which platform makes a better "server" (which from reading the report, it wasn't), clearly there are lots of elements missing from the test.
Because the test was commissioned and paid for by Microsoft. They knew the results before they paid for the test - the test was ordered in such a way as to make the results a forgone conclusion.
If you were going to contruct a biased test of Linux vs. Microsoft, wanting Linux to prove better - you'd choose products and tests that would favor Linux... just as Microsoft did here. Take a native protocol to Microsoft and stack it up against a re-implementation on another operating system... sounds pretty weighted against Linux to me.
Of course there are lots of ways to make an unbiased performance comparison - such as using multiple protocols, etc... but why would Microsoft pay for that? I'm not saying that either system was better or worse than the other - just that this particular test doesn't prove anything except that Microsoft know how to spec a test so that their products appear faster.
YOU: "Mrs. House, turn on the TV."
MRS.HOUSE: "Turn it on yourself, ya lazy bum!"
serial input detects a change on a window sensor...
MRS.HOUSE: "I heard a noise... go see what it was!"
(Insert smileys where appropriate - it's a joke, son.)
To quote Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."
So you're worried about attendance dropping after school is over? Isn't that the idea?
Why drive a Ford when you've already got a Chevy available? It's a matter of choice, preference, features, etc.
To quote Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."
You mean it crashes all the time and sends your personal data to a marketing firm?
Wait... and leave the warm, safe confines of our parent's basements? Are ye daft, lad?
It's much more fun to rail against the injustices of the world instead of actually doing anything about it. Geeze. Some people.
(For the humor impaired moderators out there, move along - these aren't the droids you're looking for)
The ZZs are cheaper, *AND* you can use the Bit motors with them. Check out:
http://www.tinyrc.com/forums/showthread.php?threa
For what it's worth, I don't own either. Looks like the ZZ is at least a way to get more people interested/excited in the hobby, and the Bits provide a growth path if you want to get more serious about it.
The problem with this is that standing on the sidewalk, you do NOT receive the same benefits as those ticket paying customers. You get a reduced benefit, namely sound quality, stage view, drink service, etc.
With iDVD, you get FULL benefit of the software once you've illegally modified it. There is no degredation of your benefit based on the fact that you're illegally using it.
Fair enough.
I'm sure that's Apple's intention, yes.
Agreed. How eager do you think Apple is to support the sale of their competitor's products?
I'm not disputing that. You're absolutely right, looked at from the right angle, iDVD isn't free - it's included for use with purchased and profit producing Apple DVD hardware.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. They *are* entitled to make a profit on it if they wrote it to support only their hardware. For what it's worth, they ARE selling it for a profit. By making it compatible only with Apple DVD drives, they're guaranteed that they sell DVD drives for it's use. If you crack the software, you've circumvented that protection and deprived Apple of revenue. To counter the arguments I can already feel coming about "If it didn't support non-Apple drives, I'd never use it, so they're not losing revenue" this is akin to "It's ok to sneak into the movies if I wouldn't have paid for the ticket in the first place." The argument just doesn't hold water, sorry.
Presumably, their business model does allow them to make a profit, assuming that people don't illegally modify their code.