"One of my co-workers stepped outside right as it hit. His head swelled up and exploded right before us. The rest of his body melted into a pile of bubbling ooze before turning into pure ash and getting blown away by the wind. He was about to get laid off, anyway, so it's not like it really mattered."
" c) It's over-sensitive people like you who start wars over stupid shit you should just shrug off, instead of letting everyone be themselves and just leave everything well enough alone."
It's usually a combination of overly sensitive people and underly sensitive types. On one hand, people need a sense of humor, on the other, people could stand to be a little more sypmathetic.
You're both right, and you're both wrong. Instead of beating each other up over it, try using a little understanding of each other's view, will ya?
"It set the trend for being radical, for being original. And they failed after a season."
I thought it failed because it wasn't that funny...
No, not trolling against the show here, just didn't find it amusing. Gotta wonder what would have happened if they kept it going during the Iraq business, though...
" I think that, clearly, the improvement in graphics and presentation by the systems is reaching diminishing returns. We've talked about this before, but the reason for a consumer to buy the next generation of hardware, for many of the competitors, is not going to be because the graphics are prettier. It'll ultimately come back to what is a unique gaming experience."
I think he's got that point nailed. Every generation, the artists have fewer and fewer limitations for creating realtime 3D graphics. We're at a point, even today, where the artist's style and vision are relative easy to achieve. How can the next generation of graphics be to the GameCube what it was to the N64? Beyond a few more polys and real-time shadow casting, not a whole heck of a lot. Whatever happens for the next systems, there's got to be a new dimension of gaming.
Nintendo's aware of this. And since it's not so obvious what the next breath-taking move is (i.e. with the N64, it was faster frame rates and higher resolution) I'm damn curious what Nintendo comes up with.
"OK this is cool You send the coachroaches out into an area where there is WMD. How do you check the yeast? Have the coachroacges on a really long leash?:)"
Release the cockroaches, rent an apartment in Baghdad, and put a geiger counter under the sink. When a loud clicking noise wakes you up at 3am, call Geraldo. He'll draw a map for the good guys and the bad guys.
"now we'll have groups complaining about roach cruelty... "
Ever wonder if Starship Troopers had to deal with that? There's a propoganda scene with kids squishing cockroaches. Heh.
I know, I know, I'm not very on-topic here. I just find it interesting that PETA and the like seem to value animal life over human life. During the Iraq War there was some information about specially trained Dolphins that could locate mines without setting them off. They'd relay the info back to a nearby sub so they'd know where not to be. No Dolpins were hurt, but the animal rights activists had their panties in a bunch. It's okay for a sub full of Americans to go down when striking a mine, but don't you dare put a dolphin in harm's way even when it's smart enough to avoid danger.
Sorry for the lack of off-topicness here, I just wouldn't be surprised at all if a group like PETA were bothered by this. (Well maybe a little, they seem to care more about mammals than insects...)
"Look, you can say that they have a right to protect whatever, but the photographs have no discerning characteristics. He even took care to make sure of that. More importantly, the photo is of just macs... which we all know they get because they have a Mac unit."
If I take a picture of your naked wife, but make sure not to get her head in the shot, are you not going to feel inclined to beat the shit out of me?
Was that totally relevant? Maybe not. However, people like looking at photos and making harsh judgements about Microsoft. A story like this has the right ingredients:
1.) An employee of Microsoft. 2.) A digital photo taken on the Microsoft campus. 3.) Apple, Microsoft's 'evil arch nemesis'.
We all know the story bubbling into everybody's minds is "oh Microsoft prefers their competitor's product." It's really kind of funny how pictures like these breed anti-MS stories. Recently somebody snapped a photo of a display at an airport showing what was clearly IE showing a "page not found" error. Wanna know what the story the Inquirer told was? "IE crashes at major airport", or something along those lines. The problem was actually the internet/network connection was down, as evidenced by the "Page not found" error message. However, the Inquirer didn't bother to look at it to see. They saw not-working IE at a busy place and ran with it.
So was Microsoft overreacting? Yeah, I agree with you there, especially considering a lot of people here are saying "whoopee, Microsoft has a Mac division." However, I don't think their intial reaction was totally unjustified given the way the news sites like Slashdot fling mud at MS whenever they can.
This is all besides the point anyway. Numbnuts should have known better. Have any of you been to Microsoft's campus? I have. It's security badges all the way. It's not a place you wander around in, nor is it a place where you feel comfortable doing anything like snapping photos. I'm amazed he did that. I was just a guest there and I wouldn't have even dreamt of doing something like that.
" If those pirates were actually forced to pay or stop using MS Office, usage of alternative suites would spike "
Hmm.
Okay, I see his point a little more clearly than i did when I originally refuted it. I'm still not convinced it would happen that way because I don't think the alternatives are quite ready to replace Office. Even if they were, their name simply isn't out there. (Psst, Sun, advertising would really help!) If the alternatives out there were more wide spread, I'd have an easier time believing that.
If he were to say "people pirating Office are a speedbump in OpenOffice's popularity", I'd be more willing to agree. But to say that OpenOffice would suddenly be more popular if Microsoft were to completely thwart piracy is not something I'm inclined to believe. I can picture a handful of people meeting that reason, but not massive amounts of people.
"You seem to do a lot of selective reading, NG."
I see why you'd say that, but I'd attribute that more to fatique and writing/reading in a hurry. Yes, I'm guilty of it, but please don't think it's out of bias. I'd rather learn and lose a debate than win a debate and be ignorant.
Re:You're not going to like this reference
on
Linux in Movies?
·
· Score: 1
"I just saw that commercial, and I find that Earthlink claiming that they can speed up pages so that you don't lose an auction is ridiculous."
In the "It happens all the time" sense, you're right, it's totally stupid. In the "it could potentially play out that way, and you could run into problems sort of like that" sense then it's somewhat plausible. When it gets to dealing with near real-time interaction (such as getting down to the last 30 seconds of an auction), the broadband guy is going to have a clear advantage.
"No, Playstation 2s are not sold at a loss at all."
Sony spent two billion dollars to research the Emotion Engine. It took a LOT of PS2s to make up that cost. In that sense, they did sell at a loss for a while. Microsoft bought parts off the shelf that'll eventually go down in price. Sadly for them competition with Sony and Nintendo has caused them to continue selling at a loss. It's not clear if Nintendo is selling GameCubes at a loss or not. Sometimes you hear they are, sometimes you hear they're not. Knowing Nintendo, they're probably selling it at very thin margins. They had to pay ATI and IBM to develop the chips they need. Though I don't know the cost of that, I doubt Nintendo spent nearly half their cash reserve of 5 billion in order to do that.
"How hard would it really be to create the hardware for the PS2 all in house for about $200-$240, really? The PS2 is the *only* true in-house console out there."
Take a system with a new chip that cost Sony 2 billion to design, slap it into a system with a tray loading DVD ROM, throw in some extra doodads like the optical port, mix it up using bunch of different circuit boards, and then tell me that it could be built for $200-$240 back in 2000. Not bloody likely. Even if they did sell it at $200-$240, there's still that 2 billion they spent looming over their head.
Nintendo made the better decision. They (presumably) spent a lot less to get the hardware R&D'd, and they built a very clean system with few parts. They also enjoy having their own first party development teams making AAA titles for the system that consistently sell quite well.
Meanwhile, Sony's dealing with disappointing PS2 sales and are starting layoffs...
"Both sides are wrong, but it was the copyright infringers who were wrong first."
Depends on your point of view. One could say that the RIAA was wrong first for not being a combination of a monpoly/oligopoly/cartel and for being a non-innovative-entity. If the RIAA were like Microsoft, (please pardon the analogy here) there is a strong possibility they would have had an iTunes-like service long before MP3 trading was fashionable.
I know that will not satisfy your reasoning, but the 'copyright infringers' are guilty of little more than satisfying their own demand. It is pretty damned embarrasing for the RIAA that MP3 trading started back in 97 (maybe even earlier) and it took until 2003 to get a respectable service going. They could have had it years ago if there was a little competition going.
"I bet that if Microsoft somehow found itself with a way to make people pay for their software, MS Office would magically find itself displaced by something like Sun Openoffice."
What's stopping people from using Sun or OpenOffice anyway?
Maybe I'm just tired here, but I'm baffled by why you were modded up as interesting. Microsoft's Office line is quite profitable. It also is quite useful. To be displaced by OpenOffice, it would have to be better and I mean significantly better than Office. (we call that competition over here.) It wouldn't hurt for Sun to advertise, either. Lots of complaining about Microsoft's monopoly in the Office market, but I have yet to see a commercial for OpenOffice or anything else. Lots of whining, but not a whole lot of doing.
Simply put, Office will be displaced by an alternative when somebody steps up to the plate and competes with Microsoft. Sitting around endlessly twiddling your thumbs will not do well against Microsoft aggressively marketing and developing their product.
"Ermm... are you saying they shouldn't give out money, because people may spend it on Microsoft products?"
Sort of. I meant that in a more general sense than just Microsoft. The thing is, when I picture a monopoly, Microsoft is not the first company that comes to mind. I think about the way phone companies used to be. Things that are part of your must have list that you end up paying for month to month. If I were to get a refund from AT&T, that money'd likely go towards paying my phone bill. Or maybe, it'd be used for stuffing my face. Either way, the chances of it being used to do buy a product from a competitor are very very low. That's not much of a punishment to a monopoly. Make competing products more attractive, and then the monopoly has something to worry about.
"The idea of being illegally overcharged, then given a refund of a "coupon" instead of money, seems unfair. If my gas utility manipulates the price of natural gas, I'll still heat my house. Just because they were found to be price gouging does not mean that either (1) I will not be using natural gas anymore or (2) that I will necessarily spend a refundon natural gas. Cash lets me make that choice."
You're right. However, the Microsoft monopoly is a little different from the case you've provided here. People need to heat their homes, that's where the gas company's monopoly comes into play. With Microsoft, though, the choice to use it is largely in part to it being the standard the market has chosen. "This is the cool thing to have." I'm having difficulty explaining my thoughts clearly here, and I apologize for that. What I'm trying to say is that the plaintiffs here contributed to their own damages.
" If I illegally put a charge to your credit card, and you overlook it and pay it, does that mean you agreed to pay it?"
That's not quite what I'm getting at, no. There's no overlooking here. The price tag is right there in front of their face. At some point they nodded their head and said okay. The information they're missing is that because Microsoft's the only game in town, they don't know the average cost of an OS. That's a fair complaint, in my opinion, but it is not one that Microsoft is entirely at fault for. They own some of that responsibility, particularly if they're squashing competition that could influence their pricing. But it is not their fault that the customers paid that price.
I hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. I don't feel that Microsoft is being punished severely enough, but I do feel that the type of punishment is suitable. With any luck, it'll make the individual consumer think a little more carefully about their choices, as opposed as to doing what's fashionable in Wired magazine. Though I do attribute Microsoft's monopoly to the market saying "we want them here", I do feel that a lot of the people who made that happen were mindlessly following the hype.
"If I'm not making any sense, it's because it's way past my bedtime. Sorry."
"Then you're too young to be playing either of these games. They're rated 'M' for mature."
My parents raised me with strong sensibilities. After I turned 13 they weren't terribly concerned with movies rated R. M ratings for games weren't around (or at least widely known about) then, but they weren't exactly worried about me playing Mortal Kombat.
"It was cash when the plantiff's were overcharged, shouldn't it be cash when it's returned?"
Uh, if you refund money from a monopoly, what's to prevent that money from going right back to the monopoly? At least, in this case, it gives people a chance to try out alternatives.
It's a little more complicated than that, though. According to the final ruling in the anti-trust case, Microsoft isn't guilty of creating a monopoly, they're guilty of maintaining it. The implication there is that at some point, people said "We want Microsoft" and found the price fair. If they agreed to pay the price, why should they get cash back? Let the buyer beware.
In any case, I'm not all that surprised that it turned out this way. Silver lining, folks. Non-Microsoft products get an audience they didn't have before, and schools benefit too.
Sadly, I know what LCARS stands for. It's Library Computer Access and Retrieval System. It's funny, really. I can remember something like that after reading it once, but I could never remember stuff like that when it came to history tests.
"Of course, if they offered it for download on the internet, they wouldn't sell as many DVDs for $20."
To be fair, VCRs/Tivos and seeing the show on TV as it airs aren't creating less of a risk for that. At least, in this case, somebody who didn't hear about the show until after it was aired would have a fair shot at watching it.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a pity that more people don't get to view these phenomena, because of modern light pollution."
Ooo pretty colors! *CrUnCh* Pothole.
"I've loved in the shower, and my bedroom, but I must admit, I've never loved in Rural Kansas."
I've loved in rural Kansas. Even experimented with tropical oils. Can't wait to try it with a partner!
"One of my co-workers stepped outside right as it hit. His head swelled up and exploded right before us. The rest of his body melted into a pile of bubbling ooze before turning into pure ash and getting blown away by the wind. He was about to get laid off, anyway, so it's not like it really mattered."
Now I'm anxious to see the next Myth Busters!
"Why do I suddenly feel like making backups of all my important data..."
Yeah I backed up my porn collection too.
" c) It's over-sensitive people like you who start wars over stupid shit you should just shrug off, instead of letting everyone be themselves and just leave everything well enough alone."
It's usually a combination of overly sensitive people and underly sensitive types. On one hand, people need a sense of humor, on the other, people could stand to be a little more sypmathetic.
You're both right, and you're both wrong. Instead of beating each other up over it, try using a little understanding of each other's view, will ya?
It's hard to use this nickname with Gator around. Everybody thinks they're the first to make a pop-up joke around me.
"It set the trend for being radical, for being original. And they failed after a season."
I thought it failed because it wasn't that funny...
No, not trolling against the show here, just didn't find it amusing. Gotta wonder what would have happened if they kept it going during the Iraq business, though...
" I think that, clearly, the improvement in graphics and presentation by the systems is reaching diminishing returns. We've talked about this before, but the reason for a consumer to buy the next generation of hardware, for many of the competitors, is not going to be because the graphics are prettier. It'll ultimately come back to what is a unique gaming experience."
I think he's got that point nailed. Every generation, the artists have fewer and fewer limitations for creating realtime 3D graphics. We're at a point, even today, where the artist's style and vision are relative easy to achieve. How can the next generation of graphics be to the GameCube what it was to the N64? Beyond a few more polys and real-time shadow casting, not a whole heck of a lot. Whatever happens for the next systems, there's got to be a new dimension of gaming.
Nintendo's aware of this. And since it's not so obvious what the next breath-taking move is (i.e. with the N64, it was faster frame rates and higher resolution) I'm damn curious what Nintendo comes up with.
"OK this is cool You send the coachroaches out into an area where there is WMD. How do you check the yeast? Have the coachroacges on a really long leash? :)"
Release the cockroaches, rent an apartment in Baghdad, and put a geiger counter under the sink. When a loud clicking noise wakes you up at 3am, call Geraldo. He'll draw a map for the good guys and the bad guys.
"now we'll have groups complaining about roach cruelty... "
Ever wonder if Starship Troopers had to deal with that? There's a propoganda scene with kids squishing cockroaches. Heh.
I know, I know, I'm not very on-topic here. I just find it interesting that PETA and the like seem to value animal life over human life. During the Iraq War there was some information about specially trained Dolphins that could locate mines without setting them off. They'd relay the info back to a nearby sub so they'd know where not to be. No Dolpins were hurt, but the animal rights activists had their panties in a bunch. It's okay for a sub full of Americans to go down when striking a mine, but don't you dare put a dolphin in harm's way even when it's smart enough to avoid danger.
Sorry for the lack of off-topicness here, I just wouldn't be surprised at all if a group like PETA were bothered by this. (Well maybe a little, they seem to care more about mammals than insects...)
"Look, you can say that they have a right to protect whatever, but the photographs have no discerning characteristics. He even took care to make sure of that. More importantly, the photo is of just macs... which we all know they get because they have a Mac unit."
If I take a picture of your naked wife, but make sure not to get her head in the shot, are you not going to feel inclined to beat the shit out of me?
Was that totally relevant? Maybe not. However, people like looking at photos and making harsh judgements about Microsoft. A story like this has the right ingredients:
1.) An employee of Microsoft.
2.) A digital photo taken on the Microsoft campus.
3.) Apple, Microsoft's 'evil arch nemesis'.
We all know the story bubbling into everybody's minds is "oh Microsoft prefers their competitor's product." It's really kind of funny how pictures like these breed anti-MS stories. Recently somebody snapped a photo of a display at an airport showing what was clearly IE showing a "page not found" error. Wanna know what the story the Inquirer told was? "IE crashes at major airport", or something along those lines. The problem was actually the internet/network connection was down, as evidenced by the "Page not found" error message. However, the Inquirer didn't bother to look at it to see. They saw not-working IE at a busy place and ran with it.
So was Microsoft overreacting? Yeah, I agree with you there, especially considering a lot of people here are saying "whoopee, Microsoft has a Mac division." However, I don't think their intial reaction was totally unjustified given the way the news sites like Slashdot fling mud at MS whenever they can.
This is all besides the point anyway. Numbnuts should have known better. Have any of you been to Microsoft's campus? I have. It's security badges all the way. It's not a place you wander around in, nor is it a place where you feel comfortable doing anything like snapping photos. I'm amazed he did that. I was just a guest there and I wouldn't have even dreamt of doing something like that.
" If those pirates were actually forced to pay or stop using MS Office, usage of alternative suites would spike "
Hmm.
Okay, I see his point a little more clearly than i did when I originally refuted it. I'm still not convinced it would happen that way because I don't think the alternatives are quite ready to replace Office. Even if they were, their name simply isn't out there. (Psst, Sun, advertising would really help!) If the alternatives out there were more wide spread, I'd have an easier time believing that.
If he were to say "people pirating Office are a speedbump in OpenOffice's popularity", I'd be more willing to agree. But to say that OpenOffice would suddenly be more popular if Microsoft were to completely thwart piracy is not something I'm inclined to believe. I can picture a handful of people meeting that reason, but not massive amounts of people.
"You seem to do a lot of selective reading, NG."
I see why you'd say that, but I'd attribute that more to fatique and writing/reading in a hurry. Yes, I'm guilty of it, but please don't think it's out of bias. I'd rather learn and lose a debate than win a debate and be ignorant.
"I just saw that commercial, and I find that Earthlink claiming that they can speed up pages so that you don't lose an auction is ridiculous."
In the "It happens all the time" sense, you're right, it's totally stupid. In the "it could potentially play out that way, and you could run into problems sort of like that" sense then it's somewhat plausible. When it gets to dealing with near real-time interaction (such as getting down to the last 30 seconds of an auction), the broadband guy is going to have a clear advantage.
"You responded while I was trying to find my figures... If I find the cost/system figures again I'll post them..."
:)
I'd appreciate it.
" Which is why you have a cute ATI sticker on your Gamecube instead of ArtX."
Thank you for clarifying that. I had forgotten that little aspect of the story.
"No, Playstation 2s are not sold at a loss at all."
Sony spent two billion dollars to research the Emotion Engine. It took a LOT of PS2s to make up that cost. In that sense, they did sell at a loss for a while. Microsoft bought parts off the shelf that'll eventually go down in price. Sadly for them competition with Sony and Nintendo has caused them to continue selling at a loss. It's not clear if Nintendo is selling GameCubes at a loss or not. Sometimes you hear they are, sometimes you hear they're not. Knowing Nintendo, they're probably selling it at very thin margins. They had to pay ATI and IBM to develop the chips they need. Though I don't know the cost of that, I doubt Nintendo spent nearly half their cash reserve of 5 billion in order to do that.
"How hard would it really be to create the hardware for the PS2 all in house for about $200-$240, really? The PS2 is the *only* true in-house console out there."
Take a system with a new chip that cost Sony 2 billion to design, slap it into a system with a tray loading DVD ROM, throw in some extra doodads like the optical port, mix it up using bunch of different circuit boards, and then tell me that it could be built for $200-$240 back in 2000. Not bloody likely. Even if they did sell it at $200-$240, there's still that 2 billion they spent looming over their head.
Nintendo made the better decision. They (presumably) spent a lot less to get the hardware R&D'd, and they built a very clean system with few parts. They also enjoy having their own first party development teams making AAA titles for the system that consistently sell quite well.
Meanwhile, Sony's dealing with disappointing PS2 sales and are starting layoffs...
The explanation is that I have time on my hands while my computer is rendering.
"Both sides are wrong, but it was the copyright infringers who were wrong first."
Depends on your point of view. One could say that the RIAA was wrong first for not being a combination of a monpoly/oligopoly/cartel and for being a non-innovative-entity. If the RIAA were like Microsoft, (please pardon the analogy here) there is a strong possibility they would have had an iTunes-like service long before MP3 trading was fashionable.
I know that will not satisfy your reasoning, but the 'copyright infringers' are guilty of little more than satisfying their own demand. It is pretty damned embarrasing for the RIAA that MP3 trading started back in 97 (maybe even earlier) and it took until 2003 to get a respectable service going. They could have had it years ago if there was a little competition going.
"I bet that if Microsoft somehow found itself with a way to make people pay for their software, MS Office would magically find itself displaced by something like Sun Openoffice."
What's stopping people from using Sun or OpenOffice anyway?
Maybe I'm just tired here, but I'm baffled by why you were modded up as interesting. Microsoft's Office line is quite profitable. It also is quite useful. To be displaced by OpenOffice, it would have to be better and I mean significantly better than Office. (we call that competition over here.) It wouldn't hurt for Sun to advertise, either. Lots of complaining about Microsoft's monopoly in the Office market, but I have yet to see a commercial for OpenOffice or anything else.
Lots of whining, but not a whole lot of doing.
Simply put, Office will be displaced by an alternative when somebody steps up to the plate and competes with Microsoft. Sitting around endlessly twiddling your thumbs will not do well against Microsoft aggressively marketing and developing their product.
"Ermm... are you saying they shouldn't give out money, because people may spend it on Microsoft products?"
Sort of. I meant that in a more general sense than just Microsoft. The thing is, when I picture a monopoly, Microsoft is not the first company that comes to mind. I think about the way phone companies used to be. Things that are part of your must have list that you end up paying for month to month. If I were to get a refund from AT&T, that money'd likely go towards paying my phone bill. Or maybe, it'd be used for stuffing my face. Either way, the chances of it being used to do buy a product from a competitor are very very low. That's not much of a punishment to a monopoly. Make competing products more attractive, and then the monopoly has something to worry about.
"The idea of being illegally overcharged, then given a refund of a "coupon" instead of money, seems unfair. If my gas utility manipulates the price of natural gas, I'll still heat my house. Just because they were found to be price gouging does not mean that either (1) I will not be using natural gas anymore or (2) that I will necessarily spend a refundon natural gas. Cash lets me make that choice."
You're right. However, the Microsoft monopoly is a little different from the case you've provided here. People need to heat their homes, that's where the gas company's monopoly comes into play. With Microsoft, though, the choice to use it is largely in part to it being the standard the market has chosen. "This is the cool thing to have." I'm having difficulty explaining my thoughts clearly here, and I apologize for that. What I'm trying to say is that the plaintiffs here contributed to their own damages.
" If I illegally put a charge to your credit card, and you overlook it and pay it, does that mean you agreed to pay it?"
That's not quite what I'm getting at, no. There's no overlooking here. The price tag is right there in front of their face. At some point they nodded their head and said okay. The information they're missing is that because Microsoft's the only game in town, they don't know the average cost of an OS. That's a fair complaint, in my opinion, but it is not one that Microsoft is entirely at fault for. They own some of that responsibility, particularly if they're squashing competition that could influence their pricing. But it is not their fault that the customers paid that price.
I hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. I don't feel that Microsoft is being punished severely enough, but I do feel that the type of punishment is suitable. With any luck, it'll make the individual consumer think a little more carefully about their choices, as opposed as to doing what's fashionable in Wired magazine. Though I do attribute Microsoft's monopoly to the market saying "we want them here", I do feel that a lot of the people who made that happen were mindlessly following the hype.
"If I'm not making any sense, it's because it's way past my bedtime. Sorry."
Totally understandable. I'm kinda tired myself.
Cheers man
"Then you're too young to be playing either of these games. They're rated 'M' for mature."
My parents raised me with strong sensibilities. After I turned 13 they weren't terribly concerned with movies rated R. M ratings for games weren't around (or at least widely known about) then, but they weren't exactly worried about me playing Mortal Kombat.
"Think about it 2 years ago a decent mid range DVD player was running between $150 to $200."
Now that everybody has one, they'll be looking for ways to get people to 'upgrade'. I predict soon we'll see DVD players with built in digital tuners.
"It was cash when the plantiff's were overcharged, shouldn't it be cash when it's returned?"
Uh, if you refund money from a monopoly, what's to prevent that money from going right back to the monopoly? At least, in this case, it gives people a chance to try out alternatives.
It's a little more complicated than that, though. According to the final ruling in the anti-trust case, Microsoft isn't guilty of creating a monopoly, they're guilty of maintaining it. The implication there is that at some point, people said "We want Microsoft" and found the price fair. If they agreed to pay the price, why should they get cash back? Let the buyer beware.
In any case, I'm not all that surprised that it turned out this way. Silver lining, folks. Non-Microsoft products get an audience they didn't have before, and schools benefit too.
"Who *didn't* see the Scarface (along with other classic crime movies) connection?"
Me, but I never watched Miami Vice or Scarface. I was too busy potty training.
Heh.
Sadly, I know what LCARS stands for. It's Library Computer Access and Retrieval System. It's funny, really. I can remember something like that after reading it once, but I could never remember stuff like that when it came to history tests.
"Of course, if they offered it for download on the internet, they wouldn't sell as many DVDs for $20."
To be fair, VCRs/Tivos and seeing the show on TV as it airs aren't creating less of a risk for that. At least, in this case, somebody who didn't hear about the show until after it was aired would have a fair shot at watching it.