" To my recollection, MS Office has always cost lots more than its competitors,"
To be fair, I have yet to see a mail client that does all the stuff that Outlook does. I agree that you have your work-alike people (who probably aren't aware of the extra stuff Outlook can do), but there are also the people who are buying the right tool for the job.
"Music is a LUXURY product. No one is forcing you to buy an album if it's not worth the value you're willing to pay. Few people lose jobs or business because they didn't buy an album."
Doesn't matter, the RIAA has a monopoly. So whatever you buy, it is at their good graces.
"That said, I take back my words when I said your statement is idiotic. It's the poster (you), not the statement, that's idiotic."
I'm not the one who thinks it's okay for the RIAA to have monopoly/oligopoly status. In light of that, you do understand that you calling me an idiot has like 0 effect on me, right?
"What an idiotic statement. What? You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? Holy fucking shit!"
Hypocrite. You know damn well that if Microsoft started charging $500 per license that you wouldn't be saying "You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? What an idiotic statement!"
I skimmed the posts here and it would seem that some feel that MP3 trading is defended so people don't have to spend money. If that's true, if it's as simple as the price tag, then answer a few questions for me:
- Why would anybody buy an iPod? Who'd spend $300-400 if they're too cheap to spend $15 on music they want?
- If 'billions' of songs are being traded every month, why is the RIAA only seeing a small hit in their income during these hard economic times?
- Why is iTunes even in business, let alone thriving?
- Why are music stores even in business today? Everybody can get on the net.
- Where are the highly anticipated albums that didn't sell?
The answer is deceptively simple: It's not simply about the price tag. People want the service. You cannot oversimplify Mp3s down to free. There are so many more things you get out of them. Portability, organization, backups, you only get the music you want, yadda yadda yadda. So please, spare us the "You all just want to steal music" rhetoric, it just plain is not as simple as that.
"In actuality, going after illegal file-traders makes people MOVE to fair digital music services, like the awesome iTunes."
If that were true, we would have had iTunes years ago. Instead they prefer people pay for $15 albums of garbage instead of buying only the songs they want. I'm glad that you're satisfied with being ripped off, though.
Yeah, it is true. I remember a guy getting a $30,000 bill from Earthlink because he hosted a vid of Halo before they announced the planetside stuff you're talking about.
They wanted a game that had physics and pretty graphics.
Fair enough. Guess I'm just a little too close to the issue. Frankly, I wish the general media would do more to report the crappy side of what the RIAA's doing. For now, all you catch on CNN is that they are going after pirates, as opposed to overstepping their boundaries and busting innocent people.
How would you write the unbiased headline? "The RIAA Politely Asks More People to Pay Several Thousand Dollars in Lieu of Being Sued for Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars"?
"Maybe they're going after people who violate copyright law. *shocker*"
That would be coincidental. They're really going after the people that are threatening their lucrative business model thus insuring that you never have a fair digital music service.
You should have more appreciation for what's really at stake here, especially if the RIAA comes after you in error.
"Apart from the fact that Halo had a cult following long before the X-Box was thought about"
The cult following was attracted to the graphics. It was a graphics demo before it was a game, and it was well beyond what was being done at the time. Today it's ho-hum. At least it was a reason to buy the XBOX.
"This is about Halo, he's pissed about not getting Halo, that's the point. It's okay for him to be pissed about that because they promised it would be out for his platform - and at the same time as the PC version - and they have been saying that same line for years."
I can understand that. However, that doesn't interfere with what I said. If you enjoy games that much, you're not doing yourself a lick of good by only owning a Mac. Again, I retread that point.
"If you read my post, you'd see I own a PC (and infer that I own an X-Box too). I don't even mention if I run Mac OS X at all."
Your post does not say you own a PC or an XBOX. The only real solid assumption one can make from what you did say is that you've read a review of the game or even possibly played it on PC or XBOX. Go back and reread what you said.
"But what's what got to do with anything?"
Besides arguing just for the fun of it? Funny thing is, I don't think there'd have been a Halo 2 if it had been released on PC/Mac first. The companies who make games have to survive too.
All this hooplah over a stupid FPS shooter in a diluted market.
Re:NTFS + SQL + XML + buzzword compliance?
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
"The original poster was correct, and you still tried to 'correct' him. Pathetic."
That's interesting, I'm considering mandating that nobody in my house is going to buy HDTV.
I can't help but think the real reason behind this is to keep the ever so valuable time slot. If everybody has a TiVo, then individual time slots no longer have any more value than others. Can't have that, now can we?
"To be fair, seeing as this game was origionally FOR the Macintosh by an origionally Macintosh only developer (ala the Marathon series) it's a bit more like buying a GameCube and complaining that Metriod never get's released for it."
What's that have to do with my argument? You're talking about 1 game, BFD! The Mac users that are pissed about it should really look at their gaming situation here. They bought a platform that just plain doesn't have a huge game library. They should be the ones with GameCubes and XBOX's.
" it's a bit more like buying a GameCube and complaining that Metriod never get's released for it."
Can't say I agree with that. With the GameCube, you have the expectation of playing lots of games for it. With the Macintosh, you have... the expectation of games never getting made for it.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, I understand your frustration. In your place, I'd be mad too. However, I'm a gamer who doesn't kid himself. I have a PC, and I have a GameCube. I don't complain about the games that are on the PS2 that I want to play because it is my own fault I don't have one.
"too bad the mac version is never going to materialize.... "
Don't you think you're crippling yourself as a gamer by only using Mac? It's like buying a Playstation 2 and complaining that Metroid will never come to it.
Re:Been saying it for years
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
"Microsoft knows you should be uses NTFS and get the benefits of meta-data and journaling."
Do you have any idea what it costs to support every little thing any given company makes over time indefinitely?
Just a thought. You don't need to throw the word arrogance out there.
"Yet somehow us Microsoft bashers "don't have all the facts".
Gee? I wonder why? First you jump to the conclusion that everything Microsoft does is for the sole purpose of one day taking over the world. "Oh please, we all know the real reason that Microsoft released the XBOX is so that they can tighten up their market with Windows and Office, even though niether has been ported to the machine." (Yes, I have seriously heard somebody say something like that here.)
Secondly, no matter what Microsoft does right, there's always something at fault about it. "Microsoft found a cure for AIDs, unfortunately they patented the technique so we automatically hate them. They should give it away for free even though they spent billions in research."
Third, you 'Microsoft Bashers' always assume that the people who don't hate Microsoft (they don't even have to be a fan, they just have to not harbor strong feelings against them) are hopeless idiots. You're never receptive to new information or are open to changing your mind about anything.
"So they label us Score:0 Redundant, and go on continuing to ignore our lies. Gotta love it."
Yeah, they are at fault for your behaviour. Gotta love it. Maybe you should think about updating your image as an MS basher, it's tiring. There are legitimate reasons to want to avoid Microsoft. Nobody's going to pay attention to them if the source is close-minded zealousy.
"You refer to this whole article as an Anti-MS troll..."
The submitter intentionally drew attention away from the story itself and instead focused on a comment Bill made and attempted to fan the flames on it.
" Surprisingly, everyone seems to have overlooked his statement that Microsoft fixes bugs faster than Linux developers do."
" Pray tell what you think Mr. Gate's statement is. How does Linux play in to the improvment of Microsoft's commitment to a secure product?"
He provided a point of reference. Granted, it's a debatable point of reference, but it's still a point of reference. Maybe you know how long it takes to get a patch released, but that doesn't mean everybody does.
For the record, I'm not defending his comment, I'm simply answering your question of how it came in to the interview. I think what he said was stupid.
"Instead of trying to get in a (questionable) jab at Linux... perhapse he could have referred to his own company's record."
Perhaps. Remember, though, that Linux is a competitor to Windows, and the mindless Linux zombies out there spout off how fast a security problem can be fixed like a broken record. I'm not the least bit surprised that Bill responded.
"And I'm sure he's got quite a following of fanboys who call that "agressive" and "good business". Even as they snear at "Linux zealots" and "anti-MS" criticism"
Spare me the 'fan boy' crap. Seems like that name calling only comes out when I've made a point. You don't have to be in love with Microsoft to know that Slashdot has it out for Microsoft. Every time Slashdot posts a story about MS, some stupid twist is put in to make Microsoft sound evil. How can anybody trust these stories without going in and carefully reading the articles? Slashdot cries WOLF! every time a story about MS is posted.
One day, nobody will ever take Slashdot seriously. It's already happening today. A story goes up about MS, and it'll be quietly dismissed. "Oh those Slashdot kiddies are all riled up again." The people who complain about it are called "Microsoft Apologists", in reality, they're the people who RTFA.
"Excuse me but isn't this the same site that villifies the RIAA and MPAA for protecting the copyrights of their member companies?"
The RIAA is not being 'villified' for protecting copyrights, they're villifying themselves by hiding behind unfair copyright laws to protect their pound-me-in-the-ass business model.
Go buy a music CD, open it, discover it sucks, and then try to return it. Then tell me that the RIAA's 'protection' of copyrights isn't abusive.
Slashdot Mirror
" To my recollection, MS Office has always cost lots more than its competitors,"
To be fair, I have yet to see a mail client that does all the stuff that Outlook does. I agree that you have your work-alike people (who probably aren't aware of the extra stuff Outlook can do), but there are also the people who are buying the right tool for the job.
"Music is a LUXURY product. No one is forcing you to buy an album if it's not worth the value you're willing to pay. Few people lose jobs or business because they didn't buy an album."
Doesn't matter, the RIAA has a monopoly. So whatever you buy, it is at their good graces.
"That said, I take back my words when I said your statement is idiotic. It's the poster (you), not the statement, that's idiotic."
I'm not the one who thinks it's okay for the RIAA to have monopoly/oligopoly status. In light of that, you do understand that you calling me an idiot has like 0 effect on me, right?
"And you suggesting that proves your theory how, exactly?"
Because I remember when all that was going there was reporting that basically said "this isn't a game yet, it's just a demo."
"What an idiotic statement. What? You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? Holy fucking shit!"
Hypocrite. You know damn well that if Microsoft started charging $500 per license that you wouldn't be saying "You mean a company is trying to maximize their profits? What an idiotic statement!"
I skimmed the posts here and it would seem that some feel that MP3 trading is defended so people don't have to spend money. If that's true, if it's as simple as the price tag, then answer a few questions for me:
- Why would anybody buy an iPod? Who'd spend $300-400 if they're too cheap to spend $15 on music they want?
- If 'billions' of songs are being traded every month, why is the RIAA only seeing a small hit in their income during these hard economic times?
- Why is iTunes even in business, let alone thriving?
- Why are music stores even in business today? Everybody can get on the net.
- Where are the highly anticipated albums that didn't sell?
The answer is deceptively simple: It's not simply about the price tag. People want the service. You cannot oversimplify Mp3s down to free. There are so many more things you get out of them. Portability, organization, backups, you only get the music you want, yadda yadda yadda. So please, spare us the "You all just want to steal music" rhetoric, it just plain is not as simple as that.
"In actuality, going after illegal file-traders makes people MOVE to fair digital music services, like the awesome iTunes."
If that were true, we would have had iTunes years ago. Instead they prefer people pay for $15 albums of garbage instead of buying only the songs they want. I'm glad that you're satisfied with being ripped off, though.
Next.
"Not true."
Yeah, it is true. I remember a guy getting a $30,000 bill from Earthlink because he hosted a vid of Halo before they announced the planetside stuff you're talking about.
They wanted a game that had physics and pretty graphics.
Fair enough. Guess I'm just a little too close to the issue. Frankly, I wish the general media would do more to report the crappy side of what the RIAA's doing. For now, all you catch on CNN is that they are going after pirates, as opposed to overstepping their boundaries and busting innocent people.
"And people say Fox news is biased... "
How would you write the unbiased headline? "The RIAA Politely Asks More People to Pay Several Thousand Dollars in Lieu of Being Sued for Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars"?
"Quit being cheap little theives."
Cheap little theives are spending $400 for iPods and buying music at iTunes.
"Maybe they're going after people who violate copyright law. *shocker*"
That would be coincidental. They're really going after the people that are threatening their lucrative business model thus insuring that you never have a fair digital music service.
You should have more appreciation for what's really at stake here, especially if the RIAA comes after you in error.
"Just use paper! Is it really that hard? "
Hi, my name is Chad. During the 2000 election, everybody thought they were being funny when they made fun of my name. Yes, using paper is that hard.
... but I wasn't gender bending. I just liked lookin at her butt when she/I died.
Duke Nukem Forever cured my phobia of vapor.
"Apart from the fact that Halo had a cult following long before the X-Box was thought about"
The cult following was attracted to the graphics. It was a graphics demo before it was a game, and it was well beyond what was being done at the time. Today it's ho-hum. At least it was a reason to buy the XBOX.
"This is about Halo, he's pissed about not getting Halo, that's the point. It's okay for him to be pissed about that because they promised it would be out for his platform - and at the same time as the PC version - and they have been saying that same line for years."
I can understand that. However, that doesn't interfere with what I said. If you enjoy games that much, you're not doing yourself a lick of good by only owning a Mac. Again, I retread that point.
"If you read my post, you'd see I own a PC (and infer that I own an X-Box too). I don't even mention if I run Mac OS X at all."
Your post does not say you own a PC or an XBOX. The only real solid assumption one can make from what you did say is that you've read a review of the game or even possibly played it on PC or XBOX. Go back and reread what you said.
"But what's what got to do with anything?"
Besides arguing just for the fun of it? Funny thing is, I don't think there'd have been a Halo 2 if it had been released on PC/Mac first. The companies who make games have to survive too.
All this hooplah over a stupid FPS shooter in a diluted market.
"The original poster was correct, and you still tried to 'correct' him. Pathetic."
As pathetic as getting Yosemite Sam mad over it?
That's interesting, I'm considering mandating that nobody in my house is going to buy HDTV.
I can't help but think the real reason behind this is to keep the ever so valuable time slot. If everybody has a TiVo, then individual time slots no longer have any more value than others. Can't have that, now can we?
"To be fair, seeing as this game was origionally FOR the Macintosh by an origionally Macintosh only developer (ala the Marathon series) it's a bit more like buying a GameCube and complaining that Metriod never get's released for it."
What's that have to do with my argument? You're talking about 1 game, BFD! The Mac users that are pissed about it should really look at their gaming situation here. They bought a platform that just plain doesn't have a huge game library. They should be the ones with GameCubes and XBOX's.
" it's a bit more like buying a GameCube and complaining that Metriod never get's released for it."
Can't say I agree with that. With the GameCube, you have the expectation of playing lots of games for it. With the Macintosh, you have... the expectation of games never getting made for it.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, I understand your frustration. In your place, I'd be mad too. However, I'm a gamer who doesn't kid himself. I have a PC, and I have a GameCube. I don't complain about the games that are on the PS2 that I want to play because it is my own fault I don't have one.
"too bad the mac version is never going to materialize.... "
Don't you think you're crippling yourself as a gamer by only using Mac? It's like buying a Playstation 2 and complaining that Metroid will never come to it.
"Microsoft knows you should be uses NTFS and get the benefits of meta-data and journaling."
Do you have any idea what it costs to support every little thing any given company makes over time indefinitely?
Just a thought. You don't need to throw the word arrogance out there.
"Watching a space war on CNN would be DULL DULL DULL."
The worst part is that they'd call it 'star wars'.
"Yet somehow us Microsoft bashers "don't have all the facts".
Gee? I wonder why? First you jump to the conclusion that everything Microsoft does is for the sole purpose of one day taking over the world. "Oh please, we all know the real reason that Microsoft released the XBOX is so that they can tighten up their market with Windows and Office, even though niether has been ported to the machine." (Yes, I have seriously heard somebody say something like that here.)
Secondly, no matter what Microsoft does right, there's always something at fault about it. "Microsoft found a cure for AIDs, unfortunately they patented the technique so we automatically hate them. They should give it away for free even though they spent billions in research."
Third, you 'Microsoft Bashers' always assume that the people who don't hate Microsoft (they don't even have to be a fan, they just have to not harbor strong feelings against them) are hopeless idiots. You're never receptive to new information or are open to changing your mind about anything.
"So they label us Score:0 Redundant, and go on continuing to ignore our lies. Gotta love it."
Yeah, they are at fault for your behaviour. Gotta love it. Maybe you should think about updating your image as an MS basher, it's tiring. There are legitimate reasons to want to avoid Microsoft. Nobody's going to pay attention to them if the source is close-minded zealousy.
"You refer to this whole article as an Anti-MS troll..."
The submitter intentionally drew attention away from the story itself and instead focused on a comment Bill made and attempted to fan the flames on it.
" Surprisingly, everyone seems to have overlooked his statement that Microsoft fixes bugs faster than Linux developers do."
" Pray tell what you think Mr. Gate's statement is. How does Linux play in to the improvment of Microsoft's commitment to a secure product?"
He provided a point of reference. Granted, it's a debatable point of reference, but it's still a point of reference. Maybe you know how long it takes to get a patch released, but that doesn't mean everybody does.
For the record, I'm not defending his comment, I'm simply answering your question of how it came in to the interview. I think what he said was stupid.
"Instead of trying to get in a (questionable) jab at Linux... perhapse he could have referred to his own company's record."
Perhaps. Remember, though, that Linux is a competitor to Windows, and the mindless Linux zombies out there spout off how fast a security problem can be fixed like a broken record. I'm not the least bit surprised that Bill responded.
"And I'm sure he's got quite a following of fanboys who call that "agressive" and "good business". Even as they snear at "Linux zealots" and "anti-MS" criticism"
Spare me the 'fan boy' crap. Seems like that name calling only comes out when I've made a point. You don't have to be in love with Microsoft to know that Slashdot has it out for Microsoft. Every time Slashdot posts a story about MS, some stupid twist is put in to make Microsoft sound evil. How can anybody trust these stories without going in and carefully reading the articles? Slashdot cries WOLF! every time a story about MS is posted.
One day, nobody will ever take Slashdot seriously. It's already happening today. A story goes up about MS, and it'll be quietly dismissed. "Oh those Slashdot kiddies are all riled up again." The people who complain about it are called "Microsoft Apologists", in reality, they're the people who RTFA.
"Excuse me but isn't this the same site that villifies the RIAA and MPAA for protecting the copyrights of their member companies?"
The RIAA is not being 'villified' for protecting copyrights, they're villifying themselves by hiding behind unfair copyright laws to protect their pound-me-in-the-ass business model.
Go buy a music CD, open it, discover it sucks, and then try to return it. Then tell me that the RIAA's 'protection' of copyrights isn't abusive.