You are missing the point. Its not that they CAN'T sell it. It's the fact that the price changes based on what "else" they sell. Now, I am sure its not as bad as it used to be back in the mid-90's (when I worked at Dell), but the pressure is still there. You are naive to exclude the pressure MSFT exerts on its resellers (like Dell, HP, etc).
Dell has no incentive to take that risk unless the "Linux" market is large enough to take up the slack. And it just might be...
Regardless, you will notice that Dell's plunge into Linux isn't exactly putting both feet in the water. They are taking a very careful approach because they know the implications.
Do you really think it's -truly- harder for Dell to install one OS over another? From a technical standpoint, we both know that Dell has the capability to install Linux, right? So why haven't they offered that choice in the past? Answer: Because of MSFT.
you need to go read more. Specifically, read the transcripts of the anti-trust suit MSFT was involved with. It is not a myth. It is fact. And it happens still.
I don't know where or how you thought this was a myth. Its right there in the public record.
You never answered the question except to say that the record companies DID do some filtering for him and they missed a bunch of stuff. Great. I am not surprised at all. But it still doesn't solve his predicament.
Who's going to do the filtering/moderating of internet/indie music? Where is a solid "Top 40" or other chart (like Billboard)? Please, tell me. I really do want to know because unless it changes, I whole-heartedly agree with the parent: I just don't have time to wade through shit to get to the 2 good songs I like. I need filtering.
The hand that feeds here, is Microsoft - not the customers. I know this is counterintuitive but it is reality. Dell is a pawn in a much larger chess game.
You see, if Dell agrees to sell MSFT and only MSFT, then they buy ALL copies of windows for, lets say, $25. If they disagree, and decide to sell a different OS - even one copy, the price for ALL of their windows copies goes up to $50.
And that gives Dell's competitors (who pay $25) an edge. So yes, there is big-time systematic pressure applied to make sure that Dell gives customers exactly what Microsoft thinks customers should have. And it's too risky for Dell to fight that unless they can get out from under those types of contracts (which is difficult, just ask food makers how hard it is to get on grocery store shelves)
That's why this is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. MSFT plays a LARGE part of Dell's decision making process because of their pricing control and lack of competitors to windows. Microsoft (very smartly, I might add) has created a scenario where its customers are competing over themselves for the right to sell MSFT software cheaper than the other guy.
I've been following Kevin Trudeau for a long time -- for exactly the reasons the parent post alluded to. The guy is a crook. Plain and simple. And I say that because of this fact: he knows what he is selling is "junk".
Kevin is a smart guy, make no mistake. But like any tool, smarts can be used for good and evil. Kevin chose evil.
A Blu-ray/HDDVD decoder in VLC would be perfect for me.
Bingo. That is the answer for me. If VLC could play.evo files, this is a non-issue. But so far, VLC doesn't play those, even if they are unencrypted (I wouldn't expect VLC to play encrypted content).
I just ran into this problem. I bought a 37" Westinghouse 1080P monitor and hooked it up as a second monitor (via DVI). I can play every type of video on the second monitor....except HD-DVD and Blu-ray.
Why? As I understand it, its because the Westinghouse is not HDCP compliant and all of the players (WinDVD, PowerDVD) require HDCP compliant monitors in order to play Blu-ray/HDDVD. So, an ordinary DVI link, like everyone and their brother has, won't work. Just like your 30" Dell.
So, if I read you right, you are beating Fuzzy up over what he thinks?
Look, I reacted the same way you probably did when I heard both Fuzzy's and Tim Hardaway's comments. I, personally, don't feel the same way they do. But make no mistake about it -- I firmly believe they have a right to feel anyway they want to feel. Whether they express those sentiments is another matter and we, reasonably, expect to talk about it when they do mouth off.
Of course, we can react to what they say however we choose. But beating someone up and basically saying, "you aren't thinking about this correctly" is the same thing as being the thought police.
In sum:
Beating up for speaking their mind - fine.
Reacting however you want to - fine.
Beating them up for THINKING what they think - not a good thing.
"I know what aliens are. I've seen them in movies. What, in gods name, are you talking about with all that gobbledy-gook? Distributed computing? PlanetLab? Boinc? What the hell are those?"
Gents, I didn't mean to imply that liability was the ONLY reason to consider S-corp. In fact, the primary reason to consider S-corp is taxes. S-corps tax the distribution of earnings to the owners so the company doesn't pay taxes on earning (you do this because your personal tax rate is lower than the corporate tax rate. If the reverse were true, S-corps would be a non-starter)
I only meant there are liability concerns - but, again, it depends what line of business you are in. For certain industries, an S-corp offers certain advantages over the LLC. There are lots of industries where one might be preferred over the other. While most small startups begin as LLC's, some of them convert to S-corp over time -- for the same reasons.
But you are right, there is more "paperwork" for an S-corp than LLC but again, it may be worth it depending on the situation. Attorneys and accountants are a must-have but that doesn't mean you have to keep one on staff. Those are services you can buy, you know.
So again, I didn't mean to say the liability is the primary issue - its not. But it is a consideration and there are differences b/t an LLC and S-corp.
At risk of getting flamed, read Atlas Shrugged. Mr. Mouch is the epitome of what you are talking about.
The history of business litigation runs VERY deep in the US. Ask anyone who actually owns a business how concerned they are about litigation and you will (almost) get 100% of them agree that they are concerned. It is, was, and will be a problem for a long time.
The only way to "solve" the problem is to participate in it and manipulate it to your ends. Which is exactly what every business is doing. And also why we are talking about it. Microsoft is not unique in this area.
Up is down. War is peace. Your enemy is your friend. Making money is bad. Companies and corporations are bad. Fuck Bush and co. Yea Apple and Yea Google.
I for one, welcome, our new "shorting when news is good" overlords.
Govt organizations like nothing better than to come into some other jurisdiction and "clean up". If you don't think so, go read about the little tiff between the US Congress and the President. And that's at the top!
Why do you think the FBI went down south to integrate?
Even in governmental organizations, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I'm confused here. What definition of "evolution" are we talking about here?
Evolution, as I know it, merely means "adaptation of species". It, in no way shape or form, evaluates HOW they started (creation).
Lots and lots of ppl (even on/.) confuse evolution with "creation". They are NOT the same. When you say you disagree with evolution, do you disagree with adaptation of species? or that evolution is the correct explanation for "how we were created". Note the distinction.
I ask this because I just had this conversation with a very smary friend of mine. He said he doesn't buy into evolution and I thought "whoa! are you kidding me?". Well, after discussing this with him a while, I realized he was substituting "evolution" for "creation". Once we agreed that evolution meant "adaptation of species and nothing more", he agreed that he DID buy into evolution. It struck me because it appears to me a lot of people fall into this trap. Most everyone agrees with adaptation of species. But views diverge when you start discussing how it all started.
So, be careful with definitions when you discuss evolution (I know I am not the only one discussing this subject in my free time).
Well, I don't know the full answer but a "half answer" is fairly obvious.
If you believe evolution, then you have to take into account the Neanderthals as well as every other human or human-like species we know about. And some of those species are a lot less "human" than they are "monkey".
When you believe man is special (in the eyes of god), then its very difficult to bring those other species into the fold. I mean, my god man, they are *almost* animals!:)
While I *almost* agree with your post, you forgot a few:
Faith, helps a POW survive his situation even though his body has "given out". Faith, gives hope to a poor person, who through education, believes they can work their way out of poverty. Faith helps anyone, in a dire situation, deal with it in a way that they can handle. It may be feeble compared to your way but for some, its the only way they can make it through that situation.
Faith is a tool. And like ANY tool, it can be used for good and bad.
See the replies to your post and you will see several sky-is-falling statements. Lots of people seem to think we have to "ride this train as far as it goes", even if it means a totalitarian state. My point was that it will NEVER get that far here in the US.
Revolution - as extreme as it is - IS an alternative if the collective "we" decide it is. Granted, it will take a lot but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
And just so you know my democratic-republican friend, this democracy we have here in the US is not quite as strong as it appears. The achilles heal of ALL democracies is that the collective public start realizing they can vote themselves entitlements via their elected representatives. And that's exactly what they've been doing for about 80-100 years now.
Just go back and SEE how big the gubment has gotten since the founding fathers created it.
I don't know whether to laugh at your comment or cry. On one hand, I laugh because we "accidentally" discover things all the time and this is a good thing. Then I realize we were trying to make an artifical tanning agent --- and I cry.
Seriously, is ALL pharmaceutical research on tanning, boners, and other non-life threatening shit? How about we tackle the stuff the KILLS PEOPLE first, huh? (Nah, there's too much money in the other stuff...)
Truly, a sad statement on affairs, if I've ever seen one.
After a couple of "sky is falling posts" I've read, I have an alternative theory for you.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use these boxes in that order.
Honestly, if it gets THAT bad, then even "normal" people will rise up. Think France a la 1700's. We are way early on the road to tyrrany and trust me, it can get MUCH worse before things change. But, if it gets too bad, we just scrap the whole thing and start over. It's been done before and it will be done again.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing the point. Its not that they CAN'T sell it. It's the fact that the price changes based on what "else" they sell. Now, I am sure its not as bad as it used to be back in the mid-90's (when I worked at Dell), but the pressure is still there. You are naive to exclude the pressure MSFT exerts on its resellers (like Dell, HP, etc).
Dell has no incentive to take that risk unless the "Linux" market is large enough to take up the slack. And it just might be...
Regardless, you will notice that Dell's plunge into Linux isn't exactly putting both feet in the water. They are taking a very careful approach because they know the implications.
Do you really think it's -truly- harder for Dell to install one OS over another? From a technical standpoint, we both know that Dell has the capability to install Linux, right? So why haven't they offered that choice in the past? Answer: Because of MSFT.
you need to go read more. Specifically, read the transcripts of the anti-trust suit MSFT was involved with. It is not a myth. It is fact. And it happens still.
I don't know where or how you thought this was a myth. Its right there in the public record.
Yep, exactly.
Right. So....what's your solution to the parent?
You never answered the question except to say that the record companies DID do some filtering for him and they missed a bunch of stuff. Great. I am not surprised at all. But it still doesn't solve his predicament.
Who's going to do the filtering/moderating of internet/indie music? Where is a solid "Top 40" or other chart (like Billboard)? Please, tell me. I really do want to know because unless it changes, I whole-heartedly agree with the parent: I just don't have time to wade through shit to get to the 2 good songs I like. I need filtering.
Your explanation is too simple.
The hand that feeds here, is Microsoft - not the customers. I know this is counterintuitive but it is reality. Dell is a pawn in a much larger chess game.
You see, if Dell agrees to sell MSFT and only MSFT, then they buy ALL copies of windows for, lets say, $25. If they disagree, and decide to sell a different OS - even one copy, the price for ALL of their windows copies goes up to $50.
And that gives Dell's competitors (who pay $25) an edge. So yes, there is big-time systematic pressure applied to make sure that Dell gives customers exactly what Microsoft thinks customers should have. And it's too risky for Dell to fight that unless they can get out from under those types of contracts (which is difficult, just ask food makers how hard it is to get on grocery store shelves)
That's why this is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. MSFT plays a LARGE part of Dell's decision making process because of their pricing control and lack of competitors to windows. Microsoft (very smartly, I might add) has created a scenario where its customers are competing over themselves for the right to sell MSFT software cheaper than the other guy.
MegaMemory!
Clearly, he has a pattern of fraudulent behavior.
I've been following Kevin Trudeau for a long time -- for exactly the reasons the parent post alluded to. The guy is a crook. Plain and simple. And I say that because of this fact: he knows what he is selling is "junk".
Kevin is a smart guy, make no mistake. But like any tool, smarts can be used for good and evil. Kevin chose evil.
A Blu-ray/HDDVD decoder in VLC would be perfect for me.
.evo files, this is a non-issue. But so far, VLC doesn't play those, even if they are unencrypted (I wouldn't expect VLC to play encrypted content).
Bingo. That is the answer for me. If VLC could play
I just ran into this problem. I bought a 37" Westinghouse 1080P monitor and hooked it up as a second monitor (via DVI). I can play every type of video on the second monitor....except HD-DVD and Blu-ray.
Why? As I understand it, its because the Westinghouse is not HDCP compliant and all of the players (WinDVD, PowerDVD) require HDCP compliant monitors in order to play Blu-ray/HDDVD. So, an ordinary DVI link, like everyone and their brother has, won't work. Just like your 30" Dell.
So, if I read you right, you are beating Fuzzy up over what he thinks?
Look, I reacted the same way you probably did when I heard both Fuzzy's and Tim Hardaway's comments. I, personally, don't feel the same way they do. But make no mistake about it -- I firmly believe they have a right to feel anyway they want to feel. Whether they express those sentiments is another matter and we, reasonably, expect to talk about it when they do mouth off.
Of course, we can react to what they say however we choose. But beating someone up and basically saying, "you aren't thinking about this correctly" is the same thing as being the thought police.
In sum:
Beating up for speaking their mind - fine.
Reacting however you want to - fine.
Beating them up for THINKING what they think - not a good thing.
"We are so close to Chimpanzee's that a human/ape hybrid is possible without the help of genetic manipulation,"
No. That's not possible.
Haven't you ever heard of Jack and Diane?
Well, it happens.
A lot.
Yea, I was wondering how Oklahoma University and Oklahoma State University figured into this.
"I know what aliens are. I've seen them in movies. What, in gods name, are you talking about with all that gobbledy-gook? Distributed computing? PlanetLab? Boinc? What the hell are those?"
That's why it's dismissed.
Gents, I didn't mean to imply that liability was the ONLY reason to consider S-corp. In fact, the primary reason to consider S-corp is taxes. S-corps tax the distribution of earnings to the owners so the company doesn't pay taxes on earning (you do this because your personal tax rate is lower than the corporate tax rate. If the reverse were true, S-corps would be a non-starter)
I only meant there are liability concerns - but, again, it depends what line of business you are in. For certain industries, an S-corp offers certain advantages over the LLC. There are lots of industries where one might be preferred over the other. While most small startups begin as LLC's, some of them convert to S-corp over time -- for the same reasons.
But you are right, there is more "paperwork" for an S-corp than LLC but again, it may be worth it depending on the situation. Attorneys and accountants are a must-have but that doesn't mean you have to keep one on staff. Those are services you can buy, you know.
So again, I didn't mean to say the liability is the primary issue - its not. But it is a consideration and there are differences b/t an LLC and S-corp.
Where have you been? It's always been like this.
At risk of getting flamed, read Atlas Shrugged. Mr. Mouch is the epitome of what you are talking about.
The history of business litigation runs VERY deep in the US. Ask anyone who actually owns a business how concerned they are about litigation and you will (almost) get 100% of them agree that they are concerned. It is, was, and will be a problem for a long time.
The only way to "solve" the problem is to participate in it and manipulate it to your ends. Which is exactly what every business is doing. And also why we are talking about it. Microsoft is not unique in this area.
How do you know he is more suited to an LLC over a C-Corp? (I think you meant S-corp)
Choosing to LLC vs S-corp is a cost/benefit scenario. There are some very good reasons to go S-Corp, specifically, for liability reasons.
So, to the parent -- go research both and see which is right for your situation. I've done that and I decided an S-Corp was the way to go for us.
No way! Not here on slashdot.
Up is down. War is peace. Your enemy is your friend. Making money is bad. Companies and corporations are bad. Fuck Bush and co. Yea Apple and Yea Google.
I for one, welcome, our new "shorting when news is good" overlords.
Govt organizations like nothing better than to come into some other jurisdiction and "clean up". If you don't think so, go read about the little tiff between the US Congress and the President. And that's at the top!
Why do you think the FBI went down south to integrate?
Even in governmental organizations, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I just priced a Dell PC. Just a small desktop box for the receptionist.
It costs +$150 to get XP over Vista. The default was for Vista.
I am so mad about it, I don't think I am going to buy from Dell this time. Seriously.
I'm confused here. What definition of "evolution" are we talking about here?
/.) confuse evolution with "creation". They are NOT the same. When you say you disagree with evolution, do you disagree with adaptation of species? or that evolution is the correct explanation for "how we were created". Note the distinction.
Evolution, as I know it, merely means "adaptation of species". It, in no way shape or form, evaluates HOW they started (creation).
Lots and lots of ppl (even on
I ask this because I just had this conversation with a very smary friend of mine. He said he doesn't buy into evolution and I thought "whoa! are you kidding me?". Well, after discussing this with him a while, I realized he was substituting "evolution" for "creation". Once we agreed that evolution meant "adaptation of species and nothing more", he agreed that he DID buy into evolution. It struck me because it appears to me a lot of people fall into this trap. Most everyone agrees with adaptation of species. But views diverge when you start discussing how it all started.
So, be careful with definitions when you discuss evolution (I know I am not the only one discussing this subject in my free time).
Well, I don't know the full answer but a "half answer" is fairly obvious.
:)
If you believe evolution, then you have to take into account the Neanderthals as well as every other human or human-like species we know about. And some of those species are a lot less "human" than they are "monkey".
When you believe man is special (in the eyes of god), then its very difficult to bring those other species into the fold. I mean, my god man, they are *almost* animals!
While I *almost* agree with your post, you forgot a few:
Faith, helps a POW survive his situation even though his body has "given out". Faith, gives hope to a poor person, who through education, believes they can work their way out of poverty. Faith helps anyone, in a dire situation, deal with it in a way that they can handle. It may be feeble compared to your way but for some, its the only way they can make it through that situation.
Faith is a tool. And like ANY tool, it can be used for good and bad.
I wasn't trying to contradict you.
See the replies to your post and you will see several sky-is-falling statements. Lots of people seem to think we have to "ride this train as far as it goes", even if it means a totalitarian state. My point was that it will NEVER get that far here in the US.
Revolution - as extreme as it is - IS an alternative if the collective "we" decide it is. Granted, it will take a lot but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
And just so you know my democratic-republican friend, this democracy we have here in the US is not quite as strong as it appears. The achilles heal of ALL democracies is that the collective public start realizing they can vote themselves entitlements via their elected representatives. And that's exactly what they've been doing for about 80-100 years now.
Just go back and SEE how big the gubment has gotten since the founding fathers created it.
I don't know whether to laugh at your comment or cry. On one hand, I laugh because we "accidentally" discover things all the time and this is a good thing. Then I realize we were trying to make an artifical tanning agent --- and I cry.
Seriously, is ALL pharmaceutical research on tanning, boners, and other non-life threatening shit? How about we tackle the stuff the KILLS PEOPLE first, huh? (Nah, there's too much money in the other stuff...)
Truly, a sad statement on affairs, if I've ever seen one.
After a couple of "sky is falling posts" I've read, I have an alternative theory for you.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use these boxes in that order.
Honestly, if it gets THAT bad, then even "normal" people will rise up. Think France a la 1700's. We are way early on the road to tyrrany and trust me, it can get MUCH worse before things change. But, if it gets too bad, we just scrap the whole thing and start over. It's been done before and it will be done again.