Franchise agreements are pretty stupid, and it would be fair to say they play a large part in holding back progress in the US. Why should every little podunk suburb have a say in national networks? If you want to regulate them, fine, but that's the wrong level of government.
Really, I'd hope people don't sue for this. If your sole source of income relies on a system you can't control, then you have a bad business model, plain and simple. Be it Google, or Microsoft, or VeriSign.
What about the public road system, or utilities such as power or running water? Given that Microsoft has a monopoly, it's fair to lump them in that class.
And the iPod didn't generate any real sales until it was offered to the full marketplace.
Apple's "you have to give us all your business or we'll screw you" practises keeps them a minor player. The non religious aren't willing to trust them. iPods sell well precisely because you don't have to buy any other Apple products to use them fully. Macs do not sell well, because you're tied to Apple for all further purchases.
It doesn't effect people, only businesses. Microsoft preinstalling IE into Windows and preventing its removal reduces individual choice, as the neophyte may not know that other options are available.
Google does not, to my knowledge, block competing ads. You can still buy the second place spot on Google, while Mozilla and Opera cannot be pre installed in Windows at all.
Google is not a monopoly. There are other search engines fully compatible with Google. There are no OS's compatable with Windows. Google's advantage is that it is a better search engine, not that it is a pre installed search engine.
You know, if they just said "This program sponsored by Ford" or whatever, no one would care. Mewling at us for three minutes to zoom zoom or whatever the fuck they want is an entirely different issue.
Their probation officer pays more attention to them, and they feel trapped in the system. They can't move on and contribute positively, and lash out violently.
When a market reaches maturity, the numerous competing firms consolidate into a small number of major competitors. Consider the personal-computer market. It once had numerous strong competitors: AST, Gateway, Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, etc. Now, there are only a few major players: HP, Dell, and Lenovo. And hundreds of thousands of generic small-medium shops. And Acer, Asus, LG, Toshiba...
The same happened in the market for 0x86 processors. The market once had numerous strong competitors: AMD, Nexgen, Cyrix, Centaur, and Intel. Now, there are only 2 major players: AMD and Intel. Actually, Intel had been the only serious player up until quite recently. The addition of AMD is an increase in competition.
The search market is facing a similar consolidation -- in 2 phases. The market once had numerous strong competitors: Microsoft, Google, AltaVista, Yahoo, AskJeeves, etc. After the first phase of consolidation, there are 3 major players: Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google. Now, the market is entering the second phase of consolidation. Like the personal computer, the search tool is a commodity product with almost no product differentiation. A search on Yahoo works just like a search on Microsoft Live. Why do we need 3 essentially identical products on the market? Your history is a bit off. There were several competing search engines (Yahoo, Altavista, Webcrawler, Lycos, Infoseek). We needed a bunch, because there wasn't a single one that could be used reliably. Then there was Google, who could provide comprehensive results, and is the only serious player now. Maybe someone will come around and do it better, but it's not likely to come from Microsoft or anyone else in the corporate world. If there's a Google killer, it'll come about the same way Google did; research.
Yahoo is desperately hoping someone will buy them before they run out of money or everyone forgets about them.
The Air Force isn't being asked to change at all. Quite the opposite, it's being asked *not* to change. By not using the frequency, they allowed it to be usurped by a de facto standard.
You're perfectly free to do so at any point. There's the door, don't let it hit your ass on the way out.
Re:Comment on Fedora in general.
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 1
If a kernel is open and no one uses it, does it make a sound?
Re:Solid but takes some tweaking.
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 1
Even with that, your doubling the number of packages you have to build, test, maintain and support.
You aren't a coder, are you? There's absolutely nothing wrong with compile-time configuration. If you don't want MySQL support built into your Amarok, don't build it in. If someone else builds your system for you, tell them you don't want MySQL support. If they don't care what you want, pay someone else to do it, or suck it up and do it yourself.
Re:Comment on Fedora in general.
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So in other words, you had little interest in understanding how the system works. You just wanted to point to it and say "Oooo, Linux Pixie Dust(TM)".
Re:Solid but takes some tweaking.
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 1
That's inevitable for a non-source based distro. You either have to maintain dozens of variations for each packages, or compile them with everything. Most choose the latter, as it's simpler, and works better for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Franchise agreements are pretty stupid, and it would be fair to say they play a large part in holding back progress in the US. Why should every little podunk suburb have a say in national networks? If you want to regulate them, fine, but that's the wrong level of government.
And all of those partnerships will fail within a year.
Really, I'd hope people don't sue for this. If your sole source of income relies on a system you can't control, then you have a bad business model, plain and simple. Be it Google, or Microsoft, or VeriSign.
What about the public road system, or utilities such as power or running water? Given that Microsoft has a monopoly, it's fair to lump them in that class.
Dishonesty, in the context of financial transactions, certainly is illegal.
Webster's can't even be counted on for correct spelling. Here is the definition of the English word.
Not a specific one, but *any* business' client database? Yes, definitely.
You're confused about the definition of bribe.
This is a pretty stupid comment, but that someone upmodded it is even more amusing.
What, precisely, will you do with those things if you decide to source your next machine from someone other than Apple?
I really, really wouldn't want to play online with some fucked up furry bestiality creep getting off on their avatar.
And the iPod didn't generate any real sales until it was offered to the full marketplace.
Apple's "you have to give us all your business or we'll screw you" practises keeps them a minor player. The non religious aren't willing to trust them. iPods sell well precisely because you don't have to buy any other Apple products to use them fully. Macs do not sell well, because you're tied to Apple for all further purchases.
Most people do not own a Mac and have no interest in purchasing one. Period. Full stop.
The will have to release Windows versions of all the software, or allow Mac OS to run on commodity hardware for this to fly.
You know, if they just said "This program sponsored by Ford" or whatever, no one would care. Mewling at us for three minutes to zoom zoom or whatever the fuck they want is an entirely different issue.
Hit the breaks as you come up to it, saving yourself a speeding ticket and giving the guy behind you a tailgating ticket.
If you have the cash for a BMW, you have the cash to repair it. Suck it up, princess.
Probation officers "pay attention" by threatening revoke probation, from what I understand.
Their probation officer pays more attention to them, and they feel trapped in the system. They can't move on and contribute positively, and lash out violently.
Thanks, that helps.
Yahoo is desperately hoping someone will buy them before they run out of money or everyone forgets about them.
The Air Force isn't being asked to change at all. Quite the opposite, it's being asked *not* to change. By not using the frequency, they allowed it to be usurped by a de facto standard.
You're perfectly free to do so at any point. There's the door, don't let it hit your ass on the way out.
If a kernel is open and no one uses it, does it make a sound?
Even with that, your doubling the number of packages you have to build, test, maintain and support.
You aren't a coder, are you? There's absolutely nothing wrong with compile-time configuration. If you don't want MySQL support built into your Amarok, don't build it in. If someone else builds your system for you, tell them you don't want MySQL support. If they don't care what you want, pay someone else to do it, or suck it up and do it yourself.
So in other words, you had little interest in understanding how the system works. You just wanted to point to it and say "Oooo, Linux Pixie Dust(TM)".
That's inevitable for a non-source based distro. You either have to maintain dozens of variations for each packages, or compile them with everything. Most choose the latter, as it's simpler, and works better for most people.