Microsoft might be 3% short of where they want to be, but their sell through is 400,000 units short of what they thought they would sell in fiscal year 2007. That's at least 25% short of their goal for the year (based on having 10.4m sold in 2006).
I agree that the Xbox 360 has a better portfolio of games, but your comparisons with the Wii or PS3 aren't completely accurate. I haven't seen a Wii game yet that rivaled the better games of the original Xbox, regardless of what processing power it may have. The Xbox charges for their online gaming and that the PS3 is currently 50% more than the Xbox, not twice as much as you said. (The PS3 is also rumored to drop $100 soon.)
Economic terrorism?! Dell sells Windows computers because it suits their business, so what? Should Linux become easy to support, and useful to the consumer, why wouldn't they offer it? What evidence do you have of shady business dealings?
Wal-mart sells pre-loaded linux computers, Apple is stylish and available, commerial and free OS alternatives abound, but market share is what it is. Do justice to society by your personal choices all you want, but if you strive to make a difference, help make these alternatives a viable choice for the rest of the world.
The problem with fast food joints isn't convenience, cost effectiveness, and accessibility. It's that the nutritional quality of the food is lacking. Microsoft Windows won't raise your cholesterol or make you fat.
People use Windows because the alternatives don't stack up as well enthusiasts assert that they do. Market forces would have driven a better, cheaper substitute into use if such a product delivered on those claims.
I don't proselytize for Microsoft, but I also don't deride the majority of their users as mindless cattle who are unable or unwilling to invest significant time to flesh out a premature alternative. That's not their job. It's ours, the experts in the field whose duty it is to create robust and usable software.
Bruce Schneier linked to another post which had an interesting take by a chemist in a graduate program. He describes details of the chemicals involved and what it would take to detonate them effectively onboard a plane.
The summary: improvised explosives involve pretty nasty stuff that you'd be hard pressed to mix in an airplane lavatory without killing yourself in the process.
This is designed for the hobbyist/amateur game developer. A managed environment built on top of a decent framework from Microsoft will allow a much broader audience of enthusiasts out there to create games. Instead of fumbling with buggy or complicated code, they will actually get to express their creativity and fresh designs.
You make a good point, but there are mitigating factors that should keep the price point of these consoles in the same ballpark as previous generations. The video game market is worth several billions of dollars more a year than the 8-bit age and the pace of technology has far exceeded the cost of inflation. (If it didn't, we'd all be in rough shape economically.)
The same holds true for cars. I just bought a new Acura and my $20,000 got me an upscale sporty car with a CD player, front and side airbags, power windows, and an engine that will run for 110,000 miles without any scheduled maintenance. I'd challenge you to travel back to 1980 and find a deal like that.
I like the idea of being able to control how my donations are being used by donating something from the wishlist. However, if Amazon isn't compromising at all, then the cash option sounds the best. I do think this is a great cause and I like the theme behind it.
I had seen the details you posted on the Child's Play site, but I still want to know the details behind the Amazon deal. For an opportunity to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars of business, I would think they are offering more service than a simple wishlist.
I'm curious what role Amazon plays in all this. Many of the games I looked at were priced at retail which makes me wonder how big their slice of the pie is. I'd like to know exactly how much they take off the top for their overhead and if they pass the profits along to the charity.
NetFlix doesn't require you to phone in cancellations. I cancelled my membership yesterday with just a few clicks. I've never been a member of another subscription service (especially one with a free trial) that made it this easy.
You don't even have to have all of your movies in befor you cancel. Just return within 7 days. I highly recommend NetFlix to anyone willing to pay $23 per month for movies.
>> no, the rich make there money from the work of others.
Are you in touch with the reality that a majority of the citizens of this country are working class Joe's? Most of those people will never rise up to become the innovators or the engine behind the economy. People in this country find comfort in mediocracy and solice in a stagnant status quo. Yet the people who create the very jobs that Joe Citizen complains about are still looted for more money than the rest.
>> Sales tax is not proportianal enough to make a healthy society. A healthy society is neccessary to maintain balance between classes.
I doubt that the US Government will ever get rid of an income tax, meaning that the rich will always pay more taxes. But do you really think that more taxes... more government revenue... more bureaucracy... will ever create a healthy society? I am constantly amazed by the fact that 99% of/. readers oppose the government in all areas of their lives except social reform. Don't try and tell me that the government can spend my money better than I can.
To quote the Simpsons... you think "the machinery of capitalism is oiled by the blood of the workers?" Read Atlas Shrugged for some clarification... it's makes a pretty blunt but insightful argument (albeit in a verbose way).
So as a total percentage of income, Mr, Millionaire pays *less* sales tax than you! Not very socially progressive, eh? Not surprisingly, the rich have always hated income tax and preferred sales tax for exactly this reason.
The vast majority of people in this country have to earn their money. Those that earn more than others do so because of hard work and the will to explore their potential. They not only earn their money, but deserve it.
These people hate income tax because it takes money out of their pocket. They pay more money while it is they who drive productivity and wealth in our society. So yeah, not surprisingly, it is they who would favor a sales tax where they can at least have some choice in where and when they are taxed.
I guess most people have come to expect this from slashdot, but it should be pointed out all the same. It's too bad everyone (me included) puts up with it.
I agree, but in this case the write-up mostly plagiarizes a post on MozillaZine. The misleading posts on/. are frequently deceptive, but not as often orignially deceptive.
From MozillaZine: "InternetNews was one of the first sites to report on the renaming of Phoenix and Minotaur to Firebird and Thunderbird. Australian site LinuxWorld concentrated on the reaction from the Firebird database community, with claims that posts in "the Netscape-Mozilla newsgroup" (it's unclear exactly which newsgroup this refers to) are being censored. CNET News.com also focussed on the controversy, including a link to a page from FirebirdSQL Foundation sponsor IBPhoenix that encourages people to join the "fray" and add to the "heat in [the MozillaZine] forums". The call-to-arms also lists the email addresses of many of the more prominent Mozilla contributors and suggests deluging them with messages (even though many of the listed people had nothing to do with the name change)."
Pphhfff... you probably just got a bad machine(s).
My DeskJet 550c is a decade old, has withstood 11 years of high school use and 8 years of college use... with roomates. I could probably jam an uncut log in the paper tray and have it roll out with a legible draft.
To this day the thing can crank out copies of whatever I want. Crayola crayons would yield a better color image than the 550, but black is just as good as any other ink-using printer I've seen today. The noise and speed are a bit heinous but I'm not going to gripe about old technology that still fits its function.
But a person who has shown has he has no troubles with going against overwhelming global opinion in control of a superpower is a very frightening thought and obviously not good.
I don't think it's so obvious. First, in this case, global opinion is against a war, not against dealing with Iraq. Second, there are international legal grounds for this war. I'm glad you aren't making the Hitler-Bush comparison, but I have seen it done thousands of times in the past six months. Those people don't take several things into account. Your last statement would read better as, "No, I'm not trying to claim Bush is anything like A. Hitler, I just loaned your own words to say courage combined with no respect for others and a careless regard for international law and a bad track record and is mentally unstable sometimes lead to very bad things happening."
To be honest, I don't think that the discussion has been very constructive so far. For a constructive discussion, both parties should be `open' for a solution they both can agree with.
Right. Add France and their assured veto of any solution that required force. Any possibility for a constructive discussion and procedure from that point becomes impossible. Assuming that conflict is not a viable option to solve problems is naive in my opinion. In any case, an infinite compromise is not possible so a decision should rest on majority opinion based on a rational argument. If that isn't possible, then I think it's right to stand up for yourself.
I have the impression that both Saddam and Bush have the idea that the other party is `laughing in their face', and for restoring their sense of honour they have to punish their opponent. This way, a constructive solution is never possible. (Nobody will ever agree being punished.)
Iraq has been laughing in the face of the world for over a decade. America is not fighting to restore our honor. However, the credibility of the UN is at stake. America is not fighting to punish our opponent, but instead is fighting to enforce the punishment set against them after the Gulf War. Since they don't agree to that punishment, you're right, a constructive solution isn't possible (because it didn't work) and force is our last alternative. I think it's sad.
I think Bush should have gone to Saddam. He should have proposed to forget the past, to look at the problem now, and to search for solutions. If this wouldn't work out, an independent person, with some experience in discussing difficult topics, could moderate the meetings.
No. No. No. The problem now stems from the problems in the past and the problem in the present and the problem in the future. None of this should be either forgotten or ignored. Are you serious about an independent body arbitrating for Bush and Saddam or are you generalizing this to be an example that applies to two kids on a playground? Global politics is a much different playground.
If Saddam wouldn't react on a rational way, I think people would organise manifestations against the attitude of Saddam, instead of the anti-American manifestations we're seeing now.
America is often the country people love to hate. I think you would see the anti-American sentiment now no matter what leading position we take. Personally I belive that most of it springs from existing predjudice about this country and manifests itself more as anti-Bush sentiment than anything anti-American or pro-peace. In the majority of people I have talked to, their opinions are what they are because of a well-tuned ability to ignore facts and reality. However, there are certainly those who believe the way they do and I won't argue with that. I have my own thoughts, that's all.
Where do you get that from? The U.S. wouldn't even have won a simple majority in the Security Council. It is more like Bush (w/ sidekick Blair) vs The World.
Oh shut up. The security council overwhelmingly agreed that Iraq is a problem. It was its defiance of world opinion in the past that brought this situation to be. One reason (sure, maybe not the only one) a second resolution may not have been passed (and you'll never know) is because France guaranteed a veto. Doing so proved the UN inadequate to solve this problem. Go ahead and disagree with the policies of either Tony Blair or George Bush, but don't be so ignorant as to say that Iraq is not the world's problem.
This my friends is the perfect manifestation of a victim of American-Propaganda newspeak.
You want to discount my point of view with an attack on my state of mind? Fine, go ahead. However, if you take a minute to put down your copy of 1984 and rationally analyze the headlines, you might see how they reflect the thoughts of both the citizens and leadership of America. I'm included in that group based on my own independent thoughts and choices.
Everyone who believes in the doctrine of peace and is against military action must be a vicitim of Hollywood-Music Artist-French-Propaganda then?
If you disagree with my opinions or statements, then say so. Otherwise keep your mouth shut.
So what is this world consensus you speak of? Must be that propoganda soaked brain of yours. Please, do yourself a favor, stop watching Bill O'Reilly, turn off Fox News, wake up and see REALITY.
I said threat, not war, and that's reality. For proof you can refer to 1441 and the UN deliberations. In any case Spain and Australia are countries besides the UK that support the war. Do yourself a favor and inform yourself of world events, stop hating Bill O'Reilly, grow up and quit ignoring REALITY.
I'm sure Bush is convinced that he's doing the right thing. I'm sure Saddam is convinced that he 's doing the right thing too. These two people should talk to each other. On a grown-up way. They should try to understand why they are mad at each other. They should try to find a solution together.
Some people just aren't rational and no amount of constructive thought or discussion will get them to see the other's argument. In the case of Iraq vs. The World, people are being oppressed and others could be at risk whilst the diplomats plead for more time to sit on their hands. I have no doubt that if there were alternatives they would be explored.
Probably all this is a little naive. But how can I tell my children not to fight, when the great leaders on this earth do ?
It is naive. Teach them that the best way to proceed through life is rationally with respect for logic and procedure. Those things and a well developed sense of morality should show them that a peaceful route is usually the best option, but also that force must sometimes be used.
Re:Not consensus of the world
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Actually that could have happened, but with France's guaranteed veto that green light would never have been lit. 1441 revealed the security council's opinion and thoughts on Iraq. The failure of diplomacy revealed the inadequacies of the council to solve problems of global imporatance.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft might be 3% short of where they want to be, but their sell through is 400,000 units short of what they thought they would sell in fiscal year 2007. That's at least 25% short of their goal for the year (based on having 10.4m sold in 2006).
I agree that the Xbox 360 has a better portfolio of games, but your comparisons with the Wii or PS3 aren't completely accurate. I haven't seen a Wii game yet that rivaled the better games of the original Xbox, regardless of what processing power it may have. The Xbox charges for their online gaming and that the PS3 is currently 50% more than the Xbox, not twice as much as you said. (The PS3 is also rumored to drop $100 soon.)
It's one step closer to square one:
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF032AD-Reset.jpg#102
Economic terrorism?! Dell sells Windows computers because it suits their business, so what? Should Linux become easy to support, and useful to the consumer, why wouldn't they offer it? What evidence do you have of shady business dealings?
Wal-mart sells pre-loaded linux computers, Apple is stylish and available, commerial and free OS alternatives abound, but market share is what it is. Do justice to society by your personal choices all you want, but if you strive to make a difference, help make these alternatives a viable choice for the rest of the world.
The problem with fast food joints isn't convenience, cost effectiveness, and accessibility. It's that the nutritional quality of the food is lacking. Microsoft Windows won't raise your cholesterol or make you fat.
People use Windows because the alternatives don't stack up as well enthusiasts assert that they do. Market forces would have driven a better, cheaper substitute into use if such a product delivered on those claims.
I don't proselytize for Microsoft, but I also don't deride the majority of their users as mindless cattle who are unable or unwilling to invest significant time to flesh out a premature alternative. That's not their job. It's ours, the experts in the field whose duty it is to create robust and usable software.
Bruce Schneier linked to another post which had an interesting take by a chemist in a graduate program. He describes details of the chemicals involved and what it would take to detonate them effectively onboard a plane.
The summary: improvised explosives involve pretty nasty stuff that you'd be hard pressed to mix in an airplane lavatory without killing yourself in the process.
Who cares?
This is designed for the hobbyist/amateur game developer. A managed environment built on top of a decent framework from Microsoft will allow a much broader audience of enthusiasts out there to create games. Instead of fumbling with buggy or complicated code, they will actually get to express their creativity and fresh designs.
You make a good point, but there are mitigating factors that should keep the price point of these consoles in the same ballpark as previous generations. The video game market is worth several billions of dollars more a year than the 8-bit age and the pace of technology has far exceeded the cost of inflation. (If it didn't, we'd all be in rough shape economically.)
The same holds true for cars. I just bought a new Acura and my $20,000 got me an upscale sporty car with a CD player, front and side airbags, power windows, and an engine that will run for 110,000 miles without any scheduled maintenance. I'd challenge you to travel back to 1980 and find a deal like that.
I like the idea of being able to control how my donations are being used by donating something from the wishlist. However, if Amazon isn't compromising at all, then the cash option sounds the best. I do think this is a great cause and I like the theme behind it.
I had seen the details you posted on the Child's Play site, but I still want to know the details behind the Amazon deal. For an opportunity to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars of business, I would think they are offering more service than a simple wishlist.
I'm curious what role Amazon plays in all this. Many of the games I looked at were priced at retail which makes me wonder how big their slice of the pie is. I'd like to know exactly how much they take off the top for their overhead and if they pass the profits along to the charity.
This should really be a question in their FAQ.
NetFlix doesn't require you to phone in cancellations. I cancelled my membership yesterday with just a few clicks. I've never been a member of another subscription service (especially one with a free trial) that made it this easy.
You don't even have to have all of your movies in befor you cancel. Just return within 7 days. I highly recommend NetFlix to anyone willing to pay $23 per month for movies.
>> no, the rich make there money from the work of others.
Are you in touch with the reality that a majority of the citizens of this country are working class Joe's? Most of those people will never rise up to become the innovators or the engine behind the economy. People in this country find comfort in mediocracy and solice in a stagnant status quo. Yet the people who create the very jobs that Joe Citizen complains about are still looted for more money than the rest.
>> Sales tax is not proportianal enough to make a healthy society. A healthy society is neccessary to maintain balance between classes.
I doubt that the US Government will ever get rid of an income tax, meaning that the rich will always pay more taxes. But do you really think that more taxes... more government revenue... more bureaucracy... will ever create a healthy society? I am constantly amazed by the fact that 99% of /. readers oppose the government in all areas of their lives except social reform. Don't try and tell me that the government can spend my money better than I can.
To quote the Simpsons... you think "the machinery of capitalism is oiled by the blood of the workers?" Read Atlas Shrugged for some clarification... it's makes a pretty blunt but insightful argument (albeit in a verbose way).
The vast majority of people in this country have to earn their money. Those that earn more than others do so because of hard work and the will to explore their potential. They not only earn their money, but deserve it.
These people hate income tax because it takes money out of their pocket. They pay more money while it is they who drive productivity and wealth in our society. So yeah, not surprisingly, it is they who would favor a sales tax where they can at least have some choice in where and when they are taxed.
"Blackmail's such an ugly word. I prefer extortion. The 'X' makes it sound cool."
-Bender, Futurama
Yeah, Spy-Hunter. They'd just have to tape....
a car chase in the jungle....
a car chase in the desert....
and a car chase in the snow....
then just tape the ends of the film together. The movie is over when the projector overheats, much like my old NES.
I agree, but in this case the write-up mostly plagiarizes a post on MozillaZine. The misleading posts on /. are frequently deceptive, but not as often orignially deceptive.
3% is about 30kB. Multiply that times millions of downloads in the near future and you save gigabytes of bandwidth.
Pphhfff... you probably just got a bad machine(s).
My DeskJet 550c is a decade old, has withstood 11 years of high school use and 8 years of college use... with roomates. I could probably jam an uncut log in the paper tray and have it roll out with a legible draft.
To this day the thing can crank out copies of whatever I want. Crayola crayons would yield a better color image than the 550, but black is just as good as any other ink-using printer I've seen today. The noise and speed are a bit heinous but I'm not going to gripe about old technology that still fits its function.
Deskjet, a quality device? Indeed.
I don't think it's so obvious. First, in this case, global opinion is against a war, not against dealing with Iraq. Second, there are international legal grounds for this war. I'm glad you aren't making the Hitler-Bush comparison, but I have seen it done thousands of times in the past six months. Those people don't take several things into account. Your last statement would read better as, "No, I'm not trying to claim Bush is anything like A. Hitler, I just loaned your own words to say courage combined with no respect for others and a careless regard for international law and a bad track record and is mentally unstable sometimes lead to very bad things happening."
Right. Add France and their assured veto of any solution that required force. Any possibility for a constructive discussion and procedure from that point becomes impossible. Assuming that conflict is not a viable option to solve problems is naive in my opinion. In any case, an infinite compromise is not possible so a decision should rest on majority opinion based on a rational argument. If that isn't possible, then I think it's right to stand up for yourself.
Iraq has been laughing in the face of the world for over a decade. America is not fighting to restore our honor. However, the credibility of the UN is at stake. America is not fighting to punish our opponent, but instead is fighting to enforce the punishment set against them after the Gulf War. Since they don't agree to that punishment, you're right, a constructive solution isn't possible (because it didn't work) and force is our last alternative. I think it's sad.
No. No. No. The problem now stems from the problems in the past and the problem in the present and the problem in the future. None of this should be either forgotten or ignored. Are you serious about an independent body arbitrating for Bush and Saddam or are you generalizing this to be an example that applies to two kids on a playground? Global politics is a much different playground.
America is often the country people love to hate. I think you would see the anti-American sentiment now no matter what leading position we take. Personally I belive that most of it springs from existing predjudice about this country and manifests itself more as anti-Bush sentiment than anything anti-American or pro-peace. In the majority of people I have talked to, their opinions are what they are because of a well-tuned ability to ignore facts and reality. However, there are certainly those who believe the way they do and I won't argue with that. I have my own thoughts, that's all.
Oh shut up. The security council overwhelmingly agreed that Iraq is a problem. It was its defiance of world opinion in the past that brought this situation to be. One reason (sure, maybe not the only one) a second resolution may not have been passed (and you'll never know) is because France guaranteed a veto. Doing so proved the UN inadequate to solve this problem. Go ahead and disagree with the policies of either Tony Blair or George Bush, but don't be so ignorant as to say that Iraq is not the world's problem.
It's relevant because the post I replied to in the first place called Bush a coward. My opinion is that Bush and Tony Blair are anything but cowards.
You want to discount my point of view with an attack on my state of mind? Fine, go ahead. However, if you take a minute to put down your copy of 1984 and rationally analyze the headlines, you might see how they reflect the thoughts of both the citizens and leadership of America. I'm included in that group based on my own independent thoughts and choices.
Everyone who believes in the doctrine of peace and is against military action must be a vicitim of Hollywood-Music Artist-French-Propaganda then?
If you disagree with my opinions or statements, then say so. Otherwise keep your mouth shut.
I said threat, not war, and that's reality. For proof you can refer to 1441 and the UN deliberations. In any case Spain and Australia are countries besides the UK that support the war. Do yourself a favor and inform yourself of world events, stop hating Bill O'Reilly, grow up and quit ignoring REALITY.
Some people just aren't rational and no amount of constructive thought or discussion will get them to see the other's argument. In the case of Iraq vs. The World, people are being oppressed and others could be at risk whilst the diplomats plead for more time to sit on their hands. I have no doubt that if there were alternatives they would be explored.
It is naive. Teach them that the best way to proceed through life is rationally with respect for logic and procedure. Those things and a well developed sense of morality should show them that a peaceful route is usually the best option, but also that force must sometimes be used.
Actually that could have happened, but with France's guaranteed veto that green light would never have been lit. 1441 revealed the security council's opinion and thoughts on Iraq. The failure of diplomacy revealed the inadequacies of the council to solve problems of global imporatance.