Microsoft want as many people to pay for Windows as possible. They also want as many people to use Windows as possible. These are not necessarily related.
The hardware platform shouldn't dictate the choice of applications.
It's like saying "this toolbox is smaller so it should have different tools". I don't want a different set of tools just because the toolbox is a different shape. I want the hammer and the screwdriver and the wrench in all my toolboxes.
When copyright was created it was to protect artistic work, music, writing, stories, images etc. It was designed to protect artistic endeavor.
Easily copied artworks covered by copyright law don't need protection. What is being protected is the livelihood of the artists and the incentive to generate new works.
Your strategy is to build the disaster recovery system after the disaster?
What if the disaster is that when the building burns down with you in it, your systems lose their sole admin? Who do you call then?
It was the original Diablo that was dark and it was the colour in Diablo II that irked some people. This appears to be the same issue: some people want the design of Diablo not Diablo II.
Then the correct solution is for Apple to warn users about particular applications and the user chooses whether to heed those warnings, just like a phishing filter you can turn on and off.
In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel.
No. OPEC and you decide the price per barrel. By definition, nobody pays more than they are willing to, so it's reasonable to say most people are paying less than they are willing to pay. Watch the price rise next week. Watch people continue to pay.
OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve).
OPEC can influence supply. Consumers control demand.
There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption).
There are many alternatives you've chosen not to pursue. There are many choices you've made in the past and are now experiencing their outcomes. You decided to risk a livelihood that was exposed to the price of oil. You decided to live far from work in a city with poor public transport. You decided to live further than walking distance from the doctor and the grocery store. You made those choices and now you are paying for them.
But you still have choices. Choose a more efficient car. Choose a motorcycle. Choose public transport. Choose to move closer to the grocery store. Choose to get a job closer to home. The longer you think you have no control over your life, the longer you will be at the mercy of others.
But I think you'd still rather pay high fuel prices than make any real and difficult change to your life. It will be when the price gets much, much higher that you and many others will decide to change.
I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies!
You don't have much power to effect lower oil prices. Not even your government has much power in that regard. You can continue to rail against the evil oil companies but it won't change them. Find something else to do.
If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect.
There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable.
Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?
It's harder and more expensive to extract oil from the ground now. There's less of it. We're finding less of it. This is all very simple stuff.
The cheap oil party is over.
Using the probabilities means that at any given moment there's a 20% chance they'll be checking Lane 1 and a 30% chance they'll be checking Lane 2, but it doesn't tell you whether you should try to smuggle contraband through 1 or 2.
There's a chance that you'll still get caught in Lane 1, but it's the way to bet. Smugglers would capitalise on exactly that knowledge and lower their chance of getting caught. Do you want a search algorithm that lets them get away more often?
Pushing your 'lack of belief' on others is little better then the Christian fundamentalist trying to push his belief on you.
I'm not accusing you specifically of doing that -- but many Atheists seem to be on a mission to "save" the world from religion and I personally find that to be very offensive. And I'm not even a particularly religious person!
See, atheists are in fact believers just of a different stripe. The belief they subscribe to is that there is no god.
Belief in a god is theism. Belief in no god is atheism. No belief in a god and no belief in no god is neither of these.
Because I've met my fair share of Atheists that are as aggressive in trying to convert people as any Christian would be.
Athiests are believers too. They believe in no god. That's different from not believing in a god. The position of neither believing that there is a god nor believing that there is no god is the excluded middle in the fallacy here. You don't have to believe one way or the other, you can opt out and have no belief in either regard.
Hell, most of the hard-core atheists are more obnoxious then the hard-core Christians. Either way, they both share one common trait: Both are utterly sure beyond any reasonable doubt that THEY have the RIGHT answer.
Slashdot Mirror
The benefit is not having to carry around that plastic card.
Suddenly the Guy Fawkes masks don't look so bad.
Not only that, explicit conversations with people pretending to be under 18 are illegal?
Microsoft want as many people to pay for Windows as possible. They also want as many people to use Windows as possible. These are not necessarily related.
I prefer the term unprofessional bigtop pants.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
What you have there is a sneakernet bridge between the two otherwise separate networks.
That's easy, just arrest all the people who bought biquad wifi antennae.
Slashdot can you please use UTF-8 so we can actually read the step before 4. Profit?
The hardware platform shouldn't dictate the choice of applications. It's like saying "this toolbox is smaller so it should have different tools". I don't want a different set of tools just because the toolbox is a different shape. I want the hammer and the screwdriver and the wrench in all my toolboxes.
When copyright was created it was to protect artistic work, music, writing, stories, images etc. It was designed to protect artistic endeavor.
Easily copied artworks covered by copyright law don't need protection. What is being protected is the livelihood of the artists and the incentive to generate new works.
Your strategy is to build the disaster recovery system after the disaster? What if the disaster is that when the building burns down with you in it, your systems lose their sole admin? Who do you call then?
It was the original Diablo that was dark and it was the colour in Diablo II that irked some people. This appears to be the same issue: some people want the design of Diablo not Diablo II.
Then the correct solution is for Apple to warn users about particular applications and the user chooses whether to heed those warnings, just like a phishing filter you can turn on and off.
In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel.
No. OPEC and you decide the price per barrel. By definition, nobody pays more than they are willing to, so it's reasonable to say most people are paying less than they are willing to pay. Watch the price rise next week. Watch people continue to pay.
OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve).
OPEC can influence supply. Consumers control demand.
There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption).
There are many alternatives you've chosen not to pursue. There are many choices you've made in the past and are now experiencing their outcomes. You decided to risk a livelihood that was exposed to the price of oil. You decided to live far from work in a city with poor public transport. You decided to live further than walking distance from the doctor and the grocery store. You made those choices and now you are paying for them. But you still have choices. Choose a more efficient car. Choose a motorcycle. Choose public transport. Choose to move closer to the grocery store. Choose to get a job closer to home. The longer you think you have no control over your life, the longer you will be at the mercy of others. But I think you'd still rather pay high fuel prices than make any real and difficult change to your life. It will be when the price gets much, much higher that you and many others will decide to change.
I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies!
You don't have much power to effect lower oil prices. Not even your government has much power in that regard. You can continue to rail against the evil oil companies but it won't change them. Find something else to do.
If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect. There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable. Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?
It's harder and more expensive to extract oil from the ground now. There's less of it. We're finding less of it. This is all very simple stuff. The cheap oil party is over.
Parent is a good example of ha ha only serious.
I turn my machines off if they won't be needed for a while, uptime be damned.
Using the probabilities means that at any given moment there's a 20% chance they'll be checking Lane 1 and a 30% chance they'll be checking Lane 2, but it doesn't tell you whether you should try to smuggle contraband through 1 or 2.
There's a chance that you'll still get caught in Lane 1, but it's the way to bet. Smugglers would capitalise on exactly that knowledge and lower their chance of getting caught. Do you want a search algorithm that lets them get away more often?
What essential services do you plan on providing to my recorded thoughts, ideas, and code?
Some IP holders expect police to be provided to safeguard their assets.
No homoerotic overtones? Dunking the ring, oo-err.
You've completely missed my point.
No, you've completely missed mine.
Pushing your 'lack of belief' on others is little better then the Christian fundamentalist trying to push his belief on you. I'm not accusing you specifically of doing that -- but many Atheists seem to be on a mission to "save" the world from religion and I personally find that to be very offensive. And I'm not even a particularly religious person!
See, atheists are in fact believers just of a different stripe. The belief they subscribe to is that there is no god.
Belief in a god is theism. Belief in no god is atheism. No belief in a god and no belief in no god is neither of these.
Lack of belief does not equal belief.
"The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim." -- Edsger Dijkstra
© 1979 Roger Waters
Office already saves thousands, if not millions, of documents in OOXML
Millions of documents around the world struggle with open source cancer every day. Won't someone think of the documents?
Sure about that?
Yep.
Because I've met my fair share of Atheists that are as aggressive in trying to convert people as any Christian would be.
Athiests are believers too. They believe in no god. That's different from not believing in a god. The position of neither believing that there is a god nor believing that there is no god is the excluded middle in the fallacy here. You don't have to believe one way or the other, you can opt out and have no belief in either regard.
Hell, most of the hard-core atheists are more obnoxious then the hard-core Christians. Either way, they both share one common trait: Both are utterly sure beyond any reasonable doubt that THEY have the RIGHT answer.
Lack of belief does not equal belief.
Ping 4.2.2.2 if you have a DNS problem.