No. But you'd know that if you had bothered to look up what a 6502 was [wikipedia.org].
Except that this is Doom we're talking about, and despite its x86-centric origins, it's been ported to just about every damn platform in existence. So there's probably a version out there for a 6502-based machine, along with others for the Intel 4004, the the Colossus and for a half-broken abacus some guy found on a skip.
Though in the case of the abacus, you do need floating-point beads apparently.
I remembered this as being a separate soundcard, but I couldn't find reference to anything like that online, so I might have been wrong. Still, given that onboard audio isn't- or at least wasn't back then- generally considered to be the best (i.e. not what the audiophiles would have gone for), this seems like a strange mix. As if the valve/tube-based PCI card wouldn't have been weird enough, mind you.:-)
*I* started out by pointing out the flaw in the "monopolies don't last forever, therefore monopolies aren't a problem". You were the one who brought up the issue of monopoly legality and other issues in your reply that weren't directly relevant to my original post, and now you're complaining that *I* don't have all the answers?!
I do know what you want apparently- you want us all to accept that "monopolies are not anything other than good" (even though you yourself had to qualify this assertion immediately after you made it(!)).
I would love to be the only viable company providing this service or product.
Well, maybe you would. Of course, if you were the only "viable" company, then there would be no competition and nothing pushing you to stay "one step ahead".
I see nothing wrong with striving toward these goal and neither I think should you.
You're telling me how I *should* think about your desire to be a monopolist? This does come across as a little preachy and egotistical.
My feelings towards capitalism is that it works best when it's not tied down too much (giving it no reason to make the effort nor space to make the effort it)- but also when it's not allowed to run amok with no check on its own self-interest. I don't trust anyone that far, even if *they* think (or claim) that they're entirely benevolant.
Yes, I'm well aware of this. The post of mine you were ostensibly replying to had nothing to do with that, mentioning nothing- not even by implication- about the current legality or illegality of monopolies... because that wasn't what was being discussed!
Quite why you chose to post the above in "response" then is unclear, as it's bordering on a non-sequiteur in the context of my original comment.
Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
What about them? Are they doing something wrong? If not....
You appear to have missed the point, which is strange as I had included your original quote to make the context clear.
You asserted that "other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well". I provided a counterexample.
What would you suggest? Dismantle the company before it can do anything wrong solely because it made the investment and succeeded?
Pour taxpayer funds to start a competitive company? Again.
That was your suggestion not mine. I don't claim to have all the answers, but your assertion (as is often argued by those in your position) that anti-monopolistic actions are being taken *because* the company succeeded (or as some others have gone so far as to suggest, to punish them for this success) is missing the point. Regardless of how a company got there, the (potential) issue is that the company is a monopoly and in situations where that isn't desirable... it isn't desirable.
The opposite of the "punishment" argument is the sort-of-implication by some that companies should be allowed to retain their position- even if that would otherwise be considered not desirable- as some sort of reward for doing well, or pioneering or whatever. But viewing it in terms of punishment and prize, either way is missing the point.
If they are serving the customer and not doing anything illegal then I am cool with it.
By definition "illegal" doesn't say anything about the way things should or shouldn't be, only the way the existing laws are set up. Saying you're not bothered because they're not doing anything illegal or (later on) "not a crime" is somewhat circular and pointless(!)
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better. This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them. Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
Not a crime. No problem here.
Again, you appear to have missed the point. Your originally implied that if there's a monopoly (e.g. Google) then any potential competition (e.g. Microsoft) will up their game and work harder and "This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better."
I provided a counter-example.
If they are being abusive then people can choose to stay or go. Facebook is not a need.
This again is where you get naive. In a society where the majority of people are using Facebook, where social interaction increasingly takes place through Facebook, where not having or not using Facebook means that you are left out of important parts of interaction with that society (even in a non-work context) and placed at a disadvantage... where does one draw the line between a luxury and a need?
And yes, I *do* consider non-essential, non-work-related social interaction a "need" to some ext
Monopolies are not anything other than good. The only times a monopoly is bad is when...
The problem with saying something so ludicrously OTT like "monopolies are not anything other than good" is that you then sound like you're contradicting yourself in your next sentence. "Monopolies are generally good except when..." would have sounded more level, but would not have let you express your apparent love of monopolies(!)
Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better.
This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them. Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
If not, does this then make it desirable that I have no real choice if I wish to use a social network (the whole point being to use the one that everyone else uses) despite Facebook's laughably bad-faith approach to privacy?
Clicked on the link out of curiosity, got a splash screen that looked like it was designed in the 90s. (*) Anyway, clicked on the "Click here to enter the CheapBytes store" and I got...
Great Success !
Apache is working on your cPanel® and WHM Server
If you can see this page, then the people who manage this server have installed cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM)
So are they still trading or is this just a zombie remnant? Guessing that their business would have shrunk quite a lot since the days when everyone was on dialup and you'd have had to be on crack to consider downloading even a CD's worth, let alone a DVD. (Used to order Linux discs quite a lot myself, haven't done it since I got broadband.)
(*) Come to think of it, old-style splash-screens-for-the-sake-of-it (and people thinking they were actually a good idea even when they were obviously just irritating corporate-ego "look at me" wankery that got in the way) are pretty 90s in themselves.
So. If I make something really fucking cool that people all want then I suck?
That's both putting words in my mouth to the point of strawmanning *and* missing the point of what I was saying.
The point I was replying to (more in general than specifically to what the OP said) was the suggestion that monopolies are okay because they don't last forever, i.e. implicit in this is that monopolies would be a bad thing if they lasted forever, but they're don't, so that's okay. Which, as I pointed out, doesn't make it all okay at all.
However, since you raised the issue, I'd say that although they do have some advantages, I do not consider monopolies in general to be particularly desirable. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" monopolies, but there are also a lot of bad ones. And when one company has dominance over the market, there is still the tendency for things to be have to be done according to their philosophy, even if they're acting entirely in good faith and not being "abusive".
And, of course, there is always the potential for a "good" monopoly (or one that is seen as good at one point) to turn bad- or be turned bad by new bosses or owners. Remember a few years back when Google was already dominating the market, yet also the darling of Slashdotters and could do no wrong? A few years on, the even-more-dominant Google, while not yet the "big bad", has lost the uncritical love of the fanbase due to increasing concerns over privacy and dominance issues.
BTW both those companies are good examples of how no monopoly lasts forever.
This argument always grates with me, as if the fact that no monopoly (or anything else in existence) lasts forever somehow makes it okay. Firstly, it can still last a *damn* long time and hold things back for a significant part of one's lifetime. Secondly, in a lot of these cases, one monopoly can be (and frequently is) replaced by another soon after- something that is often touched upon or even accepted by those making that argument, yet with the assumption that this is somehow okay and significantly better than a single, long-lived monopoly.
Well, it's not. The fact that a monopoly might eventually fall when one is old and grey, only to be replaced with another monopoly (yay!) is a piss-poor substitute for a proper balanced and free market.
You underestimate the resilience of the masses to abuse. The sheep won't leave their pasture no matter how much they are beat and sheared...
Yes, but do bear in mind that "that pasture" they want to stay in can extend to *specific* versions of Windows. The great mass of Windows XP users didn't jump to Windows Vista when MS would have liked them to (admittedly that was because Vista was shite) and it was only some time after the launch of Windows 7 that they started to seriously move away, around 10 years after XP first came out.
I don't know about you, but who on earth remembers what all those resolution acronyms actually mean off the top of their head?
Scrolling down the list I come across QSXGA, FWVGA, WHUXGA..... I mean, WHUXGA sounds like a province in China or something. There's probably a systematic set of rules, but it doesn't make the names any more helpful-looking for non-autistic people:-/
Just because you pasted the Wikipedia info after your rant
You can try to paint my level statement of fact a "rant" all you like, doesn't make it true.:-P I'd have said the OP's misguided whine was closer to a rant if that's what you were looking for.
doesn't mean that it actually happened in that order
The implication being that I looked up the meaning on Wikipedia and then wrote the intro? But if I hadn't known that in the first place, I wouldn't have known that the OP was talking out of his backside and hence felt the need to reply, let alone look up WP to back up what I said. (^_^)
And FWIW, it wasn't meant to show how smart I am- on the contrary, it was meant to show that the mass of "people" the OP was whining about misusing the term were the ones who knew what they were talking about and the OP him/herself was the idiot.:-)
Placing the burden of proof on someone to prove they aren't renouncing for tax purposes is ridiculous, and possibly unconstitutional.
Not disagreeing with you, but you have to admit it'd be hilariously ironic for someone wanting to renounce their citizenship- and hence the protection and rights offered by the US constitution- to be relying on that same constitution to do so.:-)
I'm sick of people using the word hipster in a derogatory way. What is a hipster? There's only one valid definition.
A hipster is someone you perceive to be cooler than you.
You can say that all you like, it doesn't make it true. I'd always understood a "hipster" to be one who appropriates and cheapens symbols of authenticity by using them as the ultimate in inauthentic fashion symbols- then discards them when such usage dares to become too popular.
And it looks like I was more right than you... From Wikipedia:-
Christian Lorentzen of Time Out New York argues that "hipsterism fetishizes the authentic" elements of all of the "fringe movements of the postwar eraâ"beat, hippie, punk, even grunge," and draws on the "cultural stores of every unmelted ethnicity," and "regurgitates it with a winking inauthenticity."
Pedantically speaking, it's only since 2004 that "ITV" has referred to a specific *company* (i.e. "ITV plc").
Originally, "ITV" referred to the UK-wide *network* made up of separate local independent television franchises (e.g. Yorkshire Television for Yorkshire, Grampian Television for North Scotland, etc.) that started in the mid-50s. (In fact, I remember hearing somewhere that the term "ITV" to refer to this didn't come until later on). From the 90s onwards the government allowed those companies to merge, eventually resulting in a single behemoth that renamed itself "ITV plc" (and its original stations all being rebranded "ITV1") after the original network.
ITV as a network- distinct from the ITV plc company- still exists, as there are two other much smaller franchisees (UTV and STV) remaining, though they still use their own names. But regardless, the "ITV" name has been in use a long time.
tl;dr version- ITV was originally the network, not the companies, but since most of those companies merged, the owners now use the ITV name too.
Clearly, which is why Apple will subsequently argue that they should be given the iTV trademark in the UK as well.
Er... nope, don't be silly. They wouldn't bother arguing that- at least not to a UK court- because the existing users would be able to show easily that they were using it long before "iTV" was a glint in Apple's eye.
Might be able to use the name outside the UK, but if they were going to do that, they'd probably already have done it for the orignal Apple TV units which were also known as "iTV" before launch.
The difference here being that rather than some minor semi-abandoned product like "iPhone", the "ITV" name is in active and major use as one of the UK's major television networks and hence far more problematic. Even if ITV weren't profiteering and merely sought payment of what it would cost them in terms of name recognition and brand value to ditch the "ITV" name in the UK, it would probably work out *way* higher.
They might figure out a deal, but since- as I mentioned above- the original Apple TV (1G and 2G) had *their* names changed from iTV before launch, Apple must have decided it wasn't worth it then, so why would they do it this time?
With the total market cap if iTV being 3%-4% of Apple's current value - yes, I believe the can. If Zuck dropped $1E9 on instagram, i think Apple can do 3x that on a company with actual revenue.
Though it will probably be an Apple TV, not an iTV.
Well, exactly. The existing Apple TV units (first and second generation) were also known as "iTV" before they hit the market too- which makes the "[rumoured forthcoming unit being] dubbed iTV by Apple watchers" somewhat silly and confusing.
Bottom line is that they changed the name due to problems with the iTV/ITV trademark before, and if it was a big enough deal then I don't see anything that's changed to make things different this time round.
I'm sure that they could probably buy the.com domain if they offered ITV plc enough money, and even persuade them to ditch international use of the "ITV Productions" brand. However, it would probably cost them a *lot* more to get them to abandon the "ITV" name completely, since it's very well known in Britain, and they'd risk losing audience share (and hence a lot of money) if they changed their name. Yeah, it's stupid, but it's well known that a lot of programmes will get significantly lower audiences if they go out on (e.g.) BBC2 or Channel 5 instead of BBC1 or ITV1.
They could possibly use the "iTV" name outside the UK, but if they'd thought that was an option, they'd probably have done that already for the current Apple TV units.
Oh, I'm not suggesting that this was dishonesty so much as an unseemly willingness to bend over backwards and do whatever the Olympic Committee asked them to do, including pandering to a disgusting extent to the Olympics' naked commercialism by passing *laws* that protected their sponsors' interests.
There was some b******t about how Britain would supposedly make a profit on the Olympics, but anyone with half a brain who's looked at their history can figure out that this is nonsense perpetrated by the same politicians who wanted the Olympics for their own egos. In truth, it's going to be an obscenely expensive indulgence for them with little to show for it afterwards except lots of white elephant stadiums and a massive bill.
I've nothing against the core principle of the Olympics- the sporting event. But the obscene cost and the disgusting amount of commercialism surrounding it, combined with the fact that it's yet more London-centric, South-East-England-promoting crap that everyone in the rest of the UK is going to pay for anyway *really* turned me against it.
They're going to get buried into history if they don't stop this cheap soap-opera with the CEO(s)... The internet changes much faster than the real world. One day you're at the top, tomorrow you're nobody: there once was a site called myspace, and the rest is history:)
Yeah, but bear in mind that Yahoo aren't really a "flavour of the month" company... and haven't been for *well over a decade* now. I always had the perception that (despite having tried some new stuff) fundamentally they hadn't really moved on or gone anywhere since their portal-fad dotcom-era incarnation. To me, they have the air of a "legacy" company still stuck in the late 90s, a long-stagnant dinosaur that didn't seem to go anywhere much after Google stole their thunder in the aftermath of the dotcom era.
And my point is that despite this.... they're still worth loads. They've been yesterday's men, once-leaders who were overtaken, for over a decade now, and yet they're still way up there... so I wouldn't write them off, or at least assume that they're going to do a MySpace within 18 months or whatever.
I'm guessing a lot of Yahoo's success is down to existing (i.e. "legacy") users- AFAIK Yahoo Mail still has a surprisingly large and established user base. Probably *not* "fashionable" computer users, but more conservative, less tech-savvy types who stick with them out of momentum and lack of interest in changing- but that of course is a good thing for Yahoo in many respects!
It's certainly not ethical, and could be argued as fraud since you're not demonstrating the normal operation of the traffic grid.
Given the amount of special treatment they've given to Olympic transport (e.g. their own special lanes), this was probably quite representative of what they could expect. Frankly, when they found out the car they were being driven around in wasn't made by one of the officially-permitted Olympic sponsors, the guide probably agreed to have it set on fire and a new £250,000 replacement delivered from the nearest appropriate dealership pronto.
Look, just because his name is similar to other first-posting newly created account names accused of being MS shills (TechNY/TechLA), the account was created just yesterday and he only made pro-MS and anti-Google postings since then doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean anything at all...
The question is whether this behaviour is actually shilling, or just a troll wanting to wind people up by making them think he's shilling (badly). I suspect the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
Except to use this browser you apparently have to run it as a plugin inside another browser.
Some guy called "Eck Zibit" or something just called. He was saying something about "yo' dog"... do you know anything about this?
No. But you'd know that if you had bothered to look up what a 6502 was [wikipedia.org].
Except that this is Doom we're talking about, and despite its x86-centric origins, it's been ported to just about every damn platform in existence. So there's probably a version out there for a 6502-based machine, along with others for the Intel 4004, the the Colossus and for a half-broken abacus some guy found on a skip.
Though in the case of the abacus, you do need floating-point beads apparently.
Now I can have a tube amp in my mp3 player.
Well, they released a motherboard around a decade back with integrated vacuum tube based audio.
:-)
I remembered this as being a separate soundcard, but I couldn't find reference to anything like that online, so I might have been wrong. Still, given that onboard audio isn't- or at least wasn't back then- generally considered to be the best (i.e. not what the audiophiles would have gone for), this seems like a strange mix. As if the valve/tube-based PCI card wouldn't have been weird enough, mind you.
I really have no idea what you want.
*I* started out by pointing out the flaw in the "monopolies don't last forever, therefore monopolies aren't a problem". You were the one who brought up the issue of monopoly legality and other issues in your reply that weren't directly relevant to my original post, and now you're complaining that *I* don't have all the answers?!
I do know what you want apparently- you want us all to accept that "monopolies are not anything other than good" (even though you yourself had to qualify this assertion immediately after you made it(!)).
I would love to be the only viable company providing this service or product.
Well, maybe you would. Of course, if you were the only "viable" company, then there would be no competition and nothing pushing you to stay "one step ahead".
I see nothing wrong with striving toward these goal and neither I think should you.
You're telling me how I *should* think about your desire to be a monopolist? This does come across as a little preachy and egotistical.
My feelings towards capitalism is that it works best when it's not tied down too much (giving it no reason to make the effort nor space to make the effort it)- but also when it's not allowed to run amok with no check on its own self-interest. I don't trust anyone that far, even if *they* think (or claim) that they're entirely benevolant.
Monopolies are NOT illegal.
Yes, I'm well aware of this. The post of mine you were ostensibly replying to had nothing to do with that, mentioning nothing- not even by implication- about the current legality or illegality of monopolies... because that wasn't what was being discussed!
Quite why you chose to post the above in "response" then is unclear, as it's bordering on a non-sequiteur in the context of my original comment.
Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
What about them? Are they doing something wrong? If not....
You appear to have missed the point, which is strange as I had included your original quote to make the context clear. You asserted that "other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well ". I provided a counterexample.
What would you suggest? Dismantle the company before it can do anything wrong solely because it made the investment and succeeded?
Pour taxpayer funds to start a competitive company? Again.
That was your suggestion not mine. I don't claim to have all the answers, but your assertion (as is often argued by those in your position) that anti-monopolistic actions are being taken *because* the company succeeded (or as some others have gone so far as to suggest, to punish them for this success) is missing the point. Regardless of how a company got there, the (potential) issue is that the company is a monopoly and in situations where that isn't desirable... it isn't desirable.
The opposite of the "punishment" argument is the sort-of-implication by some that companies should be allowed to retain their position- even if that would otherwise be considered not desirable- as some sort of reward for doing well, or pioneering or whatever. But viewing it in terms of punishment and prize, either way is missing the point.
If they are serving the customer and not doing anything illegal then I am cool with it.
By definition "illegal" doesn't say anything about the way things should or shouldn't be, only the way the existing laws are set up. Saying you're not bothered because they're not doing anything illegal or (later on) "not a crime" is somewhat circular and pointless(!)
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better. This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale? Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them. Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
Not a crime. No problem here.
Again, you appear to have missed the point. Your originally implied that if there's a monopoly (e.g. Google) then any potential competition (e.g. Microsoft) will up their game and work harder and "This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better."
I provided a counter-example.
If they are being abusive then people can choose to stay or go. Facebook is not a need.
This again is where you get naive. In a society where the majority of people are using Facebook, where social interaction increasingly takes place through Facebook, where not having or not using Facebook means that you are left out of important parts of interaction with that society (even in a non-work context) and placed at a disadvantage... where does one draw the line between a luxury and a need?
And yes, I *do* consider non-essential, non-work-related social interaction a "need" to some ext
Monopolies are not anything other than good. The only times a monopoly is bad is when...
The problem with saying something so ludicrously OTT like "monopolies are not anything other than good" is that you then sound like you're contradicting yourself in your next sentence. "Monopolies are generally good except when..." would have sounded more level, but would not have let you express your apparent love of monopolies(!)
Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better. This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them. Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
If not, does this then make it desirable that I have no real choice if I wish to use a social network (the whole point being to use the one that everyone else uses) despite Facebook's laughably bad-faith approach to privacy?
I got mine in 1999 from Cheapbytes: http://www.cheapbytes.com/
Clicked on the link out of curiosity, got a splash screen that looked like it was designed in the 90s. (*) Anyway, clicked on the "Click here to enter the CheapBytes store" and I got...
Great Success !
Apache is working on your cPanel® and WHM Server
If you can see this page, then the people who manage this server have installed cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM)
So are they still trading or is this just a zombie remnant? Guessing that their business would have shrunk quite a lot since the days when everyone was on dialup and you'd have had to be on crack to consider downloading even a CD's worth, let alone a DVD. (Used to order Linux discs quite a lot myself, haven't done it since I got broadband.)
(*) Come to think of it, old-style splash-screens-for-the-sake-of-it (and people thinking they were actually a good idea even when they were obviously just irritating corporate-ego "look at me" wankery that got in the way) are pretty 90s in themselves.
So. If I make something really fucking cool that people all want then I suck?
That's both putting words in my mouth to the point of strawmanning *and* missing the point of what I was saying.
The point I was replying to (more in general than specifically to what the OP said) was the suggestion that monopolies are okay because they don't last forever, i.e. implicit in this is that monopolies would be a bad thing if they lasted forever, but they're don't, so that's okay. Which, as I pointed out, doesn't make it all okay at all.
However, since you raised the issue, I'd say that although they do have some advantages, I do not consider monopolies in general to be particularly desirable. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" monopolies, but there are also a lot of bad ones. And when one company has dominance over the market, there is still the tendency for things to be have to be done according to their philosophy, even if they're acting entirely in good faith and not being "abusive".
And, of course, there is always the potential for a "good" monopoly (or one that is seen as good at one point) to turn bad- or be turned bad by new bosses or owners. Remember a few years back when Google was already dominating the market, yet also the darling of Slashdotters and could do no wrong? A few years on, the even-more-dominant Google, while not yet the "big bad", has lost the uncritical love of the fanbase due to increasing concerns over privacy and dominance issues.
BTW both those companies are good examples of how no monopoly lasts forever.
This argument always grates with me, as if the fact that no monopoly (or anything else in existence) lasts forever somehow makes it okay. Firstly, it can still last a *damn* long time and hold things back for a significant part of one's lifetime. Secondly, in a lot of these cases, one monopoly can be (and frequently is) replaced by another soon after- something that is often touched upon or even accepted by those making that argument, yet with the assumption that this is somehow okay and significantly better than a single, long-lived monopoly.
Well, it's not. The fact that a monopoly might eventually fall when one is old and grey, only to be replaced with another monopoly (yay!) is a piss-poor substitute for a proper balanced and free market.
You underestimate the resilience of the masses to abuse. The sheep won't leave their pasture no matter how much they are beat and sheared...
Yes, but do bear in mind that "that pasture" they want to stay in can extend to *specific* versions of Windows. The great mass of Windows XP users didn't jump to Windows Vista when MS would have liked them to (admittedly that was because Vista was shite) and it was only some time after the launch of Windows 7 that they started to seriously move away, around 10 years after XP first came out.
they no longer offer WUXGA+
I don't know about you, but who on earth remembers what all those resolution acronyms actually mean off the top of their head?
:-/
Scrolling down the list I come across QSXGA, FWVGA, WHUXGA..... I mean, WHUXGA sounds like a province in China or something. There's probably a systematic set of rules, but it doesn't make the names any more helpful-looking for non-autistic people
Just because you pasted the Wikipedia info after your rant
You can try to paint my level statement of fact a "rant" all you like, doesn't make it true. :-P I'd have said the OP's misguided whine was closer to a rant if that's what you were looking for.
doesn't mean that it actually happened in that order
The implication being that I looked up the meaning on Wikipedia and then wrote the intro? But if I hadn't known that in the first place, I wouldn't have known that the OP was talking out of his backside and hence felt the need to reply, let alone look up WP to back up what I said. (^_^)
:-)
And FWIW, it wasn't meant to show how smart I am- on the contrary, it was meant to show that the mass of "people" the OP was whining about misusing the term were the ones who knew what they were talking about and the OP him/herself was the idiot.
Placing the burden of proof on someone to prove they aren't renouncing for tax purposes is ridiculous, and possibly unconstitutional.
Not disagreeing with you, but you have to admit it'd be hilariously ironic for someone wanting to renounce their citizenship- and hence the protection and rights offered by the US constitution- to be relying on that same constitution to do so. :-)
I'm sick of people using the word hipster in a derogatory way. What is a hipster? There's only one valid definition. A hipster is someone you perceive to be cooler than you.
You can say that all you like, it doesn't make it true. I'd always understood a "hipster" to be one who appropriates and cheapens symbols of authenticity by using them as the ultimate in inauthentic fashion symbols- then discards them when such usage dares to become too popular.
And it looks like I was more right than you... From Wikipedia:-
Christian Lorentzen of Time Out New York argues that "hipsterism fetishizes the authentic" elements of all of the "fringe movements of the postwar eraâ"beat, hippie, punk, even grunge," and draws on the "cultural stores of every unmelted ethnicity," and "regurgitates it with a winking inauthenticity."
[ITV has] been a UK TV company since like forever
Pedantically speaking, it's only since 2004 that "ITV" has referred to a specific *company* (i.e. "ITV plc").
Originally, "ITV" referred to the UK-wide *network* made up of separate local independent television franchises (e.g. Yorkshire Television for Yorkshire, Grampian Television for North Scotland, etc.) that started in the mid-50s. (In fact, I remember hearing somewhere that the term "ITV" to refer to this didn't come until later on). From the 90s onwards the government allowed those companies to merge, eventually resulting in a single behemoth that renamed itself "ITV plc" (and its original stations all being rebranded "ITV1") after the original network.
ITV as a network- distinct from the ITV plc company- still exists, as there are two other much smaller franchisees (UTV and STV) remaining, though they still use their own names. But regardless, the "ITV" name has been in use a long time.
tl;dr version- ITV was originally the network, not the companies, but since most of those companies merged, the owners now use the ITV name too.
Clearly, which is why Apple will subsequently argue that they should be given the iTV trademark in the UK as well.
Er... nope, don't be silly. They wouldn't bother arguing that- at least not to a UK court- because the existing users would be able to show easily that they were using it long before "iTV" was a glint in Apple's eye.
Might be able to use the name outside the UK, but if they were going to do that, they'd probably already have done it for the orignal Apple TV units which were also known as "iTV" before launch.
The difference here being that rather than some minor semi-abandoned product like "iPhone", the "ITV" name is in active and major use as one of the UK's major television networks and hence far more problematic. Even if ITV weren't profiteering and merely sought payment of what it would cost them in terms of name recognition and brand value to ditch the "ITV" name in the UK, it would probably work out *way* higher.
They might figure out a deal, but since- as I mentioned above- the original Apple TV (1G and 2G) had *their* names changed from iTV before launch, Apple must have decided it wasn't worth it then, so why would they do it this time?
With the total market cap if iTV being 3%-4% of Apple's current value - yes, I believe the can. If Zuck dropped $1E9 on instagram, i think Apple can do 3x that on a company with actual revenue. Though it will probably be an Apple TV, not an iTV.
Well, exactly. The existing Apple TV units (first and second generation) were also known as "iTV" before they hit the market too- which makes the "[rumoured forthcoming unit being] dubbed iTV by Apple watchers" somewhat silly and confusing.
.com domain if they offered ITV plc enough money, and even persuade them to ditch international use of the "ITV Productions" brand. However, it would probably cost them a *lot* more to get them to abandon the "ITV" name completely, since it's very well known in Britain, and they'd risk losing audience share (and hence a lot of money) if they changed their name. Yeah, it's stupid, but it's well known that a lot of programmes will get significantly lower audiences if they go out on (e.g.) BBC2 or Channel 5 instead of BBC1 or ITV1.
Bottom line is that they changed the name due to problems with the iTV/ITV trademark before, and if it was a big enough deal then I don't see anything that's changed to make things different this time round.
I'm sure that they could probably buy the
They could possibly use the "iTV" name outside the UK, but if they'd thought that was an option, they'd probably have done that already for the current Apple TV units.
Oh, I'm not suggesting that this was dishonesty so much as an unseemly willingness to bend over backwards and do whatever the Olympic Committee asked them to do, including pandering to a disgusting extent to the Olympics' naked commercialism by passing *laws* that protected their sponsors' interests.
There was some b******t about how Britain would supposedly make a profit on the Olympics, but anyone with half a brain who's looked at their history can figure out that this is nonsense perpetrated by the same politicians who wanted the Olympics for their own egos. In truth, it's going to be an obscenely expensive indulgence for them with little to show for it afterwards except lots of white elephant stadiums and a massive bill.
I've nothing against the core principle of the Olympics- the sporting event. But the obscene cost and the disgusting amount of commercialism surrounding it, combined with the fact that it's yet more London-centric, South-East-England-promoting crap that everyone in the rest of the UK is going to pay for anyway *really* turned me against it.
They're going to get buried into history if they don't stop this cheap soap-opera with the CEO(s)... The internet changes much faster than the real world. One day you're at the top, tomorrow you're nobody: there once was a site called myspace, and the rest is history :)
Yeah, but bear in mind that Yahoo aren't really a "flavour of the month" company... and haven't been for *well over a decade* now. I always had the perception that (despite having tried some new stuff) fundamentally they hadn't really moved on or gone anywhere since their portal-fad dotcom-era incarnation. To me, they have the air of a "legacy" company still stuck in the late 90s, a long-stagnant dinosaur that didn't seem to go anywhere much after Google stole their thunder in the aftermath of the dotcom era.
.... they're still worth loads. They've been yesterday's men, once-leaders who were overtaken, for over a decade now, and yet they're still way up there... so I wouldn't write them off, or at least assume that they're going to do a MySpace within 18 months or whatever.
And my point is that despite this
I'm guessing a lot of Yahoo's success is down to existing (i.e. "legacy") users- AFAIK Yahoo Mail still has a surprisingly large and established user base. Probably *not* "fashionable" computer users, but more conservative, less tech-savvy types who stick with them out of momentum and lack of interest in changing- but that of course is a good thing for Yahoo in many respects!
It's certainly not ethical, and could be argued as fraud since you're not demonstrating the normal operation of the traffic grid.
Given the amount of special treatment they've given to Olympic transport (e.g. their own special lanes), this was probably quite representative of what they could expect. Frankly, when they found out the car they were being driven around in wasn't made by one of the officially-permitted Olympic sponsors, the guide probably agreed to have it set on fire and a new £250,000 replacement delivered from the nearest appropriate dealership pronto.
Cats thoughts: Kill the human? No, need food, human bad to eat. Kill the human? No, need catnip. Kill the human? No, need water.
More likely- "Kill the human? No, way too big."
You bet he did!
Look, just because his name is similar to other first-posting newly created account names accused of being MS shills (TechNY/TechLA), the account was created just yesterday and he only made pro-MS and anti-Google postings since then doesn't mean anything. Doesn't mean anything at all ...
The question is whether this behaviour is actually shilling, or just a troll wanting to wind people up by making them think he's shilling (badly). I suspect the latter.