The difference being that I, conceivably, have choices about the route I take to work. I don't have much choice about how my packets get routed beside the first mile (or so).
I wonder if it wouldn't be easy to abuse (read: game) the TCP ECN system. I'd think it would be very simple for a provider to route all of their traffic through a known-congested-area to generate "tolls" on most of their traffic. Sure that could drive people to use other providers, but when you may travel across a dozen providers to get from A to Google, who would be able to make that call?
I absolutely agree, nobody wants frustrated customers.
My point, however, was that given a slew of search hits which say "free" in the ad, but turn out not to be free, one might come to the conclusion that they need to pay for the kind of product for which they are looking. Thereby being not thrilled that they had to pay for it, but thinking that the only way to come by such a product is for a nominal fee.
As long as the product actually works the way I want it to work, it's unlikely that I'll be a disgruntled customer and contest the charge.
True they have to pay for the click, but it's entirely likely that after hitting several of these free-but-not-free offerings a user will resign themselves to having to pay for the software/service and become a customer.
You can pay for a lot of clicks with even one $20 sale.
No, if you lock your door with a lock that is easily pickable, then you haven't really locked your door and people can open it (read: decrypt). Nevermind that I don't believe there's a law prohibiting opening doors (though there is/was one prohibiting the decryption).
That doesn't give them permission to trespass or steal (read: copy/rip/etc) as that violates other laws.
Close, but selling a million widgets at a $126 loss equals a $126 million loss. The only way you make that up is either through licensing (paid for in the game console case by the software developers) or in up-selling (selling add-ons like games/controllers/gadgets) at VERY sustainable profit ($50+ for a console game... sheesh).
It's a lot like the "the first one's free" mantra. But for that to work you have to make sure there's a second one or you find yourself in a heap of trouble.
That's why Apple consistently sells good product at a profit; they know it'll be a while before you re-invest in their hardware. They get a little on the side from the accessories, but I'd guess they're not gouging their partners with licensing fees to make the model sustainable.
The reason no one upgrades their phone during their one (or two) year contract is because to get the latest and greatest will cost you another $300-400, for not a whole lot more functionality that was in the phone you got at the beginning of the contract.
I think the manufacturers are suffering from having a boat-load of phones with nearly the same functionality, but having to create an infinite number of models with virtually no difference between them.
The Nokia 82xx I had 4 years ago is almost identical to the 3100 I have now. The only real differences between them are GSM vs. TDMA, polyphonic ringtones and the ability to download applications to the phone (the last two at fairly outrageous prices from the carrier)
That certainly doesn't give me much incentive to pay $300 to upgrade early.
I'm surprised to see Google restricting themselves to such a small set of files. It seems to me that indexing OOo files would be easy, given that they're XML. I'd think that other mailbox formats would be available and probably easier to work with than outlook.
Somewhat disappointed.
It maybe that they'll add to that list quickly. Let's hope so.
Nobody supports forward compatibility. There is no way for anyone to know what will be in the 1.5 release to offer support for those features in the 1.4 JRE.
Backward compatibility, yes. Code written under 1.4 should run fine in a 1.5 JRE unless long deprecated methods that were removed are used in the code.
I don't think MS has any fear of "getting the hell sued out of them." They can stall the procedings until their move has crushed the competition (see all previous disputes) and then offer a token "We're sorry, we won't crush Netscape again" apology.
Getting sued (and being found to be an illegal monopoly) has hardly slowed Microsoft's tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're absolutely right. We narrowly survived the GWB that occurred in 2000 and will have lasted for 8 yea.... oh..
GRB...
Never mind.
At least until such time as we can find a country with vast resources of fiber optic cable that needs "democratizing."
The difference being that I, conceivably, have choices about the route I take to work. I don't have much choice about how my packets get routed beside the first mile (or so).
I wonder if it wouldn't be easy to abuse (read: game) the TCP ECN system. I'd think it would be very simple for a provider to route all of their traffic through a known-congested-area to generate "tolls" on most of their traffic. Sure that could drive people to use other providers, but when you may travel across a dozen providers to get from A to Google, who would be able to make that call?
... never use Google's Korean->English translation for company memos/press releases/important documents...
Seems like execs keep getting burned this way.
If WINdows Emulator = Wine, would that make OS X Emulator = OSXE (read: oh, sexy)?
You can tell the good one because it doesn't have a goatee.
I absolutely agree, nobody wants frustrated customers.
My point, however, was that given a slew of search hits which say "free" in the ad, but turn out not to be free, one might come to the conclusion that they need to pay for the kind of product for which they are looking. Thereby being not thrilled that they had to pay for it, but thinking that the only way to come by such a product is for a nominal fee.
As long as the product actually works the way I want it to work, it's unlikely that I'll be a disgruntled customer and contest the charge.
True they have to pay for the click, but it's entirely likely that after hitting several of these free-but-not-free offerings a user will resign themselves to having to pay for the software/service and become a customer.
You can pay for a lot of clicks with even one $20 sale.
No, if you lock your door with a lock that is easily pickable, then you haven't really locked your door and people can open it (read: decrypt). Nevermind that I don't believe there's a law prohibiting opening doors (though there is/was one prohibiting the decryption). That doesn't give them permission to trespass or steal (read: copy/rip/etc) as that violates other laws.
Tux500 is for the Indianapolis 500, an Indy Racing League event, not NASCAR. The Allstate 400 is the NASCAR event at the Brickyard.
Close, but selling a million widgets at a $126 loss equals a $126 million loss. The only way you make that up is either through licensing (paid for in the game console case by the software developers) or in up-selling (selling add-ons like games/controllers/gadgets) at VERY sustainable profit ($50+ for a console game... sheesh).
It's a lot like the "the first one's free" mantra. But for that to work you have to make sure there's a second one or you find yourself in a heap of trouble.
That's why Apple consistently sells good product at a profit; they know it'll be a while before you re-invest in their hardware. They get a little on the side from the accessories, but I'd guess they're not gouging their partners with licensing fees to make the model sustainable.
Why would you want a virtual ex-wife?
And how about a Future Ex-Wife Stalking service?
they SEEM to have made a prototype, but have they considered how they're going to get the muzak to be audible once they get into space?
I don't think so.
to get into LinuxCon? Otherwise guys who talk into their sleeves escort you to the door.
Or maybe I'm thinking of something else...
The reason no one upgrades their phone during their one (or two) year contract is because to get the latest and greatest will cost you another $300-400, for not a whole lot more functionality that was in the phone you got at the beginning of the contract.
I think the manufacturers are suffering from having a boat-load of phones with nearly the same functionality, but having to create an infinite number of models with virtually no difference between them.
The Nokia 82xx I had 4 years ago is almost identical to the 3100 I have now. The only real differences between them are GSM vs. TDMA, polyphonic ringtones and the ability to download applications to the phone (the last two at fairly outrageous prices from the carrier)
That certainly doesn't give me much incentive to pay $300 to upgrade early.
Does it mandate that the ad include a list of SSN's that were compromised?
(Wouldn't be surprised)
Actually... the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html
Is your in-house chef unionized? :)
I'm surprised to see Google restricting themselves to such a small set of files. It seems to me that indexing OOo files would be easy, given that they're XML. I'd think that other mailbox formats would be available and probably easier to work with than outlook.
Somewhat disappointed.
It maybe that they'll add to that list quickly. Let's hope so.
Virgin can have articles which refer to its devices as "Virgin's new iPod killer", but Apple can't really go and announce "iPod's new Virgin killer."
(at least not without some outcry from the "virgin's rights" people)
Aren't most governments relatively hostile to the US these days?
Nobody supports forward compatibility. There is no way for anyone to know what will be in the 1.5 release to offer support for those features in the 1.4 JRE.
Backward compatibility, yes. Code written under 1.4 should run fine in a 1.5 JRE unless long deprecated methods that were removed are used in the code.
Solving encryption problems, or cracking?
:-D
Quantum computing is cool, and all, but I think we're going to need more than just one electron working for us.
I bet more sales are made because people are impressed by "Now, with ColorStream!"
Now THERE's the root of the problem.
I don't think MS has any fear of "getting the hell sued out of them." They can stall the procedings until their move has crushed the competition (see all previous disputes) and then offer a token "We're sorry, we won't crush Netscape again" apology.
Getting sued (and being found to be an illegal monopoly) has hardly slowed Microsoft's tactics.