Depends on the pricing structure going forward. If the cost remains reasonable over time, then sure. If they expect us to spend an hundred and a half for Pro every year, then no. I read somewhere that M$ has wanted to go to a subscription model for some time now. It appears that this is the latest attempt at that business model.
Put succinctly, it works for Ubuntu because updates are free. It works for OSX because OSX major releases are approx 1/3 the cost of Windows major releases. If Microsoft wants to adopt either of those models, then fine. No objection. But if so, that would be very non-traditional of them. It seems unlikely to me.
Are there major-studio feature films without any sort of product placement anymore?
I can endure product placement if it doesn't hold up the film. But a 30 second pause on a can of Pepsi, unless it's *really really* germane to the plot and the director's artistic integrity, is probably not going to fly.
Incidentally, anyone remember Better Off Ted? They had hilarious commercials for bogus products.
5) Users bail when the video loads and it's a commercial that can not be skipped.
Because unwanted, unskippable commercials are exactly like a pause before the video starts equal to the number of seconds the commercial plays. (See (1).)
I find this curious. Open source business models have been around for awhile. There will always be idiots out there (or people who demand everything for free, because, you know, everything should be free) but open source business models -- the bits are free but official support costs, or in some cases compiled binaries for a particular platform costs -- have been around for more than a decade. You'd think word had gotten around by now.
So my question would be, not that these people exist -- clearly they do -- or their numbers may be increasing -- I'll grant that as well -- but is the percentage significant vs your total installed base? Perhaps all that's necessary is a bit of damage control -- strategic marketing -- reiterating your position that the product is free, but official support costs, along with an easy and obvious way to sign up for support.
That said, there is almost always unofficial support (forums and the like) for open source products. Sometimes, one or two support persons from the company in question participate, occasionally shedding light on the tougher problems, or identifying real bugs that are in the works or fixed in later versions. The idea being, you might find some measure of unofficial support on the net, but if your business depends on the product to some significant degree, a service contract should be justifiable to whomever signs the checks.
Should be: Is Intel Planning To Kill Enthusiast Intel PCs?
From TFA: "Unfortunately Intel doesn’t care about the enthusiast, and unsurprisingly they have moved on." Can I getta Like Duh? "Like, Duh!"
I woudn't expect enthusiasts, whatever the author means by that, to be much of a percentage overall, but this does seem to be a business opportunity for someone.
A technical question to which I didn't see the answer in TFA: Even chips that are intended to be soldered to the board (probably some variation of current surface mount techniques) can be mounted in (sometimes specialized) sockets. This raises the question, is something in Intel's business agreements requiring MB manufacturers to solder the chips to the board?
And finally, I don't see where this makes much difference to the rank and file. Computer components have gotten cheap enough that it's fairly common to put the fastest or near-fastest currently available proc in the board to start with, as upgrade protection. And then, when you need more grunt, you'll increasingly find that no new procs were ever developed for that chipset, so you need to upgrade the motherboard again anyway. Besides, other than gamers and specialized applications (photo and video manipulation for instance) most people have more resources than they can really use even with the cheapest currently available motherboard/cpu combo.
I think some would argue that there is a right to remember. The Wayback Machine, for instance, has been instrumental in proving corporate malfeasance. Do we really want to lose that?
...on campus freedom. You get what you can take, and it's always hardest for the first one. If a substantial number of students follow suit, the administration is done.
> I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"?
Good point. I wasn't. I probably wouldn't ever have even known about it had it not been for this article. And I'm really having a hard time... caring.
> Poker machines are morally disgusting. They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
You're absolutely right, but we have a choice not to use them. One can't stop people voluntarily destroying themselves, and I'm not sure we even have the moral obligation to try.
A good discussion, but my position continues to be that free speech is not something you are granted, it's something you take. By definition.
Example: The students in this area staged a "hug out" a couple years ago to protest the banning of public displays of affection at school. Students would greet by hugging, hold hands going to class, and so forth. Three local high schools participated. The students were in danger of getting suspended or expelled, but continued anyway. And, eventually, got the rules changed.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how freedom works. If you're waiting to get permission to be free, you've already lost. Yes, it's hazardous. Anything worthwhile usually is.
She has a collection of tutus which she incorporates into her daily dress, but in more edgy fashion, with belly shirts and faux hawk. (It's an art magnet school with no real dress code.)
I've had to get used to her mode of dress (seems way to skimpy to me, but I suppose all dads say that) but I'm a little old-school regarding self-defense, probably because I was picked on in high school. Early on, I made it plain that if she's defending herself or a friend, I will stand up for her no matter what. But if she hit someone and it wasn't in self defense or the defense of others, she'll have to deal with the school *and* with me. So far it's worked out -- she had two incidents early on, was cleared both times, and then nothing after that. I don't remember if she was wearing a tutu at the time, but it's possible.:-)
So, the responses I'm getting makes it pretty clear why these packages are not available natively on Linux. You-all are willing to make do with running Windows virtually or through emulation to get your Windows apps. What I'm saying is that I want to be completely and utterly done with Windows, not just run it in a window. The fact that the apps *are* Windows apps *is* the problem. If we're serious about getting off Windows for good, the apps we use need to run natively. Else we're just fooling ourselves about our geeky OS independence. The Steam people have the right idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It works for Ubuntu.
It works for OS X.
Why wouldn't it work for Windows?
Depends on the pricing structure going forward. If the cost remains reasonable over time, then sure. If they expect us to spend an hundred and a half for Pro every year, then no. I read somewhere that M$ has wanted to go to a subscription model for some time now. It appears that this is the latest attempt at that business model.
Put succinctly, it works for Ubuntu because updates are free. It works for OSX because OSX major releases are approx 1/3 the cost of Windows major releases. If Microsoft wants to adopt either of those models, then fine. No objection. But if so, that would be very non-traditional of them. It seems unlikely to me.
Why does the input air need to be chilled? Does this have something to do with using hydrogen in a turbine engine?
Covered here. It's actually an interesting read. Put succinctly, as speed increases, the temperature of the air increases, reducing efficiency.
Hmm. Looks like kinda a mash-up of Serenity and the Pan Am Space Clipper.
(Is it too late to say "geek alert"?)
We're renaming service packs as major releases now?
Or, a 5 second commercial BEFORE the 30 second commercial starts. "Your content will start in a moment." And "your content" is a COMMERCIAL.
Or worse than that, "Get your Depends and all of your incontinence products delivered discretely from home! Just go to hdis.com! Nobody has to know!"
And that works for in-line commercials that are part of the video? I'm not talking those annoying video ads on the side of the frame.
I skip all videos with ads
Are there major-studio feature films without any sort of product placement anymore?
I can endure product placement if it doesn't hold up the film. But a 30 second pause on a can of Pepsi, unless it's *really really* germane to the plot and the director's artistic integrity, is probably not going to fly.
Incidentally, anyone remember Better Off Ted? They had hilarious commercials for bogus products.
5) Users bail when the video loads and it's a commercial that can not be skipped.
Because unwanted, unskippable commercials are exactly like a pause before the video starts equal to the number of seconds the commercial plays. (See (1).)
1) Create a web presence.
2) Have a sock monkey libel you
2a) (Google indexes the libelous site, as they do everything.)
3) Sue Google
4) $$Profit!!
I find this curious. Open source business models have been around for awhile. There will always be idiots out there (or people who demand everything for free, because, you know, everything should be free) but open source business models -- the bits are free but official support costs, or in some cases compiled binaries for a particular platform costs -- have been around for more than a decade. You'd think word had gotten around by now.
So my question would be, not that these people exist -- clearly they do -- or their numbers may be increasing -- I'll grant that as well -- but is the percentage significant vs your total installed base? Perhaps all that's necessary is a bit of damage control -- strategic marketing -- reiterating your position that the product is free, but official support costs, along with an easy and obvious way to sign up for support.
That said, there is almost always unofficial support (forums and the like) for open source products. Sometimes, one or two support persons from the company in question participate, occasionally shedding light on the tougher problems, or identifying real bugs that are in the works or fixed in later versions. The idea being, you might find some measure of unofficial support on the net, but if your business depends on the product to some significant degree, a service contract should be justifiable to whomever signs the checks.
Should be: Is Intel Planning To Kill Enthusiast Intel PCs?
From TFA: "Unfortunately Intel doesn’t care about the enthusiast, and unsurprisingly they have moved on." Can I getta Like Duh? "Like, Duh!"
I woudn't expect enthusiasts, whatever the author means by that, to be much of a percentage overall, but this does seem to be a business opportunity for someone.
A technical question to which I didn't see the answer in TFA: Even chips that are intended to be soldered to the board (probably some variation of current surface mount techniques) can be mounted in (sometimes specialized) sockets. This raises the question, is something in Intel's business agreements requiring MB manufacturers to solder the chips to the board?
And finally, I don't see where this makes much difference to the rank and file. Computer components have gotten cheap enough that it's fairly common to put the fastest or near-fastest currently available proc in the board to start with, as upgrade protection. And then, when you need more grunt, you'll increasingly find that no new procs were ever developed for that chipset, so you need to upgrade the motherboard again anyway. Besides, other than gamers and specialized applications (photo and video manipulation for instance) most people have more resources than they can really use even with the cheapest currently available motherboard/cpu combo.
Wrong purists...
I think some would argue that there is a right to remember. The Wayback Machine, for instance, has been instrumental in proving corporate malfeasance. Do we really want to lose that?
You play a character. Try not to get Boromir.
Yeah, Christopher and his kids will probably never have to work for a living, but his grandchildren may have to get a job.
> I can't claim to be the biggest fan of Tolkien novels, but does anyone believe for a second that there are a significant number of fans that are outraged over the release of a LotR slot machine to the point of causing "irreparable harm to Tolkien's legacy"?
Good point. I wasn't. I probably wouldn't ever have even known about it had it not been for this article. And I'm really having a hard time... caring.
slot machines are totally against the spirit of the books.
So is any form of film or video, if you listen to the purists in the Tolkien Usenet groups.
(And yes, Usenet does still exist.)
> Poker machines are morally disgusting. They're basically a way of imposing a tax on people too stupid or hopeful to know better.
You're absolutely right, but we have a choice not to use them. One can't stop people voluntarily destroying themselves, and I'm not sure we even have the moral obligation to try.
Good points are not allowed here. Someone mod this guy down!
A good discussion, but my position continues to be that free speech is not something you are granted, it's something you take. By definition.
Example: The students in this area staged a "hug out" a couple years ago to protest the banning of public displays of affection at school. Students would greet by hugging, hold hands going to class, and so forth. Three local high schools participated. The students were in danger of getting suspended or expelled, but continued anyway. And, eventually, got the rules changed.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how freedom works. If you're waiting to get permission to be free, you've already lost. Yes, it's hazardous. Anything worthwhile usually is.
She has a collection of tutus which she incorporates into her daily dress, but in more edgy fashion, with belly shirts and faux hawk. (It's an art magnet school with no real dress code.)
I've had to get used to her mode of dress (seems way to skimpy to me, but I suppose all dads say that) but I'm a little old-school regarding self-defense, probably because I was picked on in high school. Early on, I made it plain that if she's defending herself or a friend, I will stand up for her no matter what. But if she hit someone and it wasn't in self defense or the defense of others, she'll have to deal with the school *and* with me. So far it's worked out -- she had two incidents early on, was cleared both times, and then nothing after that. I don't remember if she was wearing a tutu at the time, but it's possible. :-)
So, the responses I'm getting makes it pretty clear why these packages are not available natively on Linux. You-all are willing to make do with running Windows virtually or through emulation to get your Windows apps. What I'm saying is that I want to be completely and utterly done with Windows, not just run it in a window. The fact that the apps *are* Windows apps *is* the problem. If we're serious about getting off Windows for good, the apps we use need to run natively. Else we're just fooling ourselves about our geeky OS independence. The Steam people have the right idea.