They don't need to fight an attrition battle for market share - they just need to keep enough high-end users so that their platform remains the preferred launch point for developers. They don't need the most users - they need the most users who actually purchase apps.
So long as they can keep that position, they have no incentive to drop margins.
Bitcoin will always be unstable, because it is deflationary at times. You are rewarded for holding on to Bitcoins, until some critical mass is achieved and the value is high enough to spark a sell-off. You will always have a boom and bust cycle. The same thing happened when we were on the gold standard. Low levels of stable inflation discourage hoarding, with pretty mild side effects.
Dude, we have two active rovers on Mars - one that has been roving around for 10 years. In addition, two of the orbiters we sent there are still operational, with another en route. The ESA has had an orbiter for 10 years. Even India has an orbiter en route to Mars. Do you really think we don't have the capability to land a rover on the moon?
It is certainly true in my area, but only for the "limited basic" cable tier, and only because the township negotiated a rate for "limited basic" that is lower than the penalty they charge you for going internet-only. None of the "triple plays" are cheaper than internet-only.
Unprotected Windows is never safe to use on the internet. At the very least it is sensible to be behind NAT. But to address your point specifically, is Windows XP less secure on the internet than Windows 7?
OK, but until XP is EOL, you can save your money. Upgrading now would be like tossing out your perfectly good brake pads, just because they only have a couple hundred more miles on them.
By that logic, no OS is perfectly good. Fair enough, but not really related to the point I was trying to make. If XP works and the computer works for the task at hand, why upgrade?
I would never toss a car that still worked. I get rid of cars when they are no longer economical to repair, and then I let the leasers subsidize the purchase of my next used car. The lone exception might be that we trade in one of our current cars for one with all-wheel-drive.
And on the other side you have public employees unions, so we end up with a bunch of liability that doesn't even show up on the government's version of a balance sheet. I personally feel that both should be banned from lobbying, but the Supreme Court recently disagreed.
Yeah, I don't care so much about the restrictions on account access - like you, we have a list of passwords that we both use and when necessary (e.g. student loans) we make sure we get the authorizations sent in.
My problem is with the double standard. Add stuff? Sure! Wait, remove stuff??? No, no! We have POLICIES!
Slashdot Mirror
They don't need to fight an attrition battle for market share - they just need to keep enough high-end users so that their platform remains the preferred launch point for developers. They don't need the most users - they need the most users who actually purchase apps.
So long as they can keep that position, they have no incentive to drop margins.
You are too hung up on a product name. XP has been continuously updated since its introduction.
Classic Shell is wonderful, but does not totally unfuck the GUI. It also does not un-gimp the formerly useful Windows backup.
Stock prices aren't stable, but there are plenty of hedging options. You can make the stock market as stable as you choose.
Bitcoin will always be unstable, because it is deflationary at times. You are rewarded for holding on to Bitcoins, until some critical mass is achieved and the value is high enough to spark a sell-off. You will always have a boom and bust cycle. The same thing happened when we were on the gold standard. Low levels of stable inflation discourage hoarding, with pretty mild side effects.
Wow, life must be painful for you.
There's also no Statue of Liberty in Philadelphia. What is your point?
By the way, there is a US rover on the moon. It has a steering wheel and was driven by human beings.
Even in death, they annoy.
Presumably, a company would launch from a friendly host-nation.
Dude, we have two active rovers on Mars - one that has been roving around for 10 years. In addition, two of the orbiters we sent there are still operational, with another en route. The ESA has had an orbiter for 10 years. Even India has an orbiter en route to Mars. Do you really think we don't have the capability to land a rover on the moon?
Yes, I agree this commandment seems to be misinterpreted. Though in all fairness, so do most of the stories in the bible.
It is certainly true in my area, but only for the "limited basic" cable tier, and only because the township negotiated a rate for "limited basic" that is lower than the penalty they charge you for going internet-only. None of the "triple plays" are cheaper than internet-only.
Any lawyer worth a Harvard education would bring up MAC spoofing.
Unprotected Windows is never safe to use on the internet. At the very least it is sensible to be behind NAT. But to address your point specifically, is Windows XP less secure on the internet than Windows 7?
That's a good point - all of our systems currently ship with XP embedded.
OK, but until XP is EOL, you can save your money. Upgrading now would be like tossing out your perfectly good brake pads, just because they only have a couple hundred more miles on them.
By that logic, no OS is perfectly good. Fair enough, but not really related to the point I was trying to make. If XP works and the computer works for the task at hand, why upgrade?
I would never toss a car that still worked. I get rid of cars when they are no longer economical to repair, and then I let the leasers subsidize the purchase of my next used car. The lone exception might be that we trade in one of our current cars for one with all-wheel-drive.
They don't seem so bad when the first 10 iterations take a few ms.
Yeah, let's throw away that perfectly good piece of kit because you don't like it.
And on the other side you have public employees unions, so we end up with a bunch of liability that doesn't even show up on the government's version of a balance sheet. I personally feel that both should be banned from lobbying, but the Supreme Court recently disagreed.
Yeah, I don't care so much about the restrictions on account access - like you, we have a list of passwords that we both use and when necessary (e.g. student loans) we make sure we get the authorizations sent in.
My problem is with the double standard. Add stuff? Sure! Wait, remove stuff??? No, no! We have POLICIES!
Exactly. Slimy.
Almost... you drive a Bentley, but get driven in a Rolls. Otherwise, mere prols such as myself wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
They still have to taxi, takeoff, and land.