No, what you did was pretend to pay for it. Your generation tallied up the money that they paid in. They called this tally a "trust fund". Then they took the money and spent it on the general fund. Your parents' generation was complicit in this, and they are the ones who benefited from the scam.
We 30-somethings all want to know why you didn't burn these politicians at the stake in the 1980s when they set up this system. Our kids will want to know why my generation let Bush and Obama do the same thing to them.
Calling you children's generation "thieves" will not make them more sympathetic to you saddling them with trillions in debt.
So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues
That's not the only choice. You could cut some of them off - like the ones who don't absolutely need it. You could set up neutral panels of doctors to review end-of-life spending decisions (death panels, if you prefer). The entire point is that we can't "take care of our debt issues" without tackling entitlement spending.
Because Android is already the established OS "reseller". When they took over the world with Windows, DOS was the established OS reseller. They were able to kill that by simply bundling it with Windows. Linux didn't enter the fray until DOS and then Windows were already well established, and by then MS was abusing their monopoly such that even IBM couldn't muscle in to the market, despite having nearly 100% compatibility with the Windows apps of the day.
Windows was never a big money maker in the home market and, objectively, was never very successful.
Yikes, I have to disagree with you there. They got a piece of nearly every PC sold over 20 years. Every single PC. The home PC market is large enough that this has been a stunning amount of money. It's been successful enough that I can say "Every home in the US has a Windows machine" and only be off by single-digit percentage numbers. The only reason they aren't still lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills is simply that the PC market stopped growing.
That Ballmer would understand that a large portion of windows past success was due in part to the fact that software for the system was available anywhere.
Agreed. I think there is room for someone to make money on the low-end (Walmart) as well as on the high-end (Tiffany). Just because Walmart's gross margins are low doesn't make them a bad investment.
Android is proving that an open market gains more market share
Android is a huge impediment for MS. MS can't charge for an OS and remain competitive with Android, which is free. This screws up their Windows model. I think they are fishing around for another model. Apple, at this point, still makes bucketloads of money on actual hardware - the walled garden money was almost an accident. MS looks like they are trying both approaches... trying to out-Apple Apple. They did this successfully in the 90s and they have good revenue and cash, so I won't dismiss them out of hand... but the conditions are very different now.
In the 80s and 90s, PC manufacturers were actually paying money for an OS or spending a ton on in-house R&D of their own OS. There was no competitive free option. Now you can pick up an Android tablet for under $100 - there is quite literally no room for licensing fees, and the open source nature of Android lets companies who want some control (e.g. Amazon, B&N) cost-effectively modify it rather than pay MS to modify Windows.
I'm glad I'm not in charge:) If I were I'd probably create a tablet/phone spinoff that re-uses Windows technology, similar to the way Apple re-used OSX for the iPhone. But the application environment would be completely different, and no attempt would be made at merging the two. The spinoff wouldn't try to emulate Apple's model, but instead I would team up with B&N, Walmart, K-Mart, Sears or some other giant retailer where I could piggyback on their retail presence and try to make money on content sales and ads. The margins wouldn't even approach Windows desktop, but that's why I'd spin it off to protect the margins on MSFT proper, and it would compete seriously with Android. It would also be important to separate the low-margin business culture from the swimming-in-cash mentality at the rest of the company.
Some of my friends and I had the TurboGrafx 16 (PC Engine). NEC hadn't bothered to get the rights to any of the sports games, so as a result we didn't really worry about the age of the game. In fact, it was a long time before a better baseball game came out on any platform.
It's not like the EA rosters were realistic anyway - I remember during the early 90's playing Madden Football on the Sega Genesis, and the players were endowed with talents that they did not have. You could scramble with Rodney Pete.
Having seen fully-US-government-run healthcare up close and personal? Let's just say that no matter how good Canada or the UK does it, I know full well that here in the US, we'll just fuck it up, and to the detriment of anyone who will have to suffer under it.
Yeah, that's why I was so disappointed in "Obamacare". I actually think the mandate has a chance of improving things, but you need to get more people into that system. As it is, the law pushes 1/3 of the uninsured into the troubled/troubling Medicaid system - which I don't really think deserved an expansion. The other problem is that the tax penalty just isn't very high, so people are still going to go without insurance until something bad happens to them - which will of course drive premiums up for all of us.
At least it didn't expand the VA system into private care!:)
There is also a reason why now, most of those laws are ignored.
You are right that monopoly is a frequent "natural' result of capitalism, which encourages consolidation - especially once you regulate the market with a concept as powerful as a corporation.
But can you point to an example of where the laws are currently being ignored?
Yeah, the only problem with your theory is that industrialization and life expectancy are very strongly correlated. The miserable part of the planet are almost all subsistence farmers - which is what almost the entire population of the planet was doing just prior to industrialization.
I realize that I replied at a poor point in the thread. I was trying to minimize the number of replies I would have to the same guy (narcc).
I wasn't making a claim that the iPhone was first - I was wishing that there was an Android device with the iPhone screen.
That said, "teg" was claiming that the iPhone was the first smartphone with such a high-res screen. The SX862 would I think be described as a "feature phone" and the S8000's screen was early AMOLED. I've never held one, but my understanding is that they used a strange pixel layout which required more pixels compared to a standard LCD. Thus the high pixel count on the S8000 was there to make the screen comparable to an LCD, not to improve resolution. Wikipedia says, "Device uses PenTile technology. Its pixels consist of only two sub-pixels instead of three and the claimed pixel density is only achieved using subpixel rendering. In any case, the ppi numbers are not directly comparable."
No, but it makes the screen really crappy - or on a crappy phone. I want a smallish Android with a good screen. The Galaxy Nexus has a nice-ish screen (from reviews, not as nice as the iPhone 5 but maybe almost as good as the 4s) but on an aircraft carrier of a phone.
If you read up the thread, I'm not the one saying that Apple was the "first", I'm the one saying it's really nice.
I like how it fits incredibly small, readable text. Improves web browsing, email, and other reading (like Kindle app), even if the benefit is only aesthetic for games and such. I'm currently on Android, but I do like the 4s screen.
I was at a restaurant about a week ago where one of the "specials" was roast baby pig on a spit. The first thing I thought was, wow, the farmers must really be unloading everything. The second thing I thought was, "I'll try that."
Slashdot Mirror
I fucking paid for it.
No, what you did was pretend to pay for it. Your generation tallied up the money that they paid in. They called this tally a "trust fund". Then they took the money and spent it on the general fund. Your parents' generation was complicit in this, and they are the ones who benefited from the scam.
We 30-somethings all want to know why you didn't burn these politicians at the stake in the 1980s when they set up this system. Our kids will want to know why my generation let Bush and Obama do the same thing to them.
Calling you children's generation "thieves" will not make them more sympathetic to you saddling them with trillions in debt.
So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues
That's not the only choice. You could cut some of them off - like the ones who don't absolutely need it. You could set up neutral panels of doctors to review end-of-life spending decisions (death panels, if you prefer). The entire point is that we can't "take care of our debt issues" without tackling entitlement spending.
Having no debt is bad for our nation, we then have no ability to influence interest rates.
It's one thing to sell a 30-year bond and then build a bridge with it that is expected to last at least as long.
It's another thing to use that bond to make payroll.
There is a big difference between wrecking someone's life by taking away their freedom and wrecking someone's life by ending a subsidy.
Because Android is already the established OS "reseller". When they took over the world with Windows, DOS was the established OS reseller. They were able to kill that by simply bundling it with Windows. Linux didn't enter the fray until DOS and then Windows were already well established, and by then MS was abusing their monopoly such that even IBM couldn't muscle in to the market, despite having nearly 100% compatibility with the Windows apps of the day.
Windows was never a big money maker in the home market and, objectively, was never very successful.
Yikes, I have to disagree with you there. They got a piece of nearly every PC sold over 20 years. Every single PC. The home PC market is large enough that this has been a stunning amount of money. It's been successful enough that I can say "Every home in the US has a Windows machine" and only be off by single-digit percentage numbers. The only reason they aren't still lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills is simply that the PC market stopped growing.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post.
That Ballmer would understand that a large portion of windows past success was due in part to the fact that software for the system was available anywhere.
Agreed. I think there is room for someone to make money on the low-end (Walmart) as well as on the high-end (Tiffany). Just because Walmart's gross margins are low doesn't make them a bad investment.
Android is proving that an open market gains more market share
Android is a huge impediment for MS. MS can't charge for an OS and remain competitive with Android, which is free. This screws up their Windows model. I think they are fishing around for another model. Apple, at this point, still makes bucketloads of money on actual hardware - the walled garden money was almost an accident. MS looks like they are trying both approaches... trying to out-Apple Apple. They did this successfully in the 90s and they have good revenue and cash, so I won't dismiss them out of hand... but the conditions are very different now.
In the 80s and 90s, PC manufacturers were actually paying money for an OS or spending a ton on in-house R&D of their own OS. There was no competitive free option. Now you can pick up an Android tablet for under $100 - there is quite literally no room for licensing fees, and the open source nature of Android lets companies who want some control (e.g. Amazon, B&N) cost-effectively modify it rather than pay MS to modify Windows.
I'm glad I'm not in charge :) If I were I'd probably create a tablet/phone spinoff that re-uses Windows technology, similar to the way Apple re-used OSX for the iPhone. But the application environment would be completely different, and no attempt would be made at merging the two. The spinoff wouldn't try to emulate Apple's model, but instead I would team up with B&N, Walmart, K-Mart, Sears or some other giant retailer where I could piggyback on their retail presence and try to make money on content sales and ads. The margins wouldn't even approach Windows desktop, but that's why I'd spin it off to protect the margins on MSFT proper, and it would compete seriously with Android. It would also be important to separate the low-margin business culture from the swimming-in-cash mentality at the rest of the company.
Plants are nuclear-powered anyway...
"He's heating up!"
Some of my friends and I had the TurboGrafx 16 (PC Engine). NEC hadn't bothered to get the rights to any of the sports games, so as a result we didn't really worry about the age of the game. In fact, it was a long time before a better baseball game came out on any platform.
It's not like the EA rosters were realistic anyway - I remember during the early 90's playing Madden Football on the Sega Genesis, and the players were endowed with talents that they did not have. You could scramble with Rodney Pete.
Having seen fully-US-government-run healthcare up close and personal? Let's just say that no matter how good Canada or the UK does it, I know full well that here in the US, we'll just fuck it up, and to the detriment of anyone who will have to suffer under it.
Yeah, that's why I was so disappointed in "Obamacare". I actually think the mandate has a chance of improving things, but you need to get more people into that system. As it is, the law pushes 1/3 of the uninsured into the troubled/troubling Medicaid system - which I don't really think deserved an expansion. The other problem is that the tax penalty just isn't very high, so people are still going to go without insurance until something bad happens to them - which will of course drive premiums up for all of us.
At least it didn't expand the VA system into private care! :)
There is also a reason why now, most of those laws are ignored.
You are right that monopoly is a frequent "natural' result of capitalism, which encourages consolidation - especially once you regulate the market with a concept as powerful as a corporation.
But can you point to an example of where the laws are currently being ignored?
Yeah, the only problem with your theory is that industrialization and life expectancy are very strongly correlated. The miserable part of the planet are almost all subsistence farmers - which is what almost the entire population of the planet was doing just prior to industrialization.
$10 million? I don't think that's going to feed and treat as many as you think.
Scientists Invent Electronics That Dissolve In the Body... ...and then kill you.
ALWAYS RUN AT MAXIMUM ZOOM!
JUST LIKE TALKING AT MAXIMUM VOLUME!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
"Remote" for iOS and the Android version "Remote for iTunes".
There is "iTunesRemoteSE" for the Mac/PC/Linux, but it is based on an Android app and does not have as much functionality as the Android or iOS apps.
I realize that I replied at a poor point in the thread. I was trying to minimize the number of replies I would have to the same guy (narcc).
I wasn't making a claim that the iPhone was first - I was wishing that there was an Android device with the iPhone screen.
That said, "teg" was claiming that the iPhone was the first smartphone with such a high-res screen. The SX862 would I think be described as a "feature phone" and the S8000's screen was early AMOLED. I've never held one, but my understanding is that they used a strange pixel layout which required more pixels compared to a standard LCD. Thus the high pixel count on the S8000 was there to make the screen comparable to an LCD, not to improve resolution. Wikipedia says, "Device uses PenTile technology. Its pixels consist of only two sub-pixels instead of three and the claimed pixel density is only achieved using subpixel rendering. In any case, the ppi numbers are not directly comparable."
So I think teg was technically correct.
No, but it makes the screen really crappy - or on a crappy phone. I want a smallish Android with a good screen. The Galaxy Nexus has a nice-ish screen (from reviews, not as nice as the iPhone 5 but maybe almost as good as the 4s) but on an aircraft carrier of a phone.
If you read up the thread, I'm not the one saying that Apple was the "first", I'm the one saying it's really nice.
The S8000 had a horrendous touch screen (resistive) and the display was of the AMOLED variety.
The Sharp SX862 was a flip phone.
I like how it fits incredibly small, readable text. Improves web browsing, email, and other reading (like Kindle app), even if the benefit is only aesthetic for games and such. I'm currently on Android, but I do like the 4s screen.
The constitution is to Fox News as Slashdot is to AC posts.
... and then you'd write the assembly - same as you'd do if it was called by C or Python.
I was at a restaurant about a week ago where one of the "specials" was roast baby pig on a spit. The first thing I thought was, wow, the farmers must really be unloading everything. The second thing I thought was, "I'll try that."
That's awesome - I never heard of it before. I might try to start using the phrase :)