Yes but that doesn't mean that they didn't want the XBox more than Dudely who makes six figures and pisses $700 away on a whim. Money and desire are not the same thing.
Economics 101 is mistaken here. But in truth what you are saying does not exactly match the supply and demand model. Under supply and demand the max profit that can be garnered for the supply with the current demand is achieved. How bad people want an XBox is not truely measured. Little Timmy's parents can't afford to repair the air conditioning in their car for $700 let alone buy an XBox 360.
That doesn't mean that Timmy doesn't want that XBox 360 more than anyone who has the money to lay out. It also doesn't mean that Timmy's parent's can afford to lay out $50 chunks here and there for games either.
This is the same problem with the current rebate system. Before rebates became so popular the average consumer was beginning to enjoy many high tech gadgets as prices came down. Thanks to rebates, the average consumer can no longer afford the initial investment needed to realize savings that used to be in the initial purchase price. The difference from unredeemed rebates seems to simply be pocketed to ensure constant growth for earnings reports since there is no evidence of any sort of real price drop after rebates.
Actually most of the die hard wanters probably can't afford the current price, let alone $700. The XBox 360 is nothing more than a drm'd bios on a compact pc. You could buy a better pc and have access to more games for $700.
Ok, this discussion is a little ridiculous. The crowd that can afford to pay $300 for a console is the same crowd that can afford $700. The common man can not afford either price.
It's worth mentioning that I don't think the choice of apt is really what is behind Ubuntu's success. I suspect that including Synaptic alongside it was what tipped package management over the edge.
The comfortable and painless transition from superuser to regular user is also essential. By requiring a regular user but making typical daily tasks involve a transparent trasition to super privs some of the greatest benefits of the working user and security model on linux come to life without the hassles or confusion.
I used SUSE until I found Ubuntu and you are right. System administration is easier in many respects in SUSE. Package management on the other hand is easier with Ubuntu using synaptic. Yast is easy enough but there simply are not enough packages, even with 3rd party repositories.
What you are forgetting is that package management is virtually the only aspect of system administration that affects a desktop distribution. SUSE is plagued with the same bloated menu's that make most linux distros difficult to navigate. The interface in Ubuntu is to SUSE (or Fedora, Debian, Mandrake, etc) as Google's is to Microsoft.com.
Nonesense. Microsoft wants IE7 to be a good enough browser that it turns the tide of switching to firefox. Once the browser convinces people like you not to be adamant about family switching to firefox development will immediately stop.
I will stop insisting on firefox when 10 minutes of browsing free porn sites with IE does not result in spyware beyond simple tracking cookies. Additionally, IE will have to drop support for all MS scripting languages and proprietary extensions to web standards with a written promise to never adopt said extensions in the future.
Even apologizing for their ridiculous argument that netscape used extensions so it is ok for them to would be good.
It always depresses me to see microsoft implement a standard. Because a standard microsoft implementation means proprietary extensions that violate the entire concept of a standard.
The reason microsoft is evil competition in this case is because of motive. Microsoft's goal is to undermine the open process and any "open" proposals it puts forth will have been designed to ultimately allow microsoft to do so.
Perhaps they will leverage their monopoly to cause an inferior open format to win. It goes like this.
1. Government and some industry requires open format support in word processing application. 2. Microsoft proposes terrible open format that is vastly inferior to word doc. 3. Microsoft does not implement competiting formats, only its own inferior open format. 4. Government offices relicense office because it now complies with regulation. 5. Offices using inferior open format can not get all their work done using crippled format. 6. Ultimately regulations at offices are changed to allow them to use word docs again.
At no point here did the offices use anything but Microsoft's product and are right back to a proprietary format. Microsoft wins.
Microsoft does this crap consistantly, again and again. Never once have they claimed to participate in an open process with honorable intentions and ended up with an honorable open result. Why is it that every time Microsoft proposes something like this there is someone piping up and suggesting that Microsoft could have a legitimate involvement in ANY open process, format, or standard?
Almost as good at linguistic manipulation as the left. Seriously, the formation of political parties is probably the 2nd worst thing ever to happen to the nation (after the legalization of corporate entities). Prior to the formation of the democratic party there was NOT just one party (as they teach in U.S. History class) there were NO parties. Every individual stood on their own views and merits.
People voted for what they believed in, not what their parties believe in. Under the no party system individuals of varied political views numbering in the hundreds would have a fighting chance of winning an election.
Unless of course you accept the reality that western world governments are hopelessly corrupt and the only officials that appear on the ballot are in the pockets of the same people. No matter who you vote for, the same people will make the same bribes and net the same results. The only difference is the slant of the excuses made publically.
Yes but you are talking about a printed encyclopedia. Printed encyclopedias are intentionally brief and not comprehensive. The sheer volume of material prevents comprehensive coverage. Wikipedia is not designed in this manner. Authors include as much information as possible on Wikipedia.
For an example compare the entries on winemaking in the two. One encyclopedia explains how to make wine, the other merely defines it.
Since 3 versus 4 is a number low enough that percentage comparisons would only serve as fud and would not be meaningful. There simply is not enough sample for that.
Further, 1 error would not pass a reasonable margin of error for human experts.
We can safely assume the "experts" had moral concerns. Therefore they have corrected all the wikipedia errors leaving ZERO per article. Britanica on the other hand still has 3 per article.
Although, a difference of 1 error per article in lengthy science articles is not substantial enough to pass the margin of error of the experts themselves.
If anything, I think that my own original post should have been modded flamebait. I did allude to a hotly debated political topic. The posts that took the bait should have been modded offtopic. The way it was actually modded looked more like silencing those with dissenting views.
As for the smaller political parties. I suspect that if all those who refuse to vote for them because they will never win voted for them then they might start to be taken seriously and snowball to consequence. I believe that political parties in general are a bad thing. A great deal more could be accomplished in this nation if parties and party loyalties were dissolved entirely and candidates and politicians viewed as individuals instead of representative of parties. How many bills and issues have been voted against because they were seen as democrate or republican and dismissed out of hand by those loyal to the opposing party?
Exactly. The problem is not that there is a save button, there needs to be. The problem is that most are at the mercy of a microsoft implementation of autosave that fails to recover documents more often than not. Simply allow another firm, someone in their basement, or any other non-microsoft entity to write autosave functionality and it should be quire satisfactory.
If you pay the information is simply not listed in a public whois. The public is not who I am most concerned with, I do not want the government to be able to associate a domain with me at all. It is none of their business that I am the one who bought linuxcrusader.com. I have the password, I have the secret word and the rest is between me and the voices in my head.
I think I will respond to you here instead of in your original response to my post. I do participate in lobby efforts that I support with action and finance. So far I have not voted. That is not to say that I am not a voter; I am willing and registered. I simply will not vote for a candidate that I do not support. I can not support a candidate that will take bribes from intellectual property cartels and both major parties do so.
As for terrorism, the terrorists in this case are spammers. I have a right to privacy and that includes not having my actions monitored prior to breaking a law. I do NOT support the idea that law enforcement has a right to handles that allow accountability of the actions of citizens who have not ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED of an offense. In this case, I do not support keeping mandatory registration information for domains at all. I pay the fee I have secret words and passwords that assure access to administer the domain and others being blocked from using it. I do not believe paper trails are a good thing at all. I do not think I should be required to trust our legal system and government or have my data at the mercy to congresses newest law about how it can be handled after someone blows up a building.
The right to privacy is more important than catching bad guys. As annoying as spam can be I certainly am not willing to trade my right to privacy for another attempt to reduce spam that probably will not even have a significant long term impact.
In this case the terrorists are spammers and to "win" means to flood my inbox. I hate spam, but getting rid of it means that I must be identified and tracked I can live with the filters. Doubly so since I don't think successful identification and tracking of domain registrants will reduce the spam in my inbox at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but that doesn't mean that they didn't want the XBox more than Dudely who makes six figures and pisses $700 away on a whim. Money and desire are not the same thing.
I don't know. It sounded like a neural net to me, and neural nets are without question AI.
Economics 101 is mistaken here. But in truth what you are saying does not exactly match the supply and demand model. Under supply and demand the max profit that can be garnered for the supply with the current demand is achieved. How bad people want an XBox is not truely measured. Little Timmy's parents can't afford to repair the air conditioning in their car for $700 let alone buy an XBox 360.
That doesn't mean that Timmy doesn't want that XBox 360 more than anyone who has the money to lay out. It also doesn't mean that Timmy's parent's can afford to lay out $50 chunks here and there for games either.
This is the same problem with the current rebate system. Before rebates became so popular the average consumer was beginning to enjoy many high tech gadgets as prices came down. Thanks to rebates, the average consumer can no longer afford the initial investment needed to realize savings that used to be in the initial purchase price. The difference from unredeemed rebates seems to simply be pocketed to ensure constant growth for earnings reports since there is no evidence of any sort of real price drop after rebates.
Actually most of the die hard wanters probably can't afford the current price, let alone $700. The XBox 360 is nothing more than a drm'd bios on a compact pc. You could buy a better pc and have access to more games for $700.
Ok, this discussion is a little ridiculous. The crowd that can afford to pay $300 for a console is the same crowd that can afford $700. The common man can not afford either price.
That would be what we like to call "price fixing". The last time I checked that is an illegal trade practice in the states.
It's worth mentioning that I don't think the choice of apt is really what is behind Ubuntu's success. I suspect that including Synaptic alongside it was what tipped package management over the edge.
The comfortable and painless transition from superuser to regular user is also essential. By requiring a regular user but making typical daily tasks involve a transparent trasition to super privs some of the greatest benefits of the working user and security model on linux come to life without the hassles or confusion.
I used SUSE until I found Ubuntu and you are right. System administration is easier in many respects in SUSE. Package management on the other hand is easier with Ubuntu using synaptic. Yast is easy enough but there simply are not enough packages, even with 3rd party repositories.
What you are forgetting is that package management is virtually the only aspect of system administration that affects a desktop distribution. SUSE is plagued with the same bloated menu's that make most linux distros difficult to navigate. The interface in Ubuntu is to SUSE (or Fedora, Debian, Mandrake, etc) as Google's is to Microsoft.com.
Nonesense. Microsoft wants IE7 to be a good enough browser that it turns the tide of switching to firefox. Once the browser convinces people like you not to be adamant about family switching to firefox development will immediately stop.
I will stop insisting on firefox when 10 minutes of browsing free porn sites with IE does not result in spyware beyond simple tracking cookies. Additionally, IE will have to drop support for all MS scripting languages and proprietary extensions to web standards with a written promise to never adopt said extensions in the future.
Even apologizing for their ridiculous argument that netscape used extensions so it is ok for them to would be good.
It always depresses me to see microsoft implement a standard. Because a standard microsoft implementation means proprietary extensions that violate the entire concept of a standard.
The reason microsoft is evil competition in this case is because of motive. Microsoft's goal is to undermine the open process and any "open" proposals it puts forth will have been designed to ultimately allow microsoft to do so.
Perhaps they will leverage their monopoly to cause an inferior open format to win. It goes like this.
1. Government and some industry requires open format support in word processing application.
2. Microsoft proposes terrible open format that is vastly inferior to word doc.
3. Microsoft does not implement competiting formats, only its own inferior open format.
4. Government offices relicense office because it now complies with regulation.
5. Offices using inferior open format can not get all their work done using crippled format.
6. Ultimately regulations at offices are changed to allow them to use word docs again.
At no point here did the offices use anything but Microsoft's product and are right back to a proprietary format. Microsoft wins.
Microsoft does this crap consistantly, again and again. Never once have they claimed to participate in an open process with honorable intentions and ended up with an honorable open result. Why is it that every time Microsoft proposes something like this there is someone piping up and suggesting that Microsoft could have a legitimate involvement in ANY open process, format, or standard?
Almost as good at linguistic manipulation as the left. Seriously, the formation of political parties is probably the 2nd worst thing ever to happen to the nation (after the legalization of corporate entities). Prior to the formation of the democratic party there was NOT just one party (as they teach in U.S. History class) there were NO parties. Every individual stood on their own views and merits.
People voted for what they believed in, not what their parties believe in. Under the no party system individuals of varied political views numbering in the hundreds would have a fighting chance of winning an election.
Actually direct democracy is probably quite practical in the modern age of the web.
Unless of course you accept the reality that western world governments are hopelessly corrupt and the only officials that appear on the ballot are in the pockets of the same people. No matter who you vote for, the same people will make the same bribes and net the same results. The only difference is the slant of the excuses made publically.
Saying someone was involved in the Kennedy assassination is not an error, it is an opinion.
Yes but you are talking about a printed encyclopedia. Printed encyclopedias are intentionally brief and not comprehensive. The sheer volume of material prevents comprehensive coverage. Wikipedia is not designed in this manner. Authors include as much information as possible on Wikipedia.
For an example compare the entries on winemaking in the two. One encyclopedia explains how to make wine, the other merely defines it.
Since 3 versus 4 is a number low enough that percentage comparisons would only serve as fud and would not be meaningful. There simply is not enough sample for that.
Further, 1 error would not pass a reasonable margin of error for human experts.
We can safely assume the "experts" had moral concerns. Therefore they have corrected all the wikipedia errors leaving ZERO per article. Britanica on the other hand still has 3 per article.
Although, a difference of 1 error per article in lengthy science articles is not substantial enough to pass the margin of error of the experts themselves.
Did the experts correct the errors? I hope so.
If anything, I think that my own original post should have been modded flamebait. I did allude to a hotly debated political topic. The posts that took the bait should have been modded offtopic. The way it was actually modded looked more like silencing those with dissenting views.
As for the smaller political parties. I suspect that if all those who refuse to vote for them because they will never win voted for them then they might start to be taken seriously and snowball to consequence. I believe that political parties in general are a bad thing. A great deal more could be accomplished in this nation if parties and party loyalties were dissolved entirely and candidates and politicians viewed as individuals instead of representative of parties. How many bills and issues have been voted against because they were seen as democrate or republican and dismissed out of hand by those loyal to the opposing party?
Exactly. The problem is not that there is a save button, there needs to be. The problem is that most are at the mercy of a microsoft implementation of autosave that fails to recover documents more often than not. Simply allow another firm, someone in their basement, or any other non-microsoft entity to write autosave functionality and it should be quire satisfactory.
If you pay the information is simply not listed in a public whois. The public is not who I am most concerned with, I do not want the government to be able to associate a domain with me at all. It is none of their business that I am the one who bought linuxcrusader.com. I have the password, I have the secret word and the rest is between me and the voices in my head.
I think I will respond to you here instead of in your original response to my post. I do participate in lobby efforts that I support with action and finance. So far I have not voted. That is not to say that I am not a voter; I am willing and registered. I simply will not vote for a candidate that I do not support. I can not support a candidate that will take bribes from intellectual property cartels and both major parties do so.
As for terrorism, the terrorists in this case are spammers. I have a right to privacy and that includes not having my actions monitored prior to breaking a law. I do NOT support the idea that law enforcement has a right to handles that allow accountability of the actions of citizens who have not ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED of an offense. In this case, I do not support keeping mandatory registration information for domains at all. I pay the fee I have secret words and passwords that assure access to administer the domain and others being blocked from using it. I do not believe paper trails are a good thing at all. I do not think I should be required to trust our legal system and government or have my data at the mercy to congresses newest law about how it can be handled after someone blows up a building.
The right to privacy is more important than catching bad guys. As annoying as spam can be I certainly am not willing to trade my right to privacy for another attempt to reduce spam that probably will not even have a significant long term impact.
In this case the terrorists are spammers and to "win" means to flood my inbox. I hate spam, but getting rid of it means that I must be identified and tracked I can live with the filters. Doubly so since I don't think successful identification and tracking of domain registrants will reduce the spam in my inbox at all.
Personally I would rather let the terrorists (cyber or otherwise) win than give up my privacy. Domain owners are justified in wanting anonymity.