That's assuming only one viewer per play. If an average of 3 people watched the vids as they played then that's $123 million worth of lost sales ON ONLY 4 SPONGEBOB EPISODES! Factor in the the whole series then the loss amounts to probably hundreds of billions! Viacom cannot absorb such losses for much longer.
Are you really surprised by this? Anyone who has been following MS for more than a few years is aware that anytime you hear someone saying something positive about Microsoft, it has to be taken with a grain of salt because there usually is an ulterior motive involved, or some of the facts have been hidden. Everyone sees the three-edged sword so everyone knows it's not the whole truth.
As GWB says: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again.":|
Your analogy isn't accurate; here, I'll fix it for you!
First of all, the sports cars are to be limited to 50kph on certain sections of the road whereas the other drivers would still enjoy the full 100kph speed limit in the same section.
Secondly, driving to certain locations such as a beach, movie theater, or concert would be limited to 30kph the entire trip even on the freeway no matter what car you drive.
Thirdly, the providers of the freeway would justify the speed limits on sport cars by claiming that there are just too many sport cars and they are interfering with the other drivers, even though 95% of the freeway is empty at any given time, and none of the non-sport car drivers have ever complained or been affected by the super-fast sport cars.
Fourthly, the freeway providers limit speeds because they have their own plans to introduce their own sport cars that have no speed restrictions, yet have less features, cost more and don't go as fast as the other sport cars.
Fifthly, the providers of the smaller freeways that want to provide faster speed limits at lower prices would have their traffic limited, or shaped, by the larger freeway providers.
Whatcha talking about man? It looks like a hoot, and orders of magnitude more fun than the cloned FPS games that have been coming out lately, especially on the consoles.
Funny isn't it, but during the Cold war we'd constantly hear how the Soviet Union was spying on its' citizens, and we in the west would never question the "knowledge" and certainty that our freedom-loving governments did not and would not do that to us at any cost.
People just want reasonable cancellation fees. $50, $100, or even $200 can be reasonable, but most carriers in my area charge $20/month x remaining months, so that means $600 if you have 30 months left which is outrageous. Long live Virgin!
If my name is Abrahamo Lincolni and there are forty Abrahamo Lincolni's on Facebook, how would beacon reliably link the Blockbuster account to the account on Facebook? IP? CC? Address? Email address? Those seem unreliable since the user can enter different info on different sites.
Or does the user have to manually link the two accounts together for beacon to work.
Consoles, blech! I have two, and yes it's fun to sit and stretch out on a comfy couch with a large TV when playing games, but the games simply just don't compare to PC games-compare the graphics of Oblivion or Bioshock on a xbox 360 to a PC and the PC is noticeably superior on an average PC. Also console games really are 'dumbed down' in order to be playable on consoles with their limited graphics and limited controllers.
The thing with a console is that you are in exactly the same situation as a PC. Instead of upgrading your video card every two years, you're going to be upgrading your console every three or four, and that console upgrade will have the performance of an average PC at that time. Many games are specific to one console, and if it doesn't happen to be yours then just like on a PC you don't meet "system requirements" and you are SOL.
A PC you can choose to upgrade if you want. A console you never can.
Did you ever consider the reason so many people have such negative opinions about Vista is because they have a valid reason? These "Vista sucks" statements are hardly unique to the Slashdot crowd, and websites and publications from all areas of technology have told users to stay away from Vista-that didn't happen to XP. It's not so much that Vista sucks, but rather people don't like vista because it is difficult to find something of value in Vista that you don't already find in XP. Vista adds little, but takes a lot away.
XP was originally bashed for it's horrible color schemes. Vista is bashed because it has across the board decrease in performance. Game framerates are ~10-20% slower, file operations can be ridiculously slower, the system takes longer to boot compared to XP, vista can take as long to come out of sleep as it takes to boot up, and the worthless and annoying UAC, which is a poor copy of what is done so much better and with more logic on Kubuntu or OSX.
I tried Vista for 6 weeks, found that it didn't offer anything much better than what was in XP, was frustrated with it's performance hit, so I got rid of it. I don't think it is terribly horrible OS, but really, what does it offer?
Ok, so here is a question for Vista fans: What do you find good in Vista, and what do you like about Vista? I'm not trolling, but I never found anything of value in it, so I am just curious what is in Vista that you like better than in XP?
You are making the invalid assumption that "one download=one lost sale", which is a fallacy. 99.999999% of the stuff that is downloaded would not be bought by the downloaders anyways if it wasn't available on a P2P network.
Hockey, Tennis, Squash, and another game, which were all essentially the same pong clone but with different color screens. 4 games in one console! Today you're lucky if they throw in 2 games.;)
With Gnome and some other projects, maybe. OTOH, supporting a bloated, low quality, error-prone, semi-open standard that contains references to proprietary (read as 'closed') MS information is hardly helping the OS community.
What you described is called breeding, which is a far cry from active and direct manipulation of your genome on a genetic level. Through basic manipulation of breeding in other species humans have been doing this for thousands of years and it has worked pretty well so far. Monsanto, Cargil, or any bio-company do this so they can develop crops that bring them profit, not for the good of mankind.
So I feel pretty safe with modern genetic engineering. At least we now know what we are doing and we test it well. We now know what we are doing? We test it well?? If I had points I'd mod you up as funny. If you are really that naive read up on dangerous food additives and how many of them were rejected for human consumption at first, then how through corporate lobbying, donations, and political gifts, these additives suddenly and miraculously became "perfectly safe" and thus were approved for addition in all of our foods.
You said it. The name is just childish and stupid. I hear they considered HOBBLED, DISABLED, HANDICAPPED, CRIPPLED, BEDRIDDEN, & SHITMYPANTS before settling on GIMP.
GIMP developers, and many users, live in their own little world outside of reality. We`ve been screaming for a GIMP UI change since last century and they haven`t done it, so what do you think are the chances they`ll change the nameÉ
You haven't looked too hard then. I have a Compaq Presario R3060 laptop, and it says so right in the warranty papers. I remember reading it a few days after it was purchased and thinking to myself "They can't be serious?"
So are you implying that running an unpatched Linux box is safe, because the prev poster, Mr. Mandriva, didn't mention that he patched his system, yet you didn't put your comment there?
Install Ubuntu 6.06LTS or another from that era and let's see how many patches there are, shall we? Not to mention that everyone has encountered patches that refuse to install in Linux as well.
What does all this mean? Linux users incessantly bash windows.
With a-la carte pricing, I guarantee channels like IFC and Sundance Channel will die.
Dear lord, if channels have such poor viewership that they cannot survive without being tied to some bundle then let them die. Just because the channel is not mainstream does not mean it's some artistic endeavor worth saving.
You may not watch those channels, so you personally may not care.
That's right, I don't watch them and I don't care.
But is the point of a-la carte pricing to bring us less choice? Is that the goal we should be working towards?
What goal? Since when did all cable subscribers start working towards a goal? My goal is to pay for what I watch, and only what I watch. In the past, when I had cable before I got sick of all the retarded bundling, I was paying for 125 channels + 4 digital packages just to watch the six stations I really want. I don't really know what you are talking about when you mean "choice", but forcing me to get all those channels is not much of a choice. In fact I made the choice to cancel my cable over a year ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too! I thought it was a historic article and about the first one from the 1930's or whenever.
Did slashdot report when Netware 2.0 came out in 1985 and provided an easy way to do filesharing in MSDOS?
Yes they did, but I can't find it. For some strange reason I can't retrieve Slashdot articles that are older than 10 years or so.
Dude, it's not just any trailer, it's a trailer with Wolverine!
That's assuming only one viewer per play. If an average of 3 people watched the vids as they played then that's $123 million worth of lost sales ON ONLY 4 SPONGEBOB EPISODES! Factor in the the whole series then the loss amounts to probably hundreds of billions! Viacom cannot absorb such losses for much longer.
Are you really surprised by this? Anyone who has been following MS for more than a few years is aware that anytime you hear someone saying something positive about Microsoft, it has to be taken with a grain of salt because there usually is an ulterior motive involved, or some of the facts have been hidden. Everyone sees the three-edged sword so everyone knows it's not the whole truth.
As GWB says: :|
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again."
Your analogy isn't accurate; here, I'll fix it for you!
First of all, the sports cars are to be limited to 50kph on certain sections of the road whereas the other drivers would still enjoy the full 100kph speed limit in the same section.
Secondly, driving to certain locations such as a beach, movie theater, or concert would be limited to 30kph the entire trip even on the freeway no matter what car you drive.
Thirdly, the providers of the freeway would justify the speed limits on sport cars by claiming that there are just too many sport cars and they are interfering with the other drivers, even though 95% of the freeway is empty at any given time, and none of the non-sport car drivers have ever complained or been affected by the super-fast sport cars.
Fourthly, the freeway providers limit speeds because they have their own plans to introduce their own sport cars that have no speed restrictions, yet have less features, cost more and don't go as fast as the other sport cars.
Fifthly, the providers of the smaller freeways that want to provide faster speed limits at lower prices would have their traffic limited, or shaped, by the larger freeway providers.
There, that's better.
Whatcha talking about man? It looks like a hoot, and orders of magnitude more fun than the cloned FPS games that have been coming out lately, especially on the consoles.
Funny isn't it, but during the Cold war we'd constantly hear how the Soviet Union was spying on its' citizens, and we in the west would never question the "knowledge" and certainty that our freedom-loving governments did not and would not do that to us at any cost.
My how times have changed.
People just want reasonable cancellation fees. $50, $100, or even $200 can be reasonable, but most carriers in my area charge $20/month x remaining months, so that means $600 if you have 30 months left which is outrageous. Long live Virgin!
Is there anything that Google needs to be kept on their toes about? I think they do a good job of it themselves.
If my name is Abrahamo Lincolni and there are forty Abrahamo Lincolni's on Facebook, how would beacon reliably link the Blockbuster account to the account on Facebook? IP? CC? Address? Email address? Those seem unreliable since the user can enter different info on different sites.
Or does the user have to manually link the two accounts together for beacon to work.
Consoles, blech! I have two, and yes it's fun to sit and stretch out on a comfy couch with a large TV when playing games, but the games simply just don't compare to PC games-compare the graphics of Oblivion or Bioshock on a xbox 360 to a PC and the PC is noticeably superior on an average PC. Also console games really are 'dumbed down' in order to be playable on consoles with their limited graphics and limited controllers.
The thing with a console is that you are in exactly the same situation as a PC. Instead of upgrading your video card every two years, you're going to be upgrading your console every three or four, and that console upgrade will have the performance of an average PC at that time. Many games are specific to one console, and if it doesn't happen to be yours then just like on a PC you don't meet "system requirements" and you are SOL.
A PC you can choose to upgrade if you want. A console you never can.
Did you ever consider the reason so many people have such negative opinions about Vista is because they have a valid reason? These "Vista sucks" statements are hardly unique to the Slashdot crowd, and websites and publications from all areas of technology have told users to stay away from Vista-that didn't happen to XP. It's not so much that Vista sucks, but rather people don't like vista because it is difficult to find something of value in Vista that you don't already find in XP. Vista adds little, but takes a lot away.
XP was originally bashed for it's horrible color schemes. Vista is bashed because it has across the board decrease in performance. Game framerates are ~10-20% slower, file operations can be ridiculously slower, the system takes longer to boot compared to XP, vista can take as long to come out of sleep as it takes to boot up, and the worthless and annoying UAC, which is a poor copy of what is done so much better and with more logic on Kubuntu or OSX.
I tried Vista for 6 weeks, found that it didn't offer anything much better than what was in XP, was frustrated with it's performance hit, so I got rid of it. I don't think it is terribly horrible OS, but really, what does it offer?
Ok, so here is a question for Vista fans: What do you find good in Vista, and what do you like about Vista? I'm not trolling, but I never found anything of value in it, so I am just curious what is in Vista that you like better than in XP?
You are making the invalid assumption that "one download=one lost sale", which is a fallacy. 99.999999% of the stuff that is downloaded would not be bought by the downloaders anyways if it wasn't available on a P2P network.
Hockey, Tennis, Squash, and another game, which were all essentially the same pong clone but with different color screens. 4 games in one console! Today you're lucky if they throw in 2 games.;)
What do YOU do?
I choose "Don't support them."
And they have help a LOT the OS community.
With Gnome and some other projects, maybe. OTOH, supporting a bloated, low quality, error-prone, semi-open standard that contains references to proprietary (read as 'closed') MS information is hardly helping the OS community.
What you described is called breeding, which is a far cry from active and direct manipulation of your genome on a genetic level. Through basic manipulation of breeding in other species humans have been doing this for thousands of years and it has worked pretty well so far. Monsanto, Cargil, or any bio-company do this so they can develop crops that bring them profit, not for the good of mankind.
So I feel pretty safe with modern genetic engineering. At least we now know what we are doing and we test it well.
We now know what we are doing? We test it well?? If I had points I'd mod you up as funny. If you are really that naive read up on dangerous food additives and how many of them were rejected for human consumption at first, then how through corporate lobbying, donations, and political gifts, these additives suddenly and miraculously became "perfectly safe" and thus were approved for addition in all of our foods.
You said it. The name is just childish and stupid. I hear they considered HOBBLED, DISABLED, HANDICAPPED, CRIPPLED, BEDRIDDEN, & SHITMYPANTS before settling on GIMP.
GIMP developers, and many users, live in their own little world outside of reality. We`ve been screaming for a GIMP UI change since last century and they haven`t done it, so what do you think are the chances they`ll change the nameÉ
Remember the bad old IBM...
Are you tweety bird?
The mini's use horribly slow graphic cards so any intensive 3D ends up being affected.
That being said, for anything else they fly like a falcon. My 1.6Ghz mac mini with the default 512Megs of Ram doesn't really ever feel slow or lagged.
You haven't looked too hard then. I have a Compaq Presario R3060 laptop, and it says so right in the warranty papers. I remember reading it a few days after it was purchased and thinking to myself "They can't be serious?"
So are you implying that running an unpatched Linux box is safe, because the prev poster, Mr. Mandriva, didn't mention that he patched his system, yet you didn't put your comment there?
Install Ubuntu 6.06LTS or another from that era and let's see how many patches there are, shall we? Not to mention that everyone has encountered patches that refuse to install in Linux as well.
What does all this mean? Linux users incessantly bash windows.
That's impossible!
Another planet where we can completely screw up it's environment.
With a-la carte pricing, I guarantee channels like IFC and Sundance Channel will die.
Dear lord, if channels have such poor viewership that they cannot survive without being tied to some bundle then let them die. Just because the channel is not mainstream does not mean it's some artistic endeavor worth saving.
You may not watch those channels, so you personally may not care.
That's right, I don't watch them and I don't care.
But is the point of a-la carte pricing to bring us less choice? Is that the goal we should be working towards?
What goal? Since when did all cable subscribers start working towards a goal? My goal is to pay for what I watch, and only what I watch. In the past, when I had cable before I got sick of all the retarded bundling, I was paying for 125 channels + 4 digital packages just to watch the six stations I really want. I don't really know what you are talking about when you mean "choice", but forcing me to get all those channels is not much of a choice. In fact I made the choice to cancel my cable over a year ago.