His lectures really aren't that deep. I tried using them in my first year at uni and found them useless for anything but the most basic discussion of my subjects. Dedicated textbooks were way better. Try picking up a few textbooks by French second hand. I love my Quantum Mechanics one and the Special Relativity one wasn't bad either. Atkins is good for Thermodynamics. Gribbin is good for popular overviews of various areas of science. Bleaney & Bleaney is a nice Electromagnetism volume.
Now what I don't understand is this: the BBC can put out about 6 TV channels (including the digital ones) and dozens of radio stations (including local radio) for a charge of only 190 per year per household -- without needing any advertising income. This is far less than the cost of most cable or satellite TV subscriptions - and yet cable stations usually have as many commercials as free-to-air stations, and the programs rarely better BBC quality. What do they do with their money?
Well, the BBC isn't funded purely by the license fee. They sell a lot of shows oversees and have a lot of very marketable merchandise. Books, tapes, CDs, videos, DVDs, toys, etc. from BBC shows all sell pretty well. In some cases (e.g. Red Dwarf) because it's very good. In other cases (e.g. Teletubbies) because children have no taste.
Heh heh. We all got sent those in uni. All of us ignored the letters asking us to say whether we had a license or not. Except one person who wrote back and said she didn't. She of course got threatenning letters saying they didn't believe her while the rest of us got on with our lives.
Apple killed that when they killed the clones. They had a choice, and knew it, and considered it. They could have tried to become a mainstream manufacturer, with a lot of clout, and instead they chose to remain a high-priced niche manufacturer.
Actually, the clones weren't expanding marketshare - they were just eating into Apples, and at a time when Apple wasn't in a particularly healthy situation. Apple's 'choice' was kill the clones and survive, or let them keep going and die in a couple of years time, leaving the Mac market dead as well.
Yeah, I've dropped mine off a few tables and chairs, regularly carry it around by the screen and run around while it's tring to read something from the optical drive. Apart from the time I dropped a plug on the screen, it's still in great shape and people keep asking if it's new, lol. Says something for the strength of the design. Well, several things I guess.
I dropped a plug on my iBook's screen last year, putting a nasty crack in it. Nasty feeling when you've just dumped half your savings into it and you're only weeks away from starting uni. Didn't have Applecare, but household insurance covered it, so instead of 1000, it only cost me 50 to replace.
A few months ago, the cabling on my power supply wore through to the wires at the point where the it enters the metal sheath. Impossible to repair at that point, so had to fork out 65 to get a new unit. Admittedly, the new one is a better design (though still with a potential problem with the wire at the sheath), but if it had happened anywhere else, it could have been fixed for free with what was lying about the house.
The battery, being at least 2 years old by now, has gone distinctly iffy (15% original capacity is a very optimistic guess). Thankfully I have very little call to use the iBook away from a power socket. I need a laptop because I spend half the year at uni in England and half the year at home in Northern Ireland and shipping a desktop back and forth would be a pain. If I did want to replace the battery, however, it would cost around 90 IIRC.
That's a total of 205 for repairs and a new battery. Applecare was, I think, 140 for the standard 3 years when I bought the machine. Slightly more than the repair, but since it would have given me a few new batteris, I think that in hindsight I could justify it.
No, but it was an example of your tendency to inflate the situation out of proportion. Comparing Windows with trade of illegal weapons would be another. You were being sensationalist and I was calling you on it. You've also failed to address the points I brought up and failed to answer my questions, so this discussion barely even began.
You haven't given a reason why it's better than letting the market decide. Monopolies are not inherently evil. It's only when they abuse their position that there's a problem. Massive fines and threat of more if they don't behave, or giving compensation to their competitors (perhaps using the fines as a source) would be a good incentive for them to behave, while helping the competition and leaving the public free to choose which they product they want to use. Fine them 10 billion, spend half financing open source initiatives with Linux and give the other half to Apple and see what happens. Or use the fines to buy computers with Mac OS X or Linux on and give them away to schools, charities, government departments, small businesses, etc. In what way qould quotas be superior to these suggestions?
In which cases did they use quotas? And why do you feel that was fair on the consumer? How is it a better option than masive fines? Do you believe that all monopolies, regardless of how they act, should be cut down? If a monopoly is misbehaving, surely it is better to change its ways and then let the market dictate its size, rather than placing artificial limitations on it and reducing consumer freedom in the process?
quotas means limits on how many distributions can be sold. Your wrong. it does not mean ban. look it up.
I never said it means ban. I only said it means that beyond a certian limit, no-one will be able to buy it, which means that some people who want or need to use it won't be able to for no good reason other than you couldn't think of a more appropriate punishment.
Microsoft has 99% of the desktop market and a good percentage of servers os and growing.
No it doesn't. Please state your sources before you make silly claims. The Mac desktop share is at least 5% and Linux is probably somewhere in that vicinity, but a lot of Linux machines will have Windows installed as well. And as for growing server market...
Microsoft negotiates deals with the OEMS. One computer company wanted to add another operating system to their computer and Microsoft stopped them.
No, Microsoft didn't stick a gun to their head and force them to not do it. They simply refused, IIRC, to allow them to bundle Windows if they were also going to bundle another OS. Which is fair enough. The OEM had a choice between Windows and the competing OS and chose Windows. Blame them.
Or maybe the courts will get tired of so many people acting in such a way that so many lawsuits are required, so they'll start handing out harsher judgements in an effort to dissuade people from piracy.
As for the crime question, I thought IP violation was against the law, so anyone guilty of piracy has committed a crime, but IANAL and haven't exactly studied this in any great depth, so I could very easily be wrong.
The US doesn't have an embargo on products from the US. Windows is not a weapon. It is not a dangerous drug. There is nothing illegal about the product itself, therefore there is no reason to make the product unavailable. It is the actions of the company which are in question, so the punishment should be directed at the company.
The public can go and buy Microsoft but it would be at alot higher prices if quotas were in place on their OS.
No, if there were quotas, the public wouldn't be able to buy Microsoft. That's the point of the quotas.
We don't have the right to buy anything we want when we have government checks and balances to protect the market place and public. Example, Dumping of Products to put other out of business,dangerous drug(legal,illegal),weapons, countries embargoed(terrorist nations).
Microsfot doesn't dump Windows. It isn't an illgal product. It idn't dangerous. It is not funding terrorism. It is simply a very successful product in part due to some dubious business practises, but there is no reason why people should not be allowed to buy it. It is not a threat to people in of itself. Change the business practises of the company or fine it, but don't remove the product if people want it.
Microsoft wouldn't have 99% of the market
Microsoft doesn't have 99% of the market. You're being overly dramatic.
if they didn't put their competitors out of business and forced software makers to abandon porting to other operating systems
They used dodgy business tactics and abused their monopoly position (being a monopoly is not a crime in of itself), but that only justifies action against the company, not action against the consumer.
and also force their way onto our new computers and CHARGE us even though we may not want it.
Blame the people who bundle Windows with their computers. There are computers available with other OSes. I'm only a student, but I've owned several computers and never had to pay Microsoft for anything.
All they have to do is accept a few of the people who turn themselves in, then convict them and a lot of the others would get scared and run off. The difference between piracy and demonstrating against apartheid is that apartheid is morally contemptable and that piracy... also is.
I'd be very concerned if the judicial system got tired of the law being enforced. At that point, no-one wins except criminals. And you didn't mean that by 'THEN WE WIN' did you?
No, quotas are setting a limit on how much can be traded. Before a quota is introduced, there is nothing illegal about the amount sold above what would be the quota level. IT only becomes illegal once you've brought in the quota. Quotas don't stop illegal trade; they make a certain level illegal. Why do some OS advocates have such a hard time understnading that freedom means allowing people to buy Microsoft products if they want to?
And there was nothing illegal about the European steel that quotas were being put on. It jsut happened to be selling better than US stell (presumably because it was cheaper), so to protect American interests, quotas and tarrifs were brought in.
Because your way, you punish not just Microsoft, but also consumers. There are other ways to punish them that won't punish consumers. There are plenty of people who want to use Microsoft and quite a few who need to. You can't suddenly turn round and tell them they can't buy Windows/Office/whatever. People should have the freedom to use whatever software solution they want, which means freedom to use Microsoft.
IIRC, there was a big row about that a few months ago because under world trade agreements, you're not allowed to do that. Basically, free trade is okay as long as it benefits the US. As soon as someone else starts benefitting, in come the quotas. Typical Bush, though I wouldn't be too surprised at anybody doing it. Everyone wants to protect their own, quite understandably. If you sign up to agreements though, you should go along with them.
Anyway, quotas on Microsoft would be wrong. People should be free to buy Windows if they want. How about a massive fine instead? A fine in the billions. Then use the fine to buy Macs, train Linux admins, fund non-windows software development, etc. Much more. Or refuse to renew government contracts once they expire. Not hugely realistic, but it would hurt,
I missed the bit in the article where it talks about dual processors. That's what I get for doing everything in a hurry. My bad. Sorry. Guess I was a little overzealous in trying to stamp out the usual FUD against Apple which was a little unjustified on my part in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
His lectures really aren't that deep. I tried using them in my first year at uni and found them useless for anything but the most basic discussion of my subjects. Dedicated textbooks were way better. Try picking up a few textbooks by French second hand. I love my Quantum Mechanics one and the Special Relativity one wasn't bad either. Atkins is good for Thermodynamics. Gribbin is good for popular overviews of various areas of science. Bleaney & Bleaney is a nice Electromagnetism volume.
Well, the BBC isn't funded purely by the license fee. They sell a lot of shows oversees and have a lot of very marketable merchandise. Books, tapes, CDs, videos, DVDs, toys, etc. from BBC shows all sell pretty well. In some cases (e.g. Red Dwarf) because it's very good. In other cases (e.g. Teletubbies) because children have no taste.
Heh heh. We all got sent those in uni. All of us ignored the letters asking us to say whether we had a license or not. Except one person who wrote back and said she didn't. She of course got threatenning letters saying they didn't believe her while the rest of us got on with our lives.
Actually, the clones weren't expanding marketshare - they were just eating into Apples, and at a time when Apple wasn't in a particularly healthy situation. Apple's 'choice' was kill the clones and survive, or let them keep going and die in a couple of years time, leaving the Mac market dead as well.
Yeah, I've dropped mine off a few tables and chairs, regularly carry it around by the screen and run around while it's tring to read something from the optical drive. Apart from the time I dropped a plug on the screen, it's still in great shape and people keep asking if it's new, lol. Says something for the strength of the design. Well, several things I guess.
A few months ago, the cabling on my power supply wore through to the wires at the point where the it enters the metal sheath. Impossible to repair at that point, so had to fork out 65 to get a new unit. Admittedly, the new one is a better design (though still with a potential problem with the wire at the sheath), but if it had happened anywhere else, it could have been fixed for free with what was lying about the house.
The battery, being at least 2 years old by now, has gone distinctly iffy (15% original capacity is a very optimistic guess). Thankfully I have very little call to use the iBook away from a power socket. I need a laptop because I spend half the year at uni in England and half the year at home in Northern Ireland and shipping a desktop back and forth would be a pain. If I did want to replace the battery, however, it would cost around 90 IIRC.
That's a total of 205 for repairs and a new battery. Applecare was, I think, 140 for the standard 3 years when I bought the machine. Slightly more than the repair, but since it would have given me a few new batteris, I think that in hindsight I could justify it.
No, but it was an example of your tendency to inflate the situation out of proportion. Comparing Windows with trade of illegal weapons would be another. You were being sensationalist and I was calling you on it. You've also failed to address the points I brought up and failed to answer my questions, so this discussion barely even began.
Well, if the imperdance is entirely real, then it's a resistance.
You haven't given a reason why it's better than letting the market decide. Monopolies are not inherently evil. It's only when they abuse their position that there's a problem. Massive fines and threat of more if they don't behave, or giving compensation to their competitors (perhaps using the fines as a source) would be a good incentive for them to behave, while helping the competition and leaving the public free to choose which they product they want to use. Fine them 10 billion, spend half financing open source initiatives with Linux and give the other half to Apple and see what happens. Or use the fines to buy computers with Mac OS X or Linux on and give them away to schools, charities, government departments, small businesses, etc. In what way qould quotas be superior to these suggestions?
Your claim, you provide the evidence. And the original claim I objeced to was that they had 99%.
In which cases did they use quotas? And why do you feel that was fair on the consumer? How is it a better option than masive fines? Do you believe that all monopolies, regardless of how they act, should be cut down? If a monopoly is misbehaving, surely it is better to change its ways and then let the market dictate its size, rather than placing artificial limitations on it and reducing consumer freedom in the process?
I never said it means ban. I only said it means that beyond a certian limit, no-one will be able to buy it, which means that some people who want or need to use it won't be able to for no good reason other than you couldn't think of a more appropriate punishment.
No it doesn't. Please state your sources before you make silly claims. The Mac desktop share is at least 5% and Linux is probably somewhere in that vicinity, but a lot of Linux machines will have Windows installed as well. And as for growing server market...
No, Microsoft didn't stick a gun to their head and force them to not do it. They simply refused, IIRC, to allow them to bundle Windows if they were also going to bundle another OS. Which is fair enough. The OEM had a choice between Windows and the competing OS and chose Windows. Blame them.
As for the crime question, I thought IP violation was against the law, so anyone guilty of piracy has committed a crime, but IANAL and haven't exactly studied this in any great depth, so I could very easily be wrong.
The US doesn't have an embargo on products from the US. Windows is not a weapon. It is not a dangerous drug. There is nothing illegal about the product itself, therefore there is no reason to make the product unavailable. It is the actions of the company which are in question, so the punishment should be directed at the company.
No, if there were quotas, the public wouldn't be able to buy Microsoft. That's the point of the quotas.
Microsfot doesn't dump Windows. It isn't an illgal product. It idn't dangerous. It is not funding terrorism. It is simply a very successful product in part due to some dubious business practises, but there is no reason why people should not be allowed to buy it. It is not a threat to people in of itself. Change the business practises of the company or fine it, but don't remove the product if people want it.
Microsoft doesn't have 99% of the market. You're being overly dramatic.
They used dodgy business tactics and abused their monopoly position (being a monopoly is not a crime in of itself), but that only justifies action against the company, not action against the consumer.
Blame the people who bundle Windows with their computers. There are computers available with other OSes. I'm only a student, but I've owned several computers and never had to pay Microsoft for anything.
All they have to do is accept a few of the people who turn themselves in, then convict them and a lot of the others would get scared and run off. The difference between piracy and demonstrating against apartheid is that apartheid is morally contemptable and that piracy... also is.
Yes, because 90% of consumers run Linux and wouldn't share files if it wasn't DRMed.
I'd be very concerned if the judicial system got tired of the law being enforced. At that point, no-one wins except criminals. And you didn't mean that by 'THEN WE WIN' did you?
And there was nothing illegal about the European steel that quotas were being put on. It jsut happened to be selling better than US stell (presumably because it was cheaper), so to protect American interests, quotas and tarrifs were brought in.
Because your way, you punish not just Microsoft, but also consumers. There are other ways to punish them that won't punish consumers. There are plenty of people who want to use Microsoft and quite a few who need to. You can't suddenly turn round and tell them they can't buy Windows/Office/whatever. People should have the freedom to use whatever software solution they want, which means freedom to use Microsoft.
There were days when Apple had 40%+ margins on their hardware. It's entirely possible to do, as long as people are willing to pay the price.
They don't stop you from buying it though. What if the government shut down all Linux developers and incinerated the ftp servers with the ISOs?
IIRC, there was a big row about that a few months ago because under world trade agreements, you're not allowed to do that. Basically, free trade is okay as long as it benefits the US. As soon as someone else starts benefitting, in come the quotas. Typical Bush, though I wouldn't be too surprised at anybody doing it. Everyone wants to protect their own, quite understandably. If you sign up to agreements though, you should go along with them. Anyway, quotas on Microsoft would be wrong. People should be free to buy Windows if they want. How about a massive fine instead? A fine in the billions. Then use the fine to buy Macs, train Linux admins, fund non-windows software development, etc. Much more. Or refuse to renew government contracts once they expire. Not hugely realistic, but it would hurt,
I missed the bit in the article where it talks about dual processors. That's what I get for doing everything in a hurry. My bad. Sorry. Guess I was a little overzealous in trying to stamp out the usual FUD against Apple which was a little unjustified on my part in this case.
::Smacks head off table:: Doh. Must have missed that bit. My bad.