Because Lucas would sue their asses. Maybe that's why we only see classical and jazz in TNG's universe, the music's either in the public domain or the owners don't have enough money to sue.
Not even the original poster bothered to read it. The law at issue in Nevada stated that the police could ask for ID during an investigation.
In Dudley Hiibel's instance, a witness reported seeing him hitting his daughter. An officer went to investigate. He found Hiibel and his daughter on the side of the road. The officer attempted to conduct an investigation by merely asking for his name, but Hiibel refused. Thus, he was arrested under the law.
The original poster stated that the "Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves."
That's one of the few things I liked about DS9. It showed the otherside of living in the Federation. One of the best scenes in DS9 was the following:
Quark: "I want you to try something for me. Take a sip of this." Garak: "What is it?" Quark: "A Human drink, it's called Root Beer." Garak: "Ahh, I don't know....." Quark: "Come on....Aren't you in the least bit curious?" Quark: "..........What d'you think?" Garak: "It's vile?" Quark: "I know. It's so bubbly and cloy, and happy." Garak: "Just like the Federation....." Quark: "But do you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it you begin to like it...." Garak: "....It's insidious...." Quark: "....Just like the Federation."
But I just don't get the excitement people are having about Gmail. If any other company offered a similar service (reading your emails and sending you spam based on those emails) nearly all slashdotters would be outraged. But, when Google does it, it's perfectly OK.
FYI, even if Google is a decent corporation and will respect your privacy, it does not mean that will always be the case!
Feel free to mod me as flamebait, because that's exactly what I am!
Merely shifting money from profits received from Windows and Office to lose it on the Xbox is not a plan for making a profit. Eventually, someday, Microsoft might make a profit on the Xbox, the xbox2, or maybe the Xbox3. But before Microsoft sees such a profit, it first has to pay off its current billion dollar+ plus debt from its current loses.
Or put it another way, even if the Xbox2 sells well AND earns money for each console sold, the Xbox2 would still be starting off in a billion dollar+ hole! And that hole would have to be filled before any real profit is made.
You're right, losing $250 is obviously worse then losing $100. But, that clearly was not his point. Reread it and point to where he said that:
"They more the sell, they less they lose on each one, and gives them further incentive to streamline each successive revision of the hardware until they're not losing money. Just because they lost $100 on the first one they sold, doesn't mean they're still losing $100 on the 500,000,000th they sell."
Basically he seems to be under the impression that over time the cost of manufacturing the Xbox should have decreased. Which, unfortunately for Microsoft, was not the case. Sure it probably got cheaper to build, but the price also went down a lot too.
That reminds me of a skit on SNL. It was a business that made change. You gave them a dollar and they'd give you four quarters. The joke was, "People ask how we make money. The answer: Volume."
You don't get it. Every time Microsoft sells a console, they lose 100 bucks. Every single one. Not just the first, not just the second one, every single one.
Let me put it another way. Currently the Xbox sells for $150. However, it costs Microsoft $250 to make it. Thus, when you buy one, Microsoft loses $100.
I'm not making this up. It's a known fact. I previously cited to numerous articles saying the same thing. Scroll down (or up) and read them.
Currently, right now, Microsoft has lost about a billion dollars on the Xbox. Maybe more.
It's commonly believed that Microsoft loses 100 bucks on each console sold. Microsoft planned on making the money off the games. Microsoft makes about 10 bucks per game, sometimes less. So, Microsoft has to sell 10 games for each console just to break even. That does not include rented/used games either. Needless to say, the vast majority of people do not buy that many games.
And no, Live! isn't profitable either. http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/st ories/200 3/06/02/story7.html?page=3
So, if Microsoft sells one million Xboxes, the company loses $100,000,000, excluding the minimal money they get from game sales. If they sell another million, that's an additional $100,000,000 lost.
Once again, because Microsoft loses 100 bucks on each console sold, the more consoles they sell, the more money they lose.
Did you read any of the links?! Gee, why do I even bother? So far Microsoft has lost about a billion dollars, maybe more, manufacturing AND selling the Xbox!!!
As Iposted earlier, the current Xbox loses a LOT of money, possibly billions of dollars. And the better it sells, the more Microsoft loses.
So, if the Xbox2 is cheaper to produce, and does not bleed money with every console sold, then it would certainly be in Microsoft's advantage to change over as quickly as possible.
However, if it's still a money pit, then there is absolutely NO reason to switch!
Why is are the copyright monopolies still so mad about the Betamax decision? Because of that decision the VHS industry was created. The video rental industry was created. And DVD industry was created. All of these industries have helped save the movie industry's asses for the last couple of decades.
Anyone with a brain knows that the Betamax decision made Hollywood richer, so what's the f$&%ing deal?!
of everything this stupid act would have banned. So far I came up with:
cable tv (When cable TV was first started, the companies did not have the right to rebroadcast the networks' shows. Thus, what they were doing was technically illegal. However, Congress wisely said it was OK)
radio (This history of radio is similar to the history of cable TV above)
cassette tapes (i.e., any audio device which could possibly record sound),
CD/DVD-burners
copy machines
VCRs
video cameras
Film/digital cameras
The printing press
paper/pencils/pens
mirrors?!
Computers
Any network, including the internet
MP3 players, heck, any type of hard drive storage device
Slashdot Mirror
I just find is very hard to believe that Intel would shoot themselves in the foot like this. But if they did, it's a HUGE win for AMD.
You're confusing winning a lawsuit to filing or threatening a lawsuit.
You can sue for anything, but you can only win in certain circumstances.
Yeah, it'd be like listening to a patent clerk's views on physics!
Because Lucas would sue their asses. Maybe that's why we only see classical and jazz in TNG's universe, the music's either in the public domain or the owners don't have enough money to sue.
And I doubt if it's true, AMD stock holders are smiling!
Not even the original poster bothered to read it. The law at issue in Nevada stated that the police could ask for ID during an investigation.
In Dudley Hiibel's instance, a witness reported seeing him hitting his daughter. An officer went to investigate. He found Hiibel and his daughter on the side of the road. The officer attempted to conduct an investigation by merely asking for his name, but Hiibel refused. Thus, he was arrested under the law.
The original poster stated that the "Supreme Court of the United States ruled that anybody can be compelled at any time to identify themselves."
That was clearly NOT the holding of the case!!!!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97501&cid=8338 624
Actually, the thought of those skirts and boots have kept me in puberty way too long!
That's one of the few things I liked about DS9. It showed the otherside of living in the Federation. One of the best scenes in DS9 was the following:
Quark: "I want you to try something for me. Take a sip of this."
Garak: "What is it?"
Quark: "A Human drink, it's called Root Beer."
Garak: "Ahh, I don't know....."
Quark: "Come on....Aren't you in the least bit curious?"
Quark: "..........What d'you think?"
Garak: "It's vile?"
Quark: "I know. It's so bubbly and cloy, and happy."
Garak: "Just like the Federation....."
Quark: "But do you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it you begin to like it...."
Garak: "....It's insidious...."
Quark: "....Just like the Federation."
Thanks for pointing out my error. I guess the service is a little more tolerable than I thought.
But I just don't get the excitement people are having about Gmail. If any other company offered a similar service (reading your emails and sending you spam based on those emails) nearly all slashdotters would be outraged. But, when Google does it, it's perfectly OK.
FYI, even if Google is a decent corporation and will respect your privacy, it does not mean that will always be the case!
Feel free to mod me as flamebait, because that's exactly what I am!
Truth is not a defense to defamation in Brazil.
So what you're essentially saying is that Hollywood is directly competing with Microsoft.
"The more units they build... Profit!"
Merely shifting money from profits received from Windows and Office to lose it on the Xbox is not a plan for making a profit. Eventually, someday, Microsoft might make a profit on the Xbox, the xbox2, or maybe the Xbox3. But before Microsoft sees such a profit, it first has to pay off its current billion dollar+ plus debt from its current loses.
Or put it another way, even if the Xbox2 sells well AND earns money for each console sold, the Xbox2 would still be starting off in a billion dollar+ hole! And that hole would have to be filled before any real profit is made.
You're right, losing $250 is obviously worse then losing $100. But, that clearly was not his point. Reread it and point to where he said that:
"They more the sell, they less they lose on each one, and gives them further incentive to streamline each successive revision of the hardware until they're not losing money. Just because they lost $100 on the first one they sold, doesn't mean they're still losing $100 on the 500,000,000th they sell."
Basically he seems to be under the impression that over time the cost of manufacturing the Xbox should have decreased. Which, unfortunately for Microsoft, was not the case. Sure it probably got cheaper to build, but the price also went down a lot too.
That reminds me of a skit on SNL. It was a business that made change. You gave them a dollar and they'd give you four quarters. The joke was, "People ask how we make money. The answer: Volume."
You have EVERY right to believe that the Xbox has "done well" despite losing a billion dollars. I simply tend to disagree and posted as such.
You don't get it. Every time Microsoft sells a console, they lose 100 bucks. Every single one. Not just the first, not just the second one, every single one.
Let me put it another way. Currently the Xbox sells for $150. However, it costs Microsoft $250 to make it. Thus, when you buy one, Microsoft loses $100.
I'm not making this up. It's a known fact. I previously cited to numerous articles saying the same thing. Scroll down (or up) and read them.
Are you kidding?!
t ories/200 3/06/02/story7.html?page=3
Currently, right now, Microsoft has lost about a billion dollars on the Xbox. Maybe more.
It's commonly believed that Microsoft loses 100 bucks on each console sold. Microsoft planned on making the money off the games. Microsoft makes about 10 bucks per game, sometimes less. So, Microsoft has to sell 10 games for each console just to break even. That does not include rented/used games either. Needless to say, the vast majority of people do not buy that many games.
And no, Live! isn't profitable either.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/s
So, if Microsoft sells one million Xboxes, the company loses $100,000,000, excluding the minimal money they get from game sales. If they sell another million, that's an additional $100,000,000 lost.
Once again, because Microsoft loses 100 bucks on each console sold, the more consoles they sell, the more money they lose.
Did you read any of the links?! Gee, why do I even bother? So far Microsoft has lost about a billion dollars, maybe more, manufacturing AND selling the Xbox!!!
As Iposted earlier, the current Xbox loses a LOT of money, possibly billions of dollars. And the better it sells, the more Microsoft loses.
So, if the Xbox2 is cheaper to produce, and does not bleed money with every console sold, then it would certainly be in Microsoft's advantage to change over as quickly as possible.
However, if it's still a money pit, then there is absolutely NO reason to switch!
The Xbox is in a catch 22 situation. Because it loses so much money on every console, the more it sells, the more Microsoft loses.
s /
e ct ion_name=pub&aid=3489
s p
2 00 3/06/02/story7.html
The loss estimates so far are in the billions:
Here read this:
http://www.itworld.com/App/4201/030203xboxlosse
this is about their losses in 2002 doubling!!
in this more recent piece the Biz magazine says Msft has lost BILLIONS so far.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?s
Here's an article on its big loses in 2003
http://www.1up.com/article2/0,4364,1519194,00.a
here's an article talking about how they are losing money despite sales increases:
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/
Why is are the copyright monopolies still so mad about the Betamax decision? Because of that decision the VHS industry was created. The video rental industry was created. And DVD industry was created. All of these industries have helped save the movie industry's asses for the last couple of decades.
Anyone with a brain knows that the Betamax decision made Hollywood richer, so what's the f$&%ing deal?!
of everything this stupid act would have banned. So far I came up with:
cable tv (When cable TV was first started, the companies did not have the right to rebroadcast the networks' shows. Thus, what they were doing was technically illegal. However, Congress wisely said it was OK)
radio (This history of radio is similar to the history of cable TV above)
cassette tapes (i.e., any audio device which could possibly record sound),
CD/DVD-burners
copy machines
VCRs
video cameras
Film/digital cameras
The printing press
paper/pencils/pens
mirrors?!
Computers
Any network, including the internet
MP3 players, heck, any type of hard drive storage device
Scanners
printers
My fingers are tired...
I just wanted to add something. Some will say the music industry is just waiting for a perfect DRM to be implimented.
To that I'll say, waiting for a perfect DRM is like waiting for the ocean to run out of water rather than jumping from a sinking ship.