Note the wavebird-like controler that will be available, by inserting the Revolution controller inside it. You will have access to a current gen run of the mill dual analog stick, although I'll be also quick to point out that fighter games ain't nuthin unless played on an arcade quality joystick. Even dual analog controllers don't do fighting games justice. I prefer the hand cramped Wavebird D-pad to Sony's pathetic excuse for a D-Pad, but neither are really that well suited to SF-style moves.
This is the singular result on an economy so maddenlingly focused on credit (patents, copyrights) that its lost sight of the original goal; to create shit. More money is spent on trying to convince people that you developed something out of thin air than is spent on research and development in the first place at many companies (not all, of course, but many.)
> When fire becomes a financial burden, safety will go up.
You sicken me. To paraphrase you:
"Once enough people die, and its too expensive to pay out insurance claims, insurance companies will enforce stricter rules."
Once people die. You need people to die first before anybody does anything.
State regulations may be reactive to a certain extent, but not by design. Placing safety and health regulations in a freemarket requires human suffering by dresign before a market correction.
Your counter argument, which I know already is, so what, more people die under supposedly proactive government over regulation.
Which is a hypothesis, and not factual. Turning these things over to the free market is essentially saying, "Well, we're too dumb to know what works, but one thing we know for sure is if enough people die/getsick/getfucked, it'll become too expensive to maintain insurance."
Lets be honest here, you're talking about fire insurance payouts, but the money has to do with injuries/death in addition to simple property destruction. So you're suggesting a free market where the cost/revenue model is related to people dying.
> I guess it's all considered "new" because so few people ever actually learned anything about the AS400 internals
Words can't even describe... its "new" because so few people ever used the AS400. Period. I mean, beOS has some of this functionality, OSX has a certain level of extensible file metadata, but so few people, comparitively use or used those OSes that you have to accept that when Windows does it, its news because thats where it hits the most users.
Illegal activity is illegal activity, but reputable cookie-setters tell you exactly what they store, and how they use it in their privacy policies.
Its a media frenzy, culture of fear thing, the paranioa people have about cookies. Its very difficult to collect anything *remotely* commercially useful about a person using cookies unless its flat out browser sniffing spyware.
If you're a banner network, the only way cookies are useful is to tell advertisers how well their campaign performed *after* the fact.
I wish people understood that, although what do I care. I'll try and set a cookie, and if I can't, your choice. The industry makes a big deal out of it because it makes it exponentially more difficult to report campaign performance to advertisers, and expotentially more difficult to only deliver an ad to you once instead of many times.
You know how people bitch about the same tv ad over and over and over again? Cookies prevent that from happening online. I take a pretty dim view of somebody who thinks they're protecting themselves or giving it to the man by blocking cookies.
All they're doing is making sure they see the same ads over again, and devaluing the CPM (not the value of internet marketing, just the cost of running ads. Internet marketing is not going a way, cookie or no cookie, it just makes it that much harder for your favorite freely available website to actually pay bandwidth costs.)
Probably because anybody that ever competed with MS' OS ended up in cement shoes at the bottom of Lake Michigan with a note stapled to their foreheads that read, "Don't get suspicious, his product sucked and was unable to compete in my - er, the free market. Signed, Clippy."
Wrong. It has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits while maintaining a sustainable business. If that means lower profits but a more stable long term outlook, so be it.
'maximizing profits' is a nebulous term, and often not making the maximal profit available today makes sure I can continue making profits tommorow.
The parent poster is only pointing out that not being the market leader tommorow is often a safer strategy for shareholders. Hey, if you end up being a market leading money maker, great, the market loved your products. But the goal to 'maximize profits' is not intended to let the tail wag the dog. One might easily say, "Apple has a fiduciary duty to get into selling toilet paper, because if they made toilet paper AND computers, they could make more money." Obviously, maximizing profits is done within the scope of a defined market strategy to deliver quality products to an identified segment of the market; not always the largest.
> The long answer is that there is no motivation to create if there is no reward for it.
And thats what it comes down to, except we've LONG passed that point, where going after somebody for stealing an idea is often more profitable than the idea was in the first place.
Don't lecture me on this stuff, you were the one with the classic failed analogy. I'm gainfully employed from the ideas I create, but for some strange reason, sometimes I talk to people and share my ideas, and sometimes people share their ideas right back! My god, I'll be living in a cardboard box tommorow!
The irony that this original discussion started about Linux, an OS written by people without fiscal reward for doing so pretty makes your 'nobody creates a song unless they own it for a zillion years plus two' ring pretty hollow. Sure, we need protection for ideas, but that in and of itself is a slippery slope. What bothers me is people are so utterly incapable of recognizing that the protection is granted by government in order to better society/science/culture. So if there is TOO MUCH protection (an assertion that is utterly frightening to many people, but completely reasonable within the scope of patent/copyright discussion since *limited term* is such a key stipulation in said laws,) the laws fail to serve the original intended purpose and we end up making an idea every decade or so and then fighting for 3 more about who gets exclusive use and profit from it.
But yet, try and point out that protection for ideas is NOT like private property laws (ie, my car) for a pretty good damn reason, and you end up getting lectured about how I supposedly don't make a good salary or contribute to society. Go figure.
BTW, sorry for quoting that line up above. Now that I've copied an idea of yours (not for personal gain, if it helps you sleep better at night,) I hope you can find some other way of eeking out a living in this idea driven speed of eBusiness economy.
I re-read your post and yeah, I guess it wasn't clear to me you were pointing out that MS has made it impossible to compete rather than asking why everybody bitches about taking a stance on MS because nobody seems to want to duke it out in the marketplace.
At this point, I pity the person who cares. Build. I don't understand rehashing shit thats so old. UnixWare still exists. Linux still exists. Even if this was a heinous crime, what a waste of market resources. Just suck it up and create.
Which may not happen because.. guess what, cars may go from 50% electric/50% gasoline to some other fuel. Yeah the parent poster is being self serving and not adding to the discourse, but neither are you.
BeOS was killed because OEMs were prevented by MS from being listed as a boot choice in the bootloader.
MS threatened to cut the supply of Windows to the OEMs (given that they were a monopoly, that would have been suicide) so BeOS was dead before it even got the chance.
The point is, yours is a very bad argument to make; if MS does indeed prevent other commercial x86 operating systems from competiting (hypothetically speaking,) then asking where the other x86 OSes is a pretty moot, empty argument.
Doesn't it strike *anybody* that the only real competition is free and thus difficult to make money from? As soon as you want to make money from ANYTHING that may compete with Windows, MS does some pretty dirty things, none of which involve inviting you to the ring to duke it out on pure strength of engineering alone. Its cowardly.
BeOS was an incredible, cool OS that had features 4 years ago that MS decided not to ship with the upcoming Vista! It simply wasn't given a chance to compete in the market place, despite real, honest to god interest of OEMs that would have put it on the desktops of consumers like you and I. I'm not saying it would have been or is the all out superior option, but Microsoft has done all sorts of nasty things to prevent us consumers from enjoying the transparent market of choices you ask about.
Yes, I know. Very little actually requires a reboot, and I normally do not reboot.
> Next time it happens, try running it without rebooting. I think you'll find that almost everything works if you do this.
A lot of people don't know this, and would probably tear their hair out from all the reboots they've done over the last X years if they found out that by and large is was rarely neccessary.
He's talking as a user. If he's not aware of what could have been, or even just other choices available, hes not that far off. Out of 3 choices, Windows is not great, but its far from being a non-practical choice. As an engineer, or anybody intereseted in transparent markets, articles like that are just a good market-based example of the Stockholm Syndrome in action.
Many times the wealth of a politician, and with none of that fussy public accountability crap!
Seriously, whats the problem here? Hell, google.ca is a public company. This is a pure hissy fit, nothing more, nothing less. Another good example of the transformation from cool, private R&D firm to huge money making public bohemouth.
To be fair, public companies make their decisions from the top to the bottom; engineers can always be told, "Yeah thats true, but its bad for our capital base.. "
I've never understood the desire to make a company public. Its tantamount to placing the decisions in the hands of people who may not have any vested interest in success tommorow if they pull their money out. Its terribly short sighted and only makes sense VERY simple industries.
Amen. Nice to see some people realize that the limited term of patents (and copyrights) should encourage hard work, not dissuade you from it after the first big score.
Youre in idiot, if you think that educating people constitutes commercial usefulness.
Should my grade 3 math teacher have paid somebody for teaching us long division? Its been useful, but hardly more useful to very specifuc private companies than to the public.
If you think using a patent in an undergrad university class constitutes commercial use, please stop using your car or computer, because they simply wouldn't be affordable to you if the kind of bullshit you spewed were taken verbatim as justification for legal protection.
I think you may find that in time, you're more of a case by case apologist than somebody that understands the economic ramifications of extented patent protection.
Cmon, the sad part of this is that if only side of a party of people has the might to push the rules through, they reallyt wern't that 'inherently valuable' too all in the first place.
Its just persistance. If I have enough money and power to just keep arguing, eventually you will fold (or eventually do something that tips the moral scales in your favour.) That doesn't mean my ideas were inherently valuable in the first place, just that I wore you down to the point where conceeding was cheaper than putting up a fight in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Note the wavebird-like controler that will be available, by inserting the Revolution controller inside it. You will have access to a current gen run of the mill dual analog stick, although I'll be also quick to point out that fighter games ain't nuthin unless played on an arcade quality joystick. Even dual analog controllers don't do fighting games justice. I prefer the hand cramped Wavebird D-pad to Sony's pathetic excuse for a D-Pad, but neither are really that well suited to SF-style moves.
This is the singular result on an economy so maddenlingly focused on credit (patents, copyrights) that its lost sight of the original goal; to create shit. More money is spent on trying to convince people that you developed something out of thin air than is spent on research and development in the first place at many companies (not all, of course, but many.)
> When fire becomes a financial burden, safety will go up.
You sicken me. To paraphrase you:
"Once enough people die, and its too expensive to pay out insurance claims, insurance companies will enforce stricter rules."
Once people die. You need people to die first before anybody does anything.
State regulations may be reactive to a certain extent, but not by design. Placing safety and health regulations in a freemarket requires human suffering by dresign before a market correction.
Your counter argument, which I know already is, so what, more people die under supposedly proactive government over regulation.
Which is a hypothesis, and not factual. Turning these things over to the free market is essentially saying, "Well, we're too dumb to know what works, but one thing we know for sure is if enough people die/getsick/getfucked, it'll become too expensive to maintain insurance."
Lets be honest here, you're talking about fire insurance payouts, but the money has to do with injuries/death in addition to simple property destruction. So you're suggesting a free market where the cost/revenue model is related to people dying.
Sick.
If you never use the pipe key, you ain't a programmer, and this keyboard ain't for you.
No offence, but || is madetory. I typed this whole post with my eyes closed. Even had to hit backspace once or twice.
Not that it isn't a waste of money, but not knowing where pipe is? Dayam!
> I guess it's all considered "new" because so few people ever actually learned anything about the AS400 internals
... its "new" because so few people ever used the AS400. Period. I mean, beOS has some of this functionality, OSX has a certain level of extensible file metadata, but so few people, comparitively use or used those OSes that you have to accept that when Windows does it, its news because thats where it hits the most users.
Words can't even describe
Illegal activity is illegal activity, but reputable cookie-setters tell you exactly what they store, and how they use it in their privacy policies.
Its a media frenzy, culture of fear thing, the paranioa people have about cookies. Its very difficult to collect anything *remotely* commercially useful about a person using cookies unless its flat out browser sniffing spyware.
If you're a banner network, the only way cookies are useful is to tell advertisers how well their campaign performed *after* the fact.
I wish people understood that, although what do I care. I'll try and set a cookie, and if I can't, your choice. The industry makes a big deal out of it because it makes it exponentially more difficult to report campaign performance to advertisers, and expotentially more difficult to only deliver an ad to you once instead of many times.
You know how people bitch about the same tv ad over and over and over again? Cookies prevent that from happening online. I take a pretty dim view of somebody who thinks they're protecting themselves or giving it to the man by blocking cookies.
All they're doing is making sure they see the same ads over again, and devaluing the CPM (not the value of internet marketing, just the cost of running ads. Internet marketing is not going a way, cookie or no cookie, it just makes it that much harder for your favorite freely available website to actually pay bandwidth costs.)
Terrible example. Search for "http" ... MUCH more interesting. They don't even strip "http://" off the URLs when they do their scoring!
Yee old giraffe scarecrow metaphor. An oldie but goodie.
Probably because anybody that ever competed with MS' OS ended up in cement shoes at the bottom of Lake Michigan with a note stapled to their foreheads that read, "Don't get suspicious, his product sucked and was unable to compete in my - er, the free market. Signed, Clippy."
> MAXIMIZE profits for their shareholders
Wrong. It has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits while maintaining a sustainable business. If that means lower profits but a more stable long term outlook, so be it.
'maximizing profits' is a nebulous term, and often not making the maximal profit available today makes sure I can continue making profits tommorow.
The parent poster is only pointing out that not being the market leader tommorow is often a safer strategy for shareholders. Hey, if you end up being a market leading money maker, great, the market loved your products. But the goal to 'maximize profits' is not intended to let the tail wag the dog. One might easily say, "Apple has a fiduciary duty to get into selling toilet paper, because if they made toilet paper AND computers, they could make more money." Obviously, maximizing profits is done within the scope of a defined market strategy to deliver quality products to an identified segment of the market; not always the largest.
> The long answer is that there is no motivation to create if there is no reward for it.
And thats what it comes down to, except we've LONG passed that point, where going after somebody for stealing an idea is often more profitable than the idea was in the first place.
Don't lecture me on this stuff, you were the one with the classic failed analogy. I'm gainfully employed from the ideas I create, but for some strange reason, sometimes I talk to people and share my ideas, and sometimes people share their ideas right back! My god, I'll be living in a cardboard box tommorow!
The irony that this original discussion started about Linux, an OS written by people without fiscal reward for doing so pretty makes your 'nobody creates a song unless they own it for a zillion years plus two' ring pretty hollow. Sure, we need protection for ideas, but that in and of itself is a slippery slope. What bothers me is people are so utterly incapable of recognizing that the protection is granted by government in order to better society/science/culture. So if there is TOO MUCH protection (an assertion that is utterly frightening to many people, but completely reasonable within the scope of patent/copyright discussion since *limited term* is such a key stipulation in said laws,) the laws fail to serve the original intended purpose and we end up making an idea every decade or so and then fighting for 3 more about who gets exclusive use and profit from it.
But yet, try and point out that protection for ideas is NOT like private property laws (ie, my car) for a pretty good damn reason, and you end up getting lectured about how I supposedly don't make a good salary or contribute to society. Go figure.
BTW, sorry for quoting that line up above. Now that I've copied an idea of yours (not for personal gain, if it helps you sleep better at night,) I hope you can find some other way of eeking out a living in this idea driven speed of eBusiness economy.
I re-read your post and yeah, I guess it wasn't clear to me you were pointing out that MS has made it impossible to compete rather than asking why everybody bitches about taking a stance on MS because nobody seems to want to duke it out in the marketplace.
> Why do you complain when someone steals your car?
Because I can't drive my car around anymore, you total dumbass.
Steal an idea of mine, and I'm fairly sure I'm still capable of using it.
I thought the difference was made crystal clear to people years ago. AN IDEA IS NOT A PHYSICAL OBJECT.
At this point, I pity the person who cares. Build. I don't understand rehashing shit thats so old. UnixWare still exists. Linux still exists. Even if this was a heinous crime, what a waste of market resources. Just suck it up and create.
Which may not happen because .. guess what, cars may go from 50% electric/50% gasoline to some other fuel. Yeah the parent poster is being self serving and not adding to the discourse, but neither are you.
BeOS was killed because OEMs were prevented by MS from being listed as a boot choice in the bootloader.
MS threatened to cut the supply of Windows to the OEMs (given that they were a monopoly, that would have been suicide) so BeOS was dead before it even got the chance.
The point is, yours is a very bad argument to make; if MS does indeed prevent other commercial x86 operating systems from competiting (hypothetically speaking,) then asking where the other x86 OSes is a pretty moot, empty argument.
Doesn't it strike *anybody* that the only real competition is free and thus difficult to make money from? As soon as you want to make money from ANYTHING that may compete with Windows, MS does some pretty dirty things, none of which involve inviting you to the ring to duke it out on pure strength of engineering alone. Its cowardly.
BeOS was an incredible, cool OS that had features 4 years ago that MS decided not to ship with the upcoming Vista! It simply wasn't given a chance to compete in the market place, despite real, honest to god interest of OEMs that would have put it on the desktops of consumers like you and I. I'm not saying it would have been or is the all out superior option, but Microsoft has done all sorts of nasty things to prevent us consumers from enjoying the transparent market of choices you ask about.
Yes, I know. Very little actually requires a reboot, and I normally do not reboot.
> Next time it happens, try running it without rebooting. I think you'll find that almost everything works if you do this.
A lot of people don't know this, and would probably tear their hair out from all the reboots they've done over the last X years if they found out that by and large is was rarely neccessary.
He's talking as a user. If he's not aware of what could have been, or even just other choices available, hes not that far off. Out of 3 choices, Windows is not great, but its far from being a non-practical choice. As an engineer, or anybody intereseted in transparent markets, articles like that are just a good market-based example of the Stockholm Syndrome in action.
I know you're jokin around, but just to add ..
I'm still prompted to reboot my Windows machine when I install userland software. Remind me why I always loved this little gem:
"Alert: Windows has detected that you have moved your mouse. You must reboot windows in order for these changes to take effect."
Many times the wealth of a politician, and with none of that fussy public accountability crap!
Seriously, whats the problem here? Hell, google.ca is a public company. This is a pure hissy fit, nothing more, nothing less. Another good example of the transformation from cool, private R&D firm to huge money making public bohemouth.
To be fair, public companies make their decisions from the top to the bottom; engineers can always be told, "Yeah thats true, but its bad for our capital base .. "
I've never understood the desire to make a company public. Its tantamount to placing the decisions in the hands of people who may not have any vested interest in success tommorow if they pull their money out. Its terribly short sighted and only makes sense VERY simple industries.
Or, "Society honours its live conformists, and its dead rebels."
Amen. Nice to see some people realize that the limited term of patents (and copyrights) should encourage hard work, not dissuade you from it after the first big score.
Youre in idiot, if you think that educating people constitutes commercial usefulness.
Should my grade 3 math teacher have paid somebody for teaching us long division? Its been useful, but hardly more useful to very specifuc private companies than to the public.
If you think using a patent in an undergrad university class constitutes commercial use, please stop using your car or computer, because they simply wouldn't be affordable to you if the kind of bullshit you spewed were taken verbatim as justification for legal protection.
I think you may find that in time, you're more of a case by case apologist than somebody that understands the economic ramifications of extented patent protection.
Cmon, the sad part of this is that if only side of a party of people has the might to push the rules through, they reallyt wern't that 'inherently valuable' too all in the first place.
Its just persistance. If I have enough money and power to just keep arguing, eventually you will fold (or eventually do something that tips the moral scales in your favour.) That doesn't mean my ideas were inherently valuable in the first place, just that I wore you down to the point where conceeding was cheaper than putting up a fight in the first place.