Web applications are something that can't be monopolized. The reason Microsoft has a desktop OS monopoly is due to the huge number of applications that are written for Windows and would be incompatible with something else. If I came out with an OS that was technically better than Windows, it is unlikely that people will want it so bad as to be willing to throw away everything that Windows allows them to do.
Web apps are a different story. To use a different web app, all the user has to do is point their browser at a different site. Compatibility is not nearly as much of an issue. If users think your new webmail system is so much better than Yahoo or Gmail, they can easily make the switch. The big players probably won't think it would be worth changing their entire way of operating to be more like you, so you'll have your market niche and they'll have theirs.
As long as people have different preferences, there will be different web apps. I don't think it is possible for a company to have a monopoly unless they really do make the best and easiest app to use and no competitor can come close.
Sounds like somebody is pissed that his stupid brainchild isn't as successful as anything Google has. He could hire quality people and get venture capital, if only someone thought his ideas would actually go somewhere.
What? Maybe the first 2 times you play the tape on a super-expensive VCR. Most people would rather just do it the easy way and pay $3 more for the DVD. Kind of like LPs vs. music CDs. Sure a record CAN sound better, but CDs are so much easier which is why they caught on.
Corporations are more to blame for the decline of science than the government. Most industrial development is ultimately driven by companies looking to make money on new technologies. Lately, most companies have been gutting research budgets in favor of more short term profits (ie. HP). Look at most job postings, how many both require an advanced degree and are willing to pay enough to hire someone? Most companies aren't interested. Until corporate America can look past next quarter's numbers, R&D will not really exist in the U.S. anymore.
I'd say the state knows exactly what's going on here. Microsoft money will get these legislators reelected, therefore Microsoft expects results. What better way to create permanent demand for your product than to require it be taught in schools so that an entire generation knows how to use nothing else.
Only shitty TVs don't have A/V plugs. Most people know this and use it as an excuse to get a better TV. Or they just buy the Radio Shack adapter that hooks into the coax line. If EVERYBODY had to get a new TV to watch DVDs they would have been about as popular as the Laserdisc of the early 90s.
In reality, it means nothing. It's basically just providing crap over the internet. Imagine that, using a computer network to do something!
Flashy sounding acronyms are needed to get non-technical business people to feel like they need to buy something so that they can keep up with their competitors. Nevermind that said technology might not be right for their unique situation. That is how technical sales are made.
This will, of course, be presented to the consumer as a benefit. "With our new LiveUpdate feature, you'll never again have an outdated player roster! Each year you'll be automatically connected to our website to update your software for the latest and greatest in player info." They'll leave it up to the user to figure out that what it really means is that they aren't really buying a game, but renting it year at a time.
The idea of charging mindless consumers a lot of money for a subpar product has worked pretty well so far for the NFL (look up the price of Chicago Bears tickets and then look up their record for last season), so they probably assumed it would work just fine for video games. I predict things will go on as usual, with sports fans paying more money for less in return. Who knows what it will take to stop the madness.
Remember, felony cases are almost always heard before a jury. Nobody really wants these cases to go to a jury since it would take all of 10 minutes for the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict. The purpose of the felony charges is intimidation; to convince the kids and their parents that the school is serious. They'll be offered an alternative plea agreement, do community service, and have it tossed from their record in a year. This whole thing does however remind me of the fact that school administrators, along with many teachers, are complete morons when it comes to computers.
I shudder to think of what the Wachowskis' egos will do to this movie. Ever since Matrix Reloaded I can't stomach the thought of seeing any more of their creations. I wonder how many sequels they are planning.
Doctors play a game with the insurance companies. The doctor bills as high as possible and the insurance pays as little as possible. Supposedly, doctors contract with the insurance carriers to accept a certain fee, but this amount can still vary. In theory, the insurance company could pay them $1 per visit, but they don't because the doctor wouldn't take their patients anymore if they did. Special arrangements, designed to make medical care cheaper, actually make it much more complex and expensive.
I've seen this comment on Slashdot before but I seriously doubt that an ISP would become liable for everything just because they chose to block some things. Has anyone seen an actual example of an ISP or similar organization being held liable in a situation like this?
Hell, I'd like to see it used for urban broadband. It would be nice to have an alternative to the cable monopoly and/or the phone monopoly. Not to mention, it would probably be faster. It's hard to get too excited about long-range wireless internet until some company actually starts selling service.
If you think your insurance rates will go down as a result of red light cameras and speed cameras, may I interest you in some prime oceanfront property in Kansas?
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the legal standard used in privacy related lawsuits. If a store has no signs or other indications that cameras are being used in a dressing room that has a locking door, the customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy and would be entitled to sue if a hidden camera were discovered. If however, the dressing rooms were not private or a sign were posted making it obvious there was a camera, then there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a court would not award damages.
As other posters have pointed out, no store would be likely to have cameras in their dressing rooms anyway as this would hurt their business much more than shoplifters would.
Depends on what part of the country you live in. These things are a great idea in warmer climates, but if you live in the northern United States or Canada it will not produce nearly enough heat. Anywhere in the north pretty much requires the power of gas heat, which has become much more efficient in recent years.
The more people that are in the group, the lower the collective intelligence of a group. After a major sporting event, people riot and break shit. How many times do you see just a group of 4 guys doing this? Hardly ever. The larger the group, the more stupid shit goes on.
Yikes, that's pretty bad. That site is what happens when a print media company starts publishing online and has no clue about the web, so they take the same form and layout that worked for print and make their website just like it. Hmm, much like the RIAA and MPAA refusal to adapt to a new media, how fitting.
It would be nice if Hollywood finally realized that almost all movies that revolve around a big-name actor end up bombing. How many horrible movies was Bruce Willis in? They were bad because they relied on his presence to make the movie a success, as opposed to coming up with a real plot, storyline, etc. Good stories make good movies, not just big-name actors combined with special effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Web applications are something that can't be monopolized. The reason Microsoft has a desktop OS monopoly is due to the huge number of applications that are written for Windows and would be incompatible with something else. If I came out with an OS that was technically better than Windows, it is unlikely that people will want it so bad as to be willing to throw away everything that Windows allows them to do. Web apps are a different story. To use a different web app, all the user has to do is point their browser at a different site. Compatibility is not nearly as much of an issue. If users think your new webmail system is so much better than Yahoo or Gmail, they can easily make the switch. The big players probably won't think it would be worth changing their entire way of operating to be more like you, so you'll have your market niche and they'll have theirs. As long as people have different preferences, there will be different web apps. I don't think it is possible for a company to have a monopoly unless they really do make the best and easiest app to use and no competitor can come close.
Sounds like somebody is pissed that his stupid brainchild isn't as successful as anything Google has. He could hire quality people and get venture capital, if only someone thought his ideas would actually go somewhere.
Are you on crack or something?
little difference in quality
What? Maybe the first 2 times you play the tape on a super-expensive VCR. Most people would rather just do it the easy way and pay $3 more for the DVD. Kind of like LPs vs. music CDs. Sure a record CAN sound better, but CDs are so much easier which is why they caught on.
Corporations are more to blame for the decline of science than the government. Most industrial development is ultimately driven by companies looking to make money on new technologies. Lately, most companies have been gutting research budgets in favor of more short term profits (ie. HP). Look at most job postings, how many both require an advanced degree and are willing to pay enough to hire someone? Most companies aren't interested. Until corporate America can look past next quarter's numbers, R&D will not really exist in the U.S. anymore.
Who sells those? Do they even exist? I've certainly never seen or heard of software with a non-gimmick money back guarantee.
I'd say the state knows exactly what's going on here. Microsoft money will get these legislators reelected, therefore Microsoft expects results. What better way to create permanent demand for your product than to require it be taught in schools so that an entire generation knows how to use nothing else.
Only shitty TVs don't have A/V plugs. Most people know this and use it as an excuse to get a better TV. Or they just buy the Radio Shack adapter that hooks into the coax line. If EVERYBODY had to get a new TV to watch DVDs they would have been about as popular as the Laserdisc of the early 90s.
If you want something to be available to the public, put it on the internet. If not, don't. What is so hard about this concept?
In reality, it means nothing. It's basically just providing crap over the internet. Imagine that, using a computer network to do something!
Flashy sounding acronyms are needed to get non-technical business people to feel like they need to buy something so that they can keep up with their competitors. Nevermind that said technology might not be right for their unique situation. That is how technical sales are made.
This will, of course, be presented to the consumer as a benefit. "With our new LiveUpdate feature, you'll never again have an outdated player roster! Each year you'll be automatically connected to our website to update your software for the latest and greatest in player info." They'll leave it up to the user to figure out that what it really means is that they aren't really buying a game, but renting it year at a time.
The idea of charging mindless consumers a lot of money for a subpar product has worked pretty well so far for the NFL (look up the price of Chicago Bears tickets and then look up their record for last season), so they probably assumed it would work just fine for video games. I predict things will go on as usual, with sports fans paying more money for less in return. Who knows what it will take to stop the madness.
Remember, felony cases are almost always heard before a jury. Nobody really wants these cases to go to a jury since it would take all of 10 minutes for the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict. The purpose of the felony charges is intimidation; to convince the kids and their parents that the school is serious. They'll be offered an alternative plea agreement, do community service, and have it tossed from their record in a year. This whole thing does however remind me of the fact that school administrators, along with many teachers, are complete morons when it comes to computers.
I shudder to think of what the Wachowskis' egos will do to this movie. Ever since Matrix Reloaded I can't stomach the thought of seeing any more of their creations. I wonder how many sequels they are planning.
Doctors play a game with the insurance companies. The doctor bills as high as possible and the insurance pays as little as possible. Supposedly, doctors contract with the insurance carriers to accept a certain fee, but this amount can still vary. In theory, the insurance company could pay them $1 per visit, but they don't because the doctor wouldn't take their patients anymore if they did. Special arrangements, designed to make medical care cheaper, actually make it much more complex and expensive.
I've seen this comment on Slashdot before but I seriously doubt that an ISP would become liable for everything just because they chose to block some things. Has anyone seen an actual example of an ISP or similar organization being held liable in a situation like this?
Hell, I'd like to see it used for urban broadband. It would be nice to have an alternative to the cable monopoly and/or the phone monopoly. Not to mention, it would probably be faster. It's hard to get too excited about long-range wireless internet until some company actually starts selling service.
If you think your insurance rates will go down as a result of red light cameras and speed cameras, may I interest you in some prime oceanfront property in Kansas?
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the legal standard used in privacy related lawsuits. If a store has no signs or other indications that cameras are being used in a dressing room that has a locking door, the customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy and would be entitled to sue if a hidden camera were discovered. If however, the dressing rooms were not private or a sign were posted making it obvious there was a camera, then there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a court would not award damages.
As other posters have pointed out, no store would be likely to have cameras in their dressing rooms anyway as this would hurt their business much more than shoplifters would.
preferably a ground source heat pump
Depends on what part of the country you live in. These things are a great idea in warmer climates, but if you live in the northern United States or Canada it will not produce nearly enough heat. Anywhere in the north pretty much requires the power of gas heat, which has become much more efficient in recent years.
So why wasn't Gigli a success? It had at least 2 very well known actor/actresses?
How so? Please elaborate. I never saw any proposal to start censoring .com names once a .xxx is created. How the hell could it be done anyway?
The more people that are in the group, the lower the collective intelligence of a group. After a major sporting event, people riot and break shit. How many times do you see just a group of 4 guys doing this? Hardly ever. The larger the group, the more stupid shit goes on.
Yikes, that's pretty bad. That site is what happens when a print media company starts publishing online and has no clue about the web, so they take the same form and layout that worked for print and make their website just like it. Hmm, much like the RIAA and MPAA refusal to adapt to a new media, how fitting.
It would be nice if Hollywood finally realized that almost all movies that revolve around a big-name actor end up bombing. How many horrible movies was Bruce Willis in? They were bad because they relied on his presence to make the movie a success, as opposed to coming up with a real plot, storyline, etc. Good stories make good movies, not just big-name actors combined with special effects.