That Jobs wants Apple to be like Microsoft - Big and monopolistic, while Gates wants MSFT to be like Apple - Hip like like a Zune. (I also think Gates secretly wants to leave MSFT to Ozzie to come back and save the day just like you know who.)
If the providers dillute thier offerings too much, then they risk the consumers opting for none. What I'm curious about is to what extent consumers will be free to change their lineup. Let's say I want to watch HBO for some series and it runs from Sept-May before it goes into reruns. Can I cancel and not pay for it for the rest of the year?
Another concern, and IMO, a rather big one is that the cable cos are now required to carry any OTA broadcasts. Does this mean they can decide to start encryping the OTA feeds and charge the consumers> THat would be bad.
My inner geek is gonna miss programming my remote. My Harmony and I have had a long love affair skipping useless channels like HVC, Fox News, and Disney. I'm gonna miss her.
I've always asserted that an OS is by its very nature an natural monopoly. This is not to excuse the behavior of entities which use a natural monopoly to nefarious ends. For what it's worth, I prefer the Windows monopoly to say Apple's (not that I dont covet a Mac mind you) monopolistic actions with regard to thier OS, in particular the iPhone.
My problem with this is not if it actually easier or not to replace Apples search, but the entire presumption that a company cannot put x feature into y product becuase it's hard for someone else. If MSFT wants to put in a search to be competative with APPL, then by all means they have that right, and they are IMO under no obligation to make it simple to replace. What they are obligated to do is allow 3rd parties to develop and install alternatives. The customer can then choose which implementation is better. This choice in no way requires that one implementation must not be coexist with the other.
Id be surprised if it costs a much if any more to recycle a Hybrid as opposed to a standard car. Who knows, those batteries might actually make it more desirable for an auto recycler to salvage a hybrid.
The interesting thing though is that the tests are both right and wrong. The assertion that the old tests do not reflect how people drive is true, and that applies to all vehicles regardless of whether or not it is a hybrid. What they got wrong is that after driving a hybrid, I found that I changed the way I drive. Because of the feedback I get from the car, it becomes a game to see just how good mileage I can get. So what the new tests will get wrong is that the test might better reflect the way people drive in general, it still won't get the hybrid numbers right.
This is my real world experience. I drive an '02 Prius on the highway to work about 15 miles each way. I have a Thule roof top box and a kayak rack on top. In the summer months my milage is ~38 to 40 mpg, In the winter it drops to ~34-36 mpg depending upon how I drive. Speed seriously matters. If I drive over 65mph I would cut my milage to ~34-35 mpg in the summer. If I drive the speed limit (55mph in my commute) I get the better numbers. If I drive 70mph then I drop to around 28-30mpg. When I drive just around town and stay off the highway, I easily get above 50mpg in the summer.
For me, one of the benefits of owning a Prius, or hybrid is not just the fact I fill up every 2.5-3weeks instead of weekly with my past car (a 4Runner) but also in the fact that the Prius and hybrids produce a lot less emissions than standard cars. Less emissions mean less pollution which mean less health issues.
So any cost benefit analysis that is just about the cost of fuel leaves out a huge cost savings to society if everyone drove a hybrid.
I still want my hydrogen powered rocket car.
I used to think that unit testing missle systems would be the best job in the world. Now that I'm older I realize the best job in the world was the one I had when I was a kid where I had a big bucket of Lego bricks and the only limit was my imagination.
Consider the fact that this guy believes in what he is doing. Sometimes doing the right thing adds value by virtue of the fact that the consequences of not doing it are more expensive.
There are some costs not included in the $1500/year the average Joe pays for thier heat and electricity that should be considered before discounting the costs of such a system.
Each and everyone of us collectively pays taxes i would guess in the amount of billions of dollars that go in part to clean up pollution. Breathing power plant emissions has a negative impact on health and a increases the cost of staying alive. Power plant emissions have can have other effects such as acid rain which means your home requires more $ for maintenence.
I'm sure there are plenty of other social costs. I beleive that if enough people can switch over to a rig such as this, our tax dollars would go to better things, our health costs would go down etc.
All in all, when weighing the costs of such a system it is inadequate to just consider the savings on your utility bill.
It is particularly comfortable to sit on and is very suitable for walking around on. Moreover My ass(TM) is distinctive and totally unlike any other ass. As I am fond of My Ass(TM) and I don't particularly feel like paying royalties for using it, one of those fancy defensive patents may be in order.
Interesting theory. However, MSFT is not in the business of selling PC hardware. Of the two companies, Apple has been the most restrictive in locking thier OS to a particular platform.
That said, MSFT makes a crap load of $ from HP and Dell. Keeping them happy is the only reason I see that this theory may be plausible. Keep in mind that the copy of Windows running on the VM was n a paid for - assuming the WGM stuff works as advertised. Therefore MSFT got it's money, and if you are using thier OS on a Mac, why should are?
Time will tell if this practice is a vote against Windows, or a vote against ugly assed Dell and HP boxes.
Consider the fact that MS is in pretty warm water in the EU. It does not take a huge leap for MS to put a bug in Dell's ear to preinstall Firefox. It doesn't cost them anything. Windows is still installed, and paid for, and Firefox is no threat to Windows. Firefox drives 0 users away from Windows. So if it makes the EU happy, then it makes MS happy too.
To me the format of a doc is secondary to whether or not I can get access to it in the first place. Private companies such as Westlaw have almost total control of the document store such that getting the information you need in the first place is so expensive that the average Joe cannot afford it.
Slashdot Mirror
That Jobs wants Apple to be like Microsoft - Big and monopolistic, while Gates wants MSFT to be like Apple - Hip like like a Zune. (I also think Gates secretly wants to leave MSFT to Ozzie to come back and save the day just like you know who.)
If the providers dillute thier offerings too much, then they risk the consumers opting for none. What I'm curious about is to what extent consumers will be free to change their lineup. Let's say I want to watch HBO for some series and it runs from Sept-May before it goes into reruns. Can I cancel and not pay for it for the rest of the year? Another concern, and IMO, a rather big one is that the cable cos are now required to carry any OTA broadcasts. Does this mean they can decide to start encryping the OTA feeds and charge the consumers> THat would be bad.
My inner geek is gonna miss programming my remote. My Harmony and I have had a long love affair skipping useless channels like HVC, Fox News, and Disney. I'm gonna miss her.
I read Intel supports Dance Dance Revolution 3.
I've always asserted that an OS is by its very nature an natural monopoly. This is not to excuse the behavior of entities which use a natural monopoly to nefarious ends. For what it's worth, I prefer the Windows monopoly to say Apple's (not that I dont covet a Mac mind you) monopolistic actions with regard to thier OS, in particular the iPhone.
After another silent update, sure.
Except when the leakers is thier boss in the White House, then they work to discredit and intimidate the whistle blowers.
Federal law has jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
My problem with this is not if it actually easier or not to replace Apples search, but the entire presumption that a company cannot put x feature into y product becuase it's hard for someone else. If MSFT wants to put in a search to be competative with APPL, then by all means they have that right, and they are IMO under no obligation to make it simple to replace. What they are obligated to do is allow 3rd parties to develop and install alternatives. The customer can then choose which implementation is better. This choice in no way requires that one implementation must not be coexist with the other.
Id be surprised if it costs a much if any more to recycle a Hybrid as opposed to a standard car. Who knows, those batteries might actually make it more desirable for an auto recycler to salvage a hybrid.
The interesting thing though is that the tests are both right and wrong. The assertion that the old tests do not reflect how people drive is true, and that applies to all vehicles regardless of whether or not it is a hybrid. What they got wrong is that after driving a hybrid, I found that I changed the way I drive. Because of the feedback I get from the car, it becomes a game to see just how good mileage I can get. So what the new tests will get wrong is that the test might better reflect the way people drive in general, it still won't get the hybrid numbers right.
This is my real world experience. I drive an '02 Prius on the highway to work about 15 miles each way. I have a Thule roof top box and a kayak rack on top. In the summer months my milage is ~38 to 40 mpg, In the winter it drops to ~34-36 mpg depending upon how I drive. Speed seriously matters. If I drive over 65mph I would cut my milage to ~34-35 mpg in the summer. If I drive the speed limit (55mph in my commute) I get the better numbers. If I drive 70mph then I drop to around 28-30mpg. When I drive just around town and stay off the highway, I easily get above 50mpg in the summer.
For me, one of the benefits of owning a Prius, or hybrid is not just the fact I fill up every 2.5-3weeks instead of weekly with my past car (a 4Runner) but also in the fact that the Prius and hybrids produce a lot less emissions than standard cars. Less emissions mean less pollution which mean less health issues. So any cost benefit analysis that is just about the cost of fuel leaves out a huge cost savings to society if everyone drove a hybrid. I still want my hydrogen powered rocket car.
You will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers.
I used to think that unit testing missle systems would be the best job in the world. Now that I'm older I realize the best job in the world was the one I had when I was a kid where I had a big bucket of Lego bricks and the only limit was my imagination.
51
Consider the fact that this guy believes in what he is doing. Sometimes doing the right thing adds value by virtue of the fact that the consequences of not doing it are more expensive.
There are some costs not included in the $1500/year the average Joe pays for thier heat and electricity that should be considered before discounting the costs of such a system.
Each and everyone of us collectively pays taxes i would guess in the amount of billions of dollars that go in part to clean up pollution.
Breathing power plant emissions has a negative impact on health and a increases the cost of staying alive.
Power plant emissions have can have other effects such as acid rain which means your home requires more $ for maintenence.
I'm sure there are plenty of other social costs. I beleive that if enough people can switch over to a rig such as this, our tax dollars would go to better things, our health costs would go down etc.
All in all, when weighing the costs of such a system it is inadequate to just consider the savings on your utility bill.
It is particularly comfortable to sit on and is very suitable for walking around on. Moreover My ass(TM) is distinctive and totally unlike any other ass. As I am fond of My Ass(TM) and I don't particularly feel like paying royalties for using it, one of those fancy defensive patents may be in order.
Comments? Excuses? Or do you give a crap sitting high and dry in Oklahoma?
What an asshat.
Interesting theory. However, MSFT is not in the business of selling PC hardware. Of the two companies, Apple has been the most restrictive in locking thier OS to a particular platform.
That said, MSFT makes a crap load of $ from HP and Dell. Keeping them happy is the only reason I see that this theory may be plausible. Keep in mind that the copy of Windows running on the VM was n a paid for - assuming the WGM stuff works as advertised. Therefore MSFT got it's money, and if you are using thier OS on a Mac, why should are?
Time will tell if this practice is a vote against Windows, or a vote against ugly assed Dell and HP boxes.
How is Palm more secure? Are we talking about the platform or the apps which run on it?
Interesting policy... I wonder how many machines will be domain joined if it is put into place?
If God did not want us to eat spores, the God would not have made them so tasty.
I like my spores in a cream sauce, with just a dash of freshly ground pepper.
Consider the fact that MS is in pretty warm water in the EU. It does not take a huge leap for MS to put a bug in Dell's ear to preinstall Firefox. It doesn't cost them anything. Windows is still installed, and paid for, and Firefox is no threat to Windows. Firefox drives 0 users away from Windows. So if it makes the EU happy, then it makes MS happy too.
To me the format of a doc is secondary to whether or not I can get access to it in the first place. Private companies such as Westlaw have almost total control of the document store such that getting the information you need in the first place is so expensive that the average Joe cannot afford it.
Don't be an asshat.