MS used the browser to get Windows on every desktop. They have done that now. They won, so why maintain their weapon (IE).
You have this one point completely backwards and so the rest of your argument is moot.
Windows was already on every desktop when they released IE to compete with Netscape Navigator. They used the fact that Windows was everywhere in order to get *IE* everywhere, not the other way around!
I have yet to see a Google ad that is relevant to what I would like to see.
They don't try to show you ads that are relevant to what you want to see. They show you ads that are in the same context as the page you're reading (or try to). Thereby increasing the chances that you will be interested in the ad.
And, I'm afraid that they already wasted their chance.
Well, since you "don't ever pay for random software," "buy only things I need," and "purchasing material things online is simply out of the question," then actually they are GLAD you are filtering their advertisements, since it reduces their cost of advertising.
So, in other words, you remember when you were younger.
Jesus dude, get some perspective.
You are one of those "I remember the good old days," which conveniently works because you forget what actually happened back then, probably because you were young. That's normal.
I watch THE GOONIES now and cringe at the movie. Just last night I was excited to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind was on, which my (younger) gf had never seen, so I made her watch it. I told her, "This is a classic movie." I hadn't seen it in probably 8 years or so. At the end, we were wondering what the big deal was about the movie. I have no idea.
You say your suspension of disbelief last occurred in 1993 for Jurassic Park. Before that, you said, "the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, 'Those special effects were fantastic!' rather than, 'Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?'"
I find this amusing, because 99% of the discussion of JP when it came out was regarding how fantastic the special affects were. They were indeed groundbreaking.
The Magic is not gone, you're just too old to see it now. So am I.
This BS is precisely why I stopped subscribing. The editors don't give a shit about the abuse and stupidity in the (a) "editing" and (b) moderation system.
If they clean house, I'll start subscribing again. Until then, there's no incentive.
Ha funny. a "Coke" plant in Columbia. Maybe someone got confused and started killing people at the wrong kind of "coke plant."
Maybe "working class" people are more sympathetic because they are more ignorant and willing to believe this B.S. without any proof? Working class people also go to church more than white collar folks. Also an area where proof is not needed.
Please, show me some documented PROOF of these events happening, that they were carried out by Coca-Cola employees for company reasons, etc. Anything. I read through the website you listed and saw nothing but propaganda.
Your cause will usually be greeted more receptively if it isn't promoted singularly by anti-capitalist, left-wing whackos.
Lokk at that "was" you used and you'll find some food for thought.
No I won't, because new startups come every day to the web, and many get bought up precisely because they are players. Been going this way for 10 years now.
I didin't mean they were forced or anything. I meant they have to be huge in order to be succesful.
So if Delicious wasn't successful, why did Yahoo buy them?
Are we witnessing the beginning of the "real" internet business, where there is no space for startups and the only players have to be the huge ones?
Delicious could have said no, we aren't selling. It's not like Yahoo forced them to sell. So how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the only players are the huge ones? Delicious was a player.
You gave them two weeks notice. This is just a courtesy. They can and should do exactly what they did. As soon as a letter of resignation is turned in, you are informing everyone you are no longer going to be an employee with the company. Why would a company want to work with you any longer at this point, unless they had to?
When you turn in your letter of resignation, you should be ready to go. Why do you care they have cut you off? Were you planning something on the way out? (This is probably why they cut you off, after all.)
I only wish that there were people like me willing to weild the power of government in the way it's supposed to be wielded: as a larger representation of our interests.
You mean your interests, which incidentally, don't align with my interests, which is why we need less government and more freedom.
Uhhh, they figured out this concept a long time ago. Try rebooting Windows with applications open that have unsaved documents. It won't reboot until you handle the dialogs popping up from the apps asking whether to save or not.
Why on Earth do you think they wouldn't do something similar with Restart Manager? That is, most likely, why they need the "manager" part of this thing to begin with.
BG: (Clears throat.) Yes, thank you Speare. You are exactly right. And that is why we have completely rethunk the design of our operating system, and are releasing Windows Vista.
Speare: Well, uhhh that isn't really a new design from...
BG:... oh yes, we have new designs inside. Look, this one is what I call "GreenBlue." Anyway, with Windows Vista's upcoming DRM technology, we will finally be able to prevent you from running things you want to run, while still allowing virus writers full access to your systems. Truly a remarkable, wait who wrote this???
If you grab a gun and go intruder hunting, what on Earth makes you think the dice are loaded in your favour not theirs?
Because I'm not intruder HUNTING, I'm ROOM DEFENDING. A huge difference.
Who has a bigger advantage, someone in a hidden position with a firearm aimed at a door, window, or hallway where an intruder is entering? Especially when the intruder is unfamiliar with the layout and surroundings?
And even if for some reason you thought you had an edge, don't you think the stakes are a little high?
Wait, the stakes are high to defend myself with a weapon, but the stakes AREN'T high to gather my entire family and try to run out of the house?
Clearly the stakes are high. Our house is being broken into by a criminal.
If you read my post again, you'll see that what I am advocating is (a) keep your options open (b) choose the one that has lowest risk of being killed. Your 'nobody rapes my woman attitude' is all very touching, but I would sooner loose my PC / TV / whatever, than be grieving for a dead boyfriend or spending the rest of my days looking after someone stuck in a wheelchair because their spine was damaged.
No, you're advocating that I try to avoid violence even though your "better idea" of running out of the house is actually not the safer choice.
Obviously I am not going to shoot a criminal in every instance. There are too many variables. The guy walks in and has kevlar on, or we happen to be standing next to an unlocked door exiting into a safer environment, or my gun isn't loaded and the bullets are far away. Etc.
And I'm not saying shoot the guy because it's "romantic" to protect the women folk.
All I'm saying is, assuming a person breaking into your house is just their for "your ipod" is a ridiculous assumption to risk your life over. In this instance, I consider arming myself the safer choice.
Unless you're targetted by assassins, then they're after your iPod not you.
No, there are plenty of people that would also like to kidnap you or your family for ransom, rape/kill your women, people that are under the influence of narcotics and will think nothing of killing you even if there is no need to do it, etc.
Better to get you and your familiy (if any) out of there than go after an intruder who is just as likely to be able to shoot you in return.
First of all, it is a hell of a lot easier to tell my family to stay in the back room and call 911, while I aim a shotgun towards the front window being busted through by an intruder, versus gathering my family and trying to sneak out of the house and hoping the intruder doesn't have any friends waiting out in that direction. There are too many risks. Intruders don't want to get caught, if they see a family fleeing, and they have a chance to stop them before they can alert others, don't you think they will?
Personally I don't get it. I can achieve the same effect by simply asking them to take out the trash.
Then again you're talking about your own kids living in your house, and not hooligans smoking cigarettes in front of your store and harassing your customers.
Honestly, I was just over at the server room with my teenage step-son and he is totally cool.
That's wonderful. He's also not the target of this type of device.
A high freqency buzz to drive away teens? Something seriously wrong with this invention.
Why?
I own a gun. If a criminal enters my house to do me harm, I will have no choice but to kill him with this gun. That doesn't mean I want to kill everyone with this gun.
Yet another examply of soulless empty technology.
You mean like those servers you and your son installed? Or the Jeep you let him drive around in circles? Or the video game system you two played? What exactly is "soulless empty technology"? Technology is what it is.
I am happy that God watches over my family and both my teenage kids are a gift.
This thinking always bothers me. This is like the guy who comes out of his house after an earthquake, looks over at his dead neighbors, and says, "Thank God we survived!"
I don't think God has anything to do with your kids, I think it may be that you're just a good parent.
I would never drive them away. If we keep and hold the communication channel open then we will never have them feel that they can't talk and we can't listen.
Again, great advice for parents, terrible advice for store owners.
You are correct in the normal 'physical' world. But with an unlimited supply, the per unit cost of manufacture and delivery is nearly negligible.
This doesn't matter at all to what the grandparent was pointing out.
The fact is Shitty Song #1 might not sell at.99, where as more people may be willing to buy it for.79 or.50. Therefore the cost goes down per unit, but the profit goes up because now people are buying it.
It has nothing to do with "the physical world."
Re:Profitability and Creative Works
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
This is, without a doubt, the lamest comment I've read in a while.
Many of the greatest works of art of ALL TIME were created FOR MONEY by some of the most RENOWNED ARTISTS OF ALL TIME. This sort of destroys your idea that money somehow makes people less creative.
I'm not even going to bother with the tired argument of Hollywood vs. Independent movie creativity. I've seen great and shit movies from both sources.
Your argument about bands makes no sense. You are complaining that money somehow prevents artists from creating, yet next you're telling us about the great small bands no one has heard of. Aren't those bands still being creative? Who cares if they aren't getting rich off it? That's the pop band syndrome.
How many mom and pop restaurants are put out of business by chain restaurants? I don't really understand the point of the argument, but I can tell you non-chain restaurants hold their own just fine. The most acclaimed restaurants around the world are 9 times out of 10, NOT chain restaurants. What more proof do you need there? Mom and pops go out of business when they suck at doing business.
Slashdot Mirror
Long live Farrested Development!!!
Here we go, meme time!
MS used the browser to get Windows on every desktop. They have done that now. They won, so why maintain their weapon (IE).
You have this one point completely backwards and so the rest of your argument is moot.
Windows was already on every desktop when they released IE to compete with Netscape Navigator. They used the fact that Windows was everywhere in order to get *IE* everywhere, not the other way around!
I have yet to see a Google ad that is relevant to what I would like to see.
They don't try to show you ads that are relevant to what you want to see. They show you ads that are in the same context as the page you're reading (or try to). Thereby increasing the chances that you will be interested in the ad.
And, I'm afraid that they already wasted their chance.
Well, since you "don't ever pay for random software," "buy only things I need," and "purchasing material things online is simply out of the question," then actually they are GLAD you are filtering their advertisements, since it reduces their cost of advertising.
So, in other words, you remember when you were younger.
Jesus dude, get some perspective.
You are one of those "I remember the good old days," which conveniently works because you forget what actually happened back then, probably because you were young. That's normal.
I watch THE GOONIES now and cringe at the movie. Just last night I was excited to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind was on, which my (younger) gf had never seen, so I made her watch it. I told her, "This is a classic movie." I hadn't seen it in probably 8 years or so. At the end, we were wondering what the big deal was about the movie. I have no idea.
You say your suspension of disbelief last occurred in 1993 for Jurassic Park. Before that, you said, "the suspension of disbelief was often total. But the magic is gone. We walk out of theatres saying things like, 'Those special effects were fantastic!' rather than, 'Can you believe there was a monster in that cave on the asteroid?'"
I find this amusing, because 99% of the discussion of JP when it came out was regarding how fantastic the special affects were. They were indeed groundbreaking.
The Magic is not gone, you're just too old to see it now. So am I.
This BS is precisely why I stopped subscribing. The editors don't give a shit about the abuse and stupidity in the (a) "editing" and (b) moderation system.
If they clean house, I'll start subscribing again. Until then, there's no incentive.
Ha funny. a "Coke" plant in Columbia. Maybe someone got confused and started killing people at the wrong kind of "coke plant."
Maybe "working class" people are more sympathetic because they are more ignorant and willing to believe this B.S. without any proof? Working class people also go to church more than white collar folks. Also an area where proof is not needed.
Please, show me some documented PROOF of these events happening, that they were carried out by Coca-Cola employees for company reasons, etc. Anything. I read through the website you listed and saw nothing but propaganda.
Your cause will usually be greeted more receptively if it isn't promoted singularly by anti-capitalist, left-wing whackos.
I'm as happy as the next guy to blame the world's ills on American Capitalism and the capitalists behind it.
Why?
You can also give credit for the world's benefits to capitalism while you're at it.
Lokk at that "was" you used and you'll find some food for thought.
No I won't, because new startups come every day to the web, and many get bought up precisely because they are players. Been going this way for 10 years now.
I didin't mean they were forced or anything. I meant they have to be huge in order to be succesful.
So if Delicious wasn't successful, why did Yahoo buy them?
Are we witnessing the beginning of the "real" internet business, where there is no space for startups and the only players have to be the huge ones?
Delicious could have said no, we aren't selling. It's not like Yahoo forced them to sell. So how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the only players are the huge ones? Delicious was a player.
You gave them two weeks notice. This is just a courtesy. They can and should do exactly what they did. As soon as a letter of resignation is turned in, you are informing everyone you are no longer going to be an employee with the company. Why would a company want to work with you any longer at this point, unless they had to?
When you turn in your letter of resignation, you should be ready to go. Why do you care they have cut you off? Were you planning something on the way out? (This is probably why they cut you off, after all.)
Whoosh.
(To clarify my $100 remark -- I'd pay $100 for a 4th season of AD.)
Please, for the love of all things funny, PLEASE God save Arrested Development using this iTMS deal.
I'd pay $100 for a season of Arrested Development. I'm 30 years old, and this is the funniest show I've ever seen on TV.
I think you don't not not understand how a double negative works.
I only wish that there were people like me willing to weild the power of government in the way it's supposed to be wielded: as a larger representation of our interests.
You mean your interests, which incidentally, don't align with my interests, which is why we need less government and more freedom.
Fear the tyranny of the majority.
I will never regard all matters with the utmost seriousness.
Sincerely,
That's Unpossible!
Uhhh, they figured out this concept a long time ago. Try rebooting Windows with applications open that have unsaved documents. It won't reboot until you handle the dialogs popping up from the apps asking whether to save or not.
Why on Earth do you think they wouldn't do something similar with Restart Manager? That is, most likely, why they need the "manager" part of this thing to begin with.
[Bill Gates steps into frame.]
... oh yes, we have new designs inside. Look, this one is what I call "GreenBlue." Anyway, with Windows Vista's upcoming DRM technology, we will finally be able to prevent you from running things you want to run, while still allowing virus writers full access to your systems. Truly a remarkable, wait who wrote this???
BG: (Clears throat.) Yes, thank you Speare. You are exactly right. And that is why we have completely rethunk the design of our operating system, and are releasing Windows Vista.
Speare: Well, uhhh that isn't really a new design from...
BG:
If you grab a gun and go intruder hunting, what on Earth makes you think the dice are loaded in your favour not theirs?
Because I'm not intruder HUNTING, I'm ROOM DEFENDING. A huge difference.
Who has a bigger advantage, someone in a hidden position with a firearm aimed at a door, window, or hallway where an intruder is entering? Especially when the intruder is unfamiliar with the layout and surroundings?
And even if for some reason you thought you had an edge, don't you think the stakes are a little high?
Wait, the stakes are high to defend myself with a weapon, but the stakes AREN'T high to gather my entire family and try to run out of the house?
Clearly the stakes are high. Our house is being broken into by a criminal.
If you read my post again, you'll see that what I am advocating is (a) keep your options open (b) choose the one that has lowest risk of being killed. Your 'nobody rapes my woman attitude' is all very touching, but I would sooner loose my PC / TV / whatever, than be grieving for a dead boyfriend or spending the rest of my days looking after someone stuck in a wheelchair because their spine was damaged.
No, you're advocating that I try to avoid violence even though your "better idea" of running out of the house is actually not the safer choice.
Obviously I am not going to shoot a criminal in every instance. There are too many variables. The guy walks in and has kevlar on, or we happen to be standing next to an unlocked door exiting into a safer environment, or my gun isn't loaded and the bullets are far away. Etc.
And I'm not saying shoot the guy because it's "romantic" to protect the women folk.
All I'm saying is, assuming a person breaking into your house is just their for "your ipod" is a ridiculous assumption to risk your life over. In this instance, I consider arming myself the safer choice.
My girlfriend thinks your comment was totally uncouth.
You could always try running away.
You're right. I could also shoot to kill.
Unless you're targetted by assassins, then they're after your iPod not you.
No, there are plenty of people that would also like to kidnap you or your family for ransom, rape/kill your women, people that are under the influence of narcotics and will think nothing of killing you even if there is no need to do it, etc.
Better to get you and your familiy (if any) out of there than go after an intruder who is just as likely to be able to shoot you in return.
First of all, it is a hell of a lot easier to tell my family to stay in the back room and call 911, while I aim a shotgun towards the front window being busted through by an intruder, versus gathering my family and trying to sneak out of the house and hoping the intruder doesn't have any friends waiting out in that direction. There are too many risks. Intruders don't want to get caught, if they see a family fleeing, and they have a chance to stop them before they can alert others, don't you think they will?
Personally I don't get it. I can achieve the same effect by simply asking them to take out the trash.
Then again you're talking about your own kids living in your house, and not hooligans smoking cigarettes in front of your store and harassing your customers.
Honestly, I was just over at the server room with my teenage step-son and he is totally cool.
That's wonderful. He's also not the target of this type of device.
A high freqency buzz to drive away teens? Something seriously wrong with this invention.
Why?
I own a gun. If a criminal enters my house to do me harm, I will have no choice but to kill him with this gun. That doesn't mean I want to kill everyone with this gun.
Yet another examply of soulless empty technology.
You mean like those servers you and your son installed? Or the Jeep you let him drive around in circles? Or the video game system you two played? What exactly is "soulless empty technology"? Technology is what it is.
I am happy that God watches over my family and both my teenage kids are a gift.
This thinking always bothers me. This is like the guy who comes out of his house after an earthquake, looks over at his dead neighbors, and says, "Thank God we survived!"
I don't think God has anything to do with your kids, I think it may be that you're just a good parent.
I would never drive them away. If we keep and hold the communication channel open then we will never have them feel that they can't talk and we can't listen.
Again, great advice for parents, terrible advice for store owners.
You are correct in the normal 'physical' world. But with an unlimited supply, the per unit cost of manufacture and delivery is nearly negligible.
.99, where as more people may be willing to buy it for .79 or .50. Therefore the cost goes down per unit, but the profit goes up because now people are buying it.
This doesn't matter at all to what the grandparent was pointing out.
The fact is Shitty Song #1 might not sell at
It has nothing to do with "the physical world."
This is, without a doubt, the lamest comment I've read in a while.
Many of the greatest works of art of ALL TIME were created FOR MONEY by some of the most RENOWNED ARTISTS OF ALL TIME. This sort of destroys your idea that money somehow makes people less creative.
I'm not even going to bother with the tired argument of Hollywood vs. Independent movie creativity. I've seen great and shit movies from both sources.
Your argument about bands makes no sense. You are complaining that money somehow prevents artists from creating, yet next you're telling us about the great small bands no one has heard of. Aren't those bands still being creative? Who cares if they aren't getting rich off it? That's the pop band syndrome.
How many mom and pop restaurants are put out of business by chain restaurants? I don't really understand the point of the argument, but I can tell you non-chain restaurants hold their own just fine. The most acclaimed restaurants around the world are 9 times out of 10, NOT chain restaurants. What more proof do you need there? Mom and pops go out of business when they suck at doing business.