I'm torn! On the one hand, I don't think you can legitimately call Microsoft learning from a competitor a debacle on their part. On the other hand, I can see from your sig that you loathe the usurping and stupid SI versions of computer memory terms and their pandering to the brainless as much as I do!
So I'll merely lament your inappropriate modding as Flamebait. Slashdot's getting so that you can't post anything without getting a Flamebait or Troll mod unless you write like you're talking to a very spoilt child that will cry if you contradict them.
But I suspect lots of Linux/Mac OSX fanatics will be coming in 3.. 2.. 1..
Who cares about them, though! For the rest of us, it's a non-issue. Lets face it - the best thing about the Macs *is* their interface. It certainly isn't the overpriced hardware and its limited capacity for upgradeabiity. If Microsoft can sell me a similar interface without these issues, then that's a plus for me. Yay! Capitalism!
Wow! I'd never heard of Cuil (linked for the lazy) and it's actually quite nice. I like the summary accompanying each result and the option to search by category. I'll put that into my browser for a few days and see how it goes. Cheers!
t's safe for microsoft to give kudos to opera, because their is almost no chance that an IE user will switch to opera; disaffected IE users already switched to Firefox.
Opera is not a minority browser. It just isn't very well known in the USA. It's actually hugely popular in Easter Europe and ex-Soviet countries.
Giving stuff away can certainly turn a profit if it's used as advertising for other services/products.
The advertising industry subsists off the companies that actually sell products. It isn't an end in itself. When people make money advertising movies, promoting albums, showcasing books, free game demos, etc. etc., it is because the people or companies making those products pay them from the money they make selling those products.
And you want to replace this with what? The content producers make equivalent money from advertising? Advertising what? Movies, albums, books and games that are all taken for free? Not an option. Are you suggesting they advertise products that can't be pirated only? Say - Iron Man 2 will be funded by sticking ads for toothpaste at the start and end of it?
So how do you define 'insane profits'? Exactly whose profits are you objecting to? Is it the content provider, the retailer, the trucking company, the energy company heating the producers building? Do you really expect anyone to believe that you check the balance sheet of whatever provider you are pirating from to make sure that the profit is 'too high' first (and what exactly are you looking at to make your insanity determination)? Please give us some examples of the 'insane profits' that you see, because I am sure a lot of people would like to invest in these companies.
Since you mentioned television, we can take a quick look at that. CBS (the number one network in the US) had a profit of $440M on revenues of $2269M in their third quarter. Of that $2269M in revenue, a whopping $47M came from 'home entertainment' (which includes your DVD sales). Clearly they are not cleaning up on those sales quite like you think they are. By the way, last year in the third quarter they had a LOSS of $7580M dollars. I am sure during that time you did not pirate anything from them, right?
This is an excellent reply that deserves to be read.
For TV and movies, what some pirates want is unDRMed files. They're willing to pay for it, but it's not for sale at any price. Try playing a BluRay with mplayer sometime, or get a cablecard driver for Linux, and you quickly run into trouble. Pirates offer files without DRM.
I'll grant you its not easy (nor was playing DVDs on Linux when they first appeared mind you), but I have played Blu-Rays in mplayer on Linux. Anyway, I assume that these pirates that are willing to pay but just want a lack of DRM are buying the disc as well as downloading? That would be the way to get what you want without ripping off the company (willing to pay), right? But I doubt it happens often. And as you say, this is just Blu-Ray. I don't know, but I would imagine the overwhelming majority of pirated movies and TV are just regular SD that they could get on DVD.
As regards Windows games that you raise, piracy is rampant regardless of "weirdo CDROM drivers". Its clear from a large number of games without such DRM that avoiding this isn't a mainstream motivation for pirating the games.
We do see such headlines occasionally/i>. And the browser makers HATE them. A long-standing and public vulnerability earns Microsoft (a different standard is applied for Mozilla) a lot of bad publicity. Patching it would earn them (in this report) an extra 0.1% score (or something like that).
That Microsoft leave vulnerabilities due to error or inadequate resource allocation, I can believe. That they do so deliberately to game some minor survey - I can't find plausible.
You surely don't believe that any browser producer would open themselves up to the vast negative publicity of leaving exploits in their browser for the sake of piddly stats in some minor survey, do you? Which headline would you rather see? IE 0.2% more vulnerable, or "IE still has well-known security hole X six months after it was discovered"?
Sensationalist headlines, nothing more, and nothing less. Wonder how much Microsoft paid them for this "story"?
If Microsoft paid them for this story then why is Opera light years ahead of IE ? Opera's success also undermines the statements of other posters elsewhere saying that IE earns its place due to its close-sourced nature.
Well what you give matters for overall security of the Internet. But obviously what matters for individuals choosing a browser (for themselves or others), is which browser is the most vulnerable which is what this article discusses.
And if you're making the sly argument that IE remains more damaging even if it has fewer vulnerabilities because of its popularity, then I'll point out that the logical response to this news, is to get more people using it. Although as it isn't mentioned in the summary, the best response would be to get people using Opera which has far less reported vulnerabilities than any of the other browsers by a wide margin. (No record of my favourites Konqueror and Links, however.;)
Wake up, give people what they want and you'll make money.
My understanding is that what pirates want, is the same thing but without having to hand over money.
Or is this about to be another person arguing that the customer should be able to force the seller to hand over the goods at whatever price the customer fancies (including nothing) - or else they'll just take it for free anyway. Or perhaps the other argument that if you give your most valuable asset away for free, you'll magically make more money from nebulous side benefits?
"Give people what they want and you'll make money?" Uh, no. Sell people what they want and you'll make money.
See that's a perfect summary of why I haven't watched Panorama in ages. It's become more and more like the US style of hypermentary: Tell the audience what you're going to tell them. Tell them they should be afraid / excited / awestruck. Play some bass noise. Talk in a Really. Slow. Earnest. Voice. Tell them what you're telling them. Tell them what you've told them. End forty minutes of drawn out information.
Honestly, I would prefer a nice tidy sequence of events and some more in-depth looks at the interesting parts. But I guess my aim is to get information and their target audience is those trying to fill their life with "entertainment". But I do miss being talked to like an intelligent human being.
It was simple, straightforward and efficient, although I'm sure someone else has a better idea.
I'd love someone to post it if they do. We use the same method and the one time we had to replay the sequence to get what we wanted, it took most of a day. Yes, that was because are last snapshot "starting point" was nearly a week old, but nonetheless... if technology has moved on and there's a better way of doing this, then I'm sure a lot of us will be interested.
I was just going for funny really, without getting into fine detail. However, is there not a contradiction when you say "the government has bought the banks and the government has our money". What did the government buy the banks with if not money?
The OP said two incorrect things. Firstly, that if someone doesn't have money, it means that someone else does have money. That's not correct - "money" has value according to its perceived value. If faith in a currency collapses (as it has been in the US dollar), then everyone can lose out. It doesn't matter what the numbers in people's bank accounts are if you're disregarding how much each unit is worth. Secondly, assuming that the OP was talking about 'wealth' rather than money, then the assumption was still incorrect as wealth is not a fixed value. It can be created and destroyed. To think otherwise is the broken window fallacy. Thirdly (fanatical devotion to the pope?), his presumption is that one can simply sell whatever those with money want to them. Apparently possession of whatever they want is arranged by fiat.
You did read the linked articles right? You need a reduction in launch costs of over 100 times before it can think about breaking even. I _might_ be inclined to believe a 10 times reduction, but 100 times? Riiiight....
Well true or false, you've got to admit its a better way of stimulating jobs and research with government money than giving it straight to failing banks, right.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh! Nice idea! Mod up +5 Editors Read This.
Hahahaha! I don't know if that deserves +5 Funny or +5 Insightful, but made my afternoon! :D
I could have put it more clearly.
Regards,
H.
I'm torn! On the one hand, I don't think you can legitimately call Microsoft learning from a competitor a debacle on their part. On the other hand, I can see from your sig that you loathe the usurping and stupid SI versions of computer memory terms and their pandering to the brainless as much as I do!
So I'll merely lament your inappropriate modding as Flamebait. Slashdot's getting so that you can't post anything without getting a Flamebait or Troll mod unless you write like you're talking to a very spoilt child that will cry if you contradict them.
Regards,
H.
Yes, that's what I said. Well done.
Who cares about them, though! For the rest of us, it's a non-issue. Lets face it - the best thing about the Macs *is* their interface. It certainly isn't the overpriced hardware and its limited capacity for upgradeabiity. If Microsoft can sell me a similar interface without these issues, then that's a plus for me. Yay! Capitalism!
Wow! I'd never heard of Cuil (linked for the lazy) and it's actually quite nice. I like the summary accompanying each result and the option to search by category. I'll put that into my browser for a few days and see how it goes. Cheers!
Opera is not a minority browser. It just isn't very well known in the USA. It's actually hugely popular in Easter Europe and ex-Soviet countries.
I want to know which search engine is the least threat to my privacy. I'll use that one, thanks.
Actually, if you ask it to divide a number by 0, it gives you the symbol for (and description of) complex infinity.
(And yes, it does give you a recent temperature for Beijing if you ask it as well).
The advertising industry subsists off the companies that actually sell products. It isn't an end in itself. When people make money advertising movies, promoting albums, showcasing books, free game demos, etc. etc., it is because the people or companies making those products pay them from the money they make selling those products.
And you want to replace this with what? The content producers make equivalent money from advertising? Advertising what? Movies, albums, books and games that are all taken for free? Not an option. Are you suggesting they advertise products that can't be pirated only? Say - Iron Man 2 will be funded by sticking ads for toothpaste at the start and end of it?
Yeah, right.
This is an excellent reply that deserves to be read.
I'll grant you its not easy (nor was playing DVDs on Linux when they first appeared mind you), but I have played Blu-Rays in mplayer on Linux. Anyway, I assume that these pirates that are willing to pay but just want a lack of DRM are buying the disc as well as downloading? That would be the way to get what you want without ripping off the company (willing to pay), right? But I doubt it happens often. And as you say, this is just Blu-Ray. I don't know, but I would imagine the overwhelming majority of pirated movies and TV are just regular SD that they could get on DVD.
As regards Windows games that you raise, piracy is rampant regardless of "weirdo CDROM drivers". Its clear from a large number of games without such DRM that avoiding this isn't a mainstream motivation for pirating the games.
We do see such headlines occasionally/i>. And the browser makers HATE them. A long-standing and public vulnerability earns Microsoft (a different standard is applied for Mozilla) a lot of bad publicity. Patching it would earn them (in this report) an extra 0.1% score (or something like that).
That Microsoft leave vulnerabilities due to error or inadequate resource allocation, I can believe. That they do so deliberately to game some minor survey - I can't find plausible.
You surely don't believe that any browser producer would open themselves up to the vast negative publicity of leaving exploits in their browser for the sake of piddly stats in some minor survey, do you? Which headline would you rather see? IE 0.2% more vulnerable, or "IE still has well-known security hole X six months after it was discovered"?
If Microsoft paid them for this story then why is Opera light years ahead of IE ? Opera's success also undermines the statements of other posters elsewhere saying that IE earns its place due to its close-sourced nature.
Well what you give matters for overall security of the Internet. But obviously what matters for individuals choosing a browser (for themselves or others), is which browser is the most vulnerable which is what this article discusses.
And if you're making the sly argument that IE remains more damaging even if it has fewer vulnerabilities because of its popularity, then I'll point out that the logical response to this news, is to get more people using it. Although as it isn't mentioned in the summary, the best response would be to get people using Opera which has far less reported vulnerabilities than any of the other browsers by a wide margin. (No record of my favourites Konqueror and Links, however.
My understanding is that what pirates want, is the same thing but without having to hand over money.
Or is this about to be another person arguing that the customer should be able to force the seller to hand over the goods at whatever price the customer fancies (including nothing) - or else they'll just take it for free anyway. Or perhaps the other argument that if you give your most valuable asset away for free, you'll magically make more money from nebulous side benefits?
"Give people what they want and you'll make money?" Uh, no. Sell people what they want and you'll make money.
See that's a perfect summary of why I haven't watched Panorama in ages. It's become more and more like the US style of hypermentary: Tell the audience what you're going to tell them. Tell them they should be afraid / excited / awestruck. Play some bass noise. Talk in a Really. Slow. Earnest. Voice. Tell them what you're telling them. Tell them what you've told them. End forty minutes of drawn out information.
Honestly, I would prefer a nice tidy sequence of events and some more in-depth looks at the interesting parts. But I guess my aim is to get information and their target audience is those trying to fill their life with "entertainment". But I do miss being talked to like an intelligent human being.
The chances of anything living on Mars, are a million to one!
I'd love someone to post it if they do. We use the same method and the one time we had to replay the sequence to get what we wanted, it took most of a day. Yes, that was because are last snapshot "starting point" was nearly a week old, but nonetheless... if technology has moved on and there's a better way of doing this, then I'm sure a lot of us will be interested.
I was just going for funny really, without getting into fine detail. However, is there not a contradiction when you say "the government has bought the banks and the government has our money". What did the government buy the banks with if not money?
The OP said two incorrect things. Firstly, that if someone doesn't have money, it means that someone else does have money. That's not correct - "money" has value according to its perceived value. If faith in a currency collapses (as it has been in the US dollar), then everyone can lose out. It doesn't matter what the numbers in people's bank accounts are if you're disregarding how much each unit is worth. Secondly, assuming that the OP was talking about 'wealth' rather than money, then the assumption was still incorrect as wealth is not a fixed value. It can be created and destroyed. To think otherwise is the broken window fallacy. Thirdly (fanatical devotion to the pope?), his presumption is that one can simply sell whatever those with money want to them. Apparently possession of whatever they want is arranged by fiat.
Some thoughts,
H.
ARGHHH! I DID! I DID! Don't listen to me folks (except in other posts where I actually typed what I intended to type).
Bankers.
The rest of our money.
Well true or false, you've got to admit its a better way of stimulating jobs and research with government money than giving it straight to failing banks, right. ;)