Lets not forget that using a wireless access point is a little different than someone just walking into your house or taking your car for a drive. There is little or no impact from an outsider using your access point. I would equate it more like the neighborhood kids cutting across your lawn, as long as they don't run through your flowers it's no big deal. If you called the police and tried to press trespassing charges everytime a person stepped on your lawn I don't think you would get far. Someone that is using an open WAP is doing the same thing. They are just taking a short cut. They aren't going into your house, eating your food, stealing your TV.
The typical precision available to a user of a slide rule is about three places of accuracy.
So how did this work in the space program? My understanding is that space travel, like a trip to the moon, requires some very precise calculations. Was 3 digits of accuracy sufficient for the moon shots? Did NASA engineers do different slide rules? Did they use computers to make the calculations? Would we have ever gotten to the moon without the digital computer?
To be fair the biggest problem I find is that the end-users don't know what they want so you have to guess, then you get a hard time for not reading their minds correctly
Absolutely, and on top of that Developers don't think the same way an end-user does. So many of us are so ingrained in the tech world that we can't see the typical user's viewpoint. Something that seems incredibly intuitive to a developer can be completely obscure to most end-users. The hardest part in the development process is finding someone technically savvy enough to communicate with the developers and earn their respect and at the same time in touch with the end-user community.
Good point. In general Muslims aren't fond of anyone not Muslim (i.e. Infidels). If the GP was in Sudan right now he'd probably be attacked just like the Christians.
Plus it's generally anti-christian, pro drug and pro gay (or at least has a 'not that there's anything wrong with that' attitude). Not what I would call far right at all.
Not complaining mind you, makes for good discussions, but just can't believe someone would write a story saying Slashdot is far right.
Sorry, I just don't see anything to be concerned about. The per capita rate of development may have gone down in the last 200 years, but the numbers have gone way up.
Exactly. I'm sure that there are not only more people, but a larger percentage were educated and had time to invent things. We have a very large percentage of humans on the planet living in countries like China and India where they have to work every day to stay alive. They probably don't have much time for inventing. Combine that with the fact that it's hard to invent something new if you aren't educated and in full time research doesn't seem to me like this is news at all.
Actually, just the opposite. A company that hinders free-market forces *hurts* the economy.
But how can a company that is part of a free-market hinder free-market forces. This is an excerpt from a definition of coercive monopolyA company which has achieved monopoly status by simply outcompeting all other firms, may exploit its position to retain its monopoly; typically, engaging in activities that result in what are commonly referred to as "barriers to entry", although it is is a matter of debate whether particular barriers to entry are coercive in nature. For example, some say high costs required to compete are a barrier to entry, but free market advocates would say that the market is still free since competition is allowed to anyone that can raise the funds to compete, and that hence it cannot rightfully by called a "coercive monopoly."
To my knowledge the complaints against Microsoft aren't complaints about extorsion or other non-economic methods of cementing their monopoly. The biggest complaint is that they have added additional features to their product to make it more usable and used the widespread use of their Operating System to market other products. Seems to me like government sanctions against Microsoft actually work against a free-market.
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the evil that lives in Redmond either, but I want the market to force Microsoft out, not the government. I want Linux and OSX to improve to the point where there is no reason to run any Windows OS at all, and I believe that day will come.
Hasn't sony said that PS3 will run linux? And they've also said a lot of times that it's a "computer" and not a gaming machine.
Perhaps, haven't followed that too closely, but the hardware will be proprietary anyway. I'm sure they won't release the drivers to the general public. Games probably COULD be developed without the SDK, but no pre-release development could be done, and anyone wanting to make money off of a game is better off buying the license and SDK both in terms of legality and quality of product.
A class action lawsuit against an arm of the Federal Government. Get real.
Yeah, well, it's a nice idea.
And then, they wouldn't be mailing *anything* and the USPS would make even *less* money than it already does forcing it to either raise prices even more than they already have (either will cause the USPS to go out of business).
Ummm... yeah. You say that like it's a bad thing. First, the whole USPS doesn't make any money thing is a myth. Congress swipes all the money they do make to pay other things. Second, the USPS is not satisfied to just deliver letters, they are constantly attempting to generate more revenue and employ more people, they even have an advertising budget. Why is a government agency advertising? If it's going to be run like a private business let's make it a private business (who we could sue), otherwise, lets minimize the number of people and costs needed to run it.
They could start by not sending credit card offers to my dog.
Or not send 10,000 credit offers to my house. I think someone should initiate a class action lawsuit against the US Postal Service for giving mass mailing discounts to these credit card companies making it possible for them to send out so many mailings. If they had to pay $.37 to get a letter delivered like I do we might not have quite as many mailings and less identity theft.
The so called solution turns out to become much worse than the original problem.
I wonder who they will try to pin this problem on? We already invaded Iraq... maybe China? I bet an invasion there would solve the identity theft problem.
As for the economy: It got along fine without Microsoft, and can do the same again if necessary. There have been plenty of other companies (and universities, and volunteer organizations) that made perfectly usable software in the past, and in the absense of the 268 Billion Dollar Gorilla I'm sure there would be again.
Absolutely, and I don't think Microsoft will be around or as dominant as they are in the future, but the bottom line is bankrupting Microsoft would have an immediate negative impact on the economy. Billions of corporations and individuals rely on Microsoft products every day. If Microsoft suddenly went under it would be devestating.
Toxico should obviously not exist. The shareholders should never see a penny. I hope we both agree on this point.
OK, I'm with you now. Yes, in your example it makes sense that the courts should take all of Toxico's money and not allow them to do business in the future. Guess what I was trying to originally get across is that losing a month's revenue for behaviour that may or may not have caused the demise of IBM's OS/2 is probably a reasonable sum. I don't think the courts should fine a company like Microsoft $20 Billion just because the have it in the bank. Seems like the penalty should fit the infraction and that's what the courts appearantly did in this circumstance. I don't want to see the courts specifically bankrupt a company by design. Come to think about it, I would argue that in your example Toxico should only be penalized for the amount of damage they did and what it costs to repair. This sum may be as much or more than Toxico has assets in the bank, but I don't think it's right for the court to look at Toxico's worth just to make sure they don't have any money left.
There are companies that do more harm than good and are profitable only because they do not compensate those that they harm. Those companies should be "bankrupted by the court system". Right?
In a free market these companies should not exist. In theory a company can only exist if it's providing a good or service that's of value to someone. Determining if a company does more harm than good is a tricky proposition. Obviously if a company is commiting fraud or some other illegal act I believe the should be prosecuted by the criminal courts and put out of business - but this is completely different than a company being bankrupted by a civil ruling.
it's hardly going to dent Microsoft. What they need is restraint or some measures with some teeth in them which raise the bar.
This attitude comes up every time we see some kind of legal penalty against Microsoft, and I don't understand it. I'm not Microsoft fan, but I also don't want to see them bankrupted by the court system. Actually, I don't want to see anyone bankrupted by the court system. Microsoft is a big influental company and a big employer. If they were fined $20 Billion it would not have a positive impact on a company.
Any way you slice it, $850 Million is not chump change. I'll guarantee the accountants and financial officers at Microsoft are not thrilled about giving up over 4% of their cash reserves to a competitor. This ruling seems reasonable to me, and if we have enough of them maybe Microsoft will see the light.
What keeps me from writing a game to play on the Sony PS...and not paying them a cent? What is the difference here...you're basically just writing code to execute on a piece of hardware, correct?
Two things mostly. First, you need some kind of SDK to write software for a console unless you want to reverse engineer the whole thing. The difficulty of this is compounded if you want to develop a game prior to the console's release. If big companies like EA didn't get the development kit from Sony before the console is released to the public they would not have a game ready to run on the console's release date.
Second, Sony would probably sue you if you advertised it as Playstation software, used the trademarks, etc...
It's not a right to have a car, it's not a requirement to fit in to society, it's not a requirement for local or national transportation (to paraphrase your aruments).
I see that as different. The ability to drive a car, for many people, is tied directly to their employment and ability to earn a living. Many people drive for a living, many people commute to work. Public transportation is not readily available in most areas (unlike newspapers or radios). Not many people depend on TV for their livelyhood. I belive drving a car SHOULD be a right in our society, but government doesn't agree.
Finally, to answer your question, would I get upset if I couldn't use my car? Yeah, because it effects me directly. OTOH, if I had to walk or ride my bike to work would I save money and get more exercise, both good things, and that was the point of my original post.
Usually all it takes is for them to watch a movie or football game at a friends house on a big wide-screen set to get them saying, "I think I should start saving up for one of those."
Exactly. Not only that, but right now part of the problem is the limited amount of content available in HD. As more brodcasters, satellites and cable companys offer HD feeds the demand for the HDTVs will go up. The American consumer market can change very quickly, I agree that Nintendo may have problems if they don't add HD support.
I guess that in the year 2010 most TV sets in homes will be cheap digital sets that barely do anything above 480p very well. The high def big screens will always be out of the price range of most people.
Just went to Best Buy's website. I can buy a 27" HDTV thats 1080i capable for under $400. Until recently a plain old 27" analog CRT would cost about that. HDTVs are already in the affordable price range for most people. As there is more market demand for them the price will drop.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the loss or profit made on each unit depend initially on the development costs, and then on the actual amount of units produced?
From what I've seen these numbers don't seem to account for R&D costs. From the article:
"Merrill Lynch Japan Securities has recently calculated an analysis that the production of a single PlayStation 3 console will cost Sony approximately 54,000 yen to make ($494), as of its initial release in 2006."
The article also says Sony has over $1.8 Billion invested in chip development. My guess is this is above and beyond the $494/console number.
Looks to me like Sony and Microsoft are both in this 'console war' for the long term. They both have deep pockets and they seem to be playing a very expensive game of chicken. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.
Keep in mind that the HDTV penetration will probably increase significantly in the next year due to the scheduled elimination of analog over-the-air TV broadcasts. HDTVs will probably drop in price and become much more affordable when that happens.
I don't know that any money from the game profits go to the console manufacturer. I believe Sony just charges a licensing fee and provides an SDK to developers that want to create games. The nice thing about this model is Sony gets paid regardless of the success of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets not forget that using a wireless access point is a little different than someone just walking into your house or taking your car for a drive. There is little or no impact from an outsider using your access point. I would equate it more like the neighborhood kids cutting across your lawn, as long as they don't run through your flowers it's no big deal. If you called the police and tried to press trespassing charges everytime a person stepped on your lawn I don't think you would get far. Someone that is using an open WAP is doing the same thing. They are just taking a short cut. They aren't going into your house, eating your food, stealing your TV.
Did you see the movie? She was definitely categorized as a prop.
The typical precision available to a user of a slide rule is about three places of accuracy.
So how did this work in the space program? My understanding is that space travel, like a trip to the moon, requires some very precise calculations. Was 3 digits of accuracy sufficient for the moon shots? Did NASA engineers do different slide rules? Did they use computers to make the calculations? Would we have ever gotten to the moon without the digital computer?
To be fair the biggest problem I find is that the end-users don't know what they want so you have to guess, then you get a hard time for not reading their minds correctly
Absolutely, and on top of that Developers don't think the same way an end-user does. So many of us are so ingrained in the tech world that we can't see the typical user's viewpoint. Something that seems incredibly intuitive to a developer can be completely obscure to most end-users. The hardest part in the development process is finding someone technically savvy enough to communicate with the developers and earn their respect and at the same time in touch with the end-user community.
sarcasm
Stupid
Good point. In general Muslims aren't fond of anyone not Muslim (i.e. Infidels). If the GP was in Sudan right now he'd probably be attacked just like the Christians.
Plus it's generally anti-christian, pro drug and pro gay (or at least has a 'not that there's anything wrong with that' attitude). Not what I would call far right at all.
Not complaining mind you, makes for good discussions, but just can't believe someone would write a story saying Slashdot is far right.
Sorry, I just don't see anything to be concerned about. The per capita rate of development may have gone down in the last 200 years, but the numbers have gone way up.
Exactly. I'm sure that there are not only more people, but a larger percentage were educated and had time to invent things. We have a very large percentage of humans on the planet living in countries like China and India where they have to work every day to stay alive. They probably don't have much time for inventing. Combine that with the fact that it's hard to invent something new if you aren't educated and in full time research doesn't seem to me like this is news at all.
Actually, just the opposite. A company that hinders free-market forces *hurts* the economy.
But how can a company that is part of a free-market hinder free-market forces. This is an excerpt from a definition of coercive monopoly A company which has achieved monopoly status by simply outcompeting all other firms, may exploit its position to retain its monopoly; typically, engaging in activities that result in what are commonly referred to as "barriers to entry", although it is is a matter of debate whether particular barriers to entry are coercive in nature. For example, some say high costs required to compete are a barrier to entry, but free market advocates would say that the market is still free since competition is allowed to anyone that can raise the funds to compete, and that hence it cannot rightfully by called a "coercive monopoly."
To my knowledge the complaints against Microsoft aren't complaints about extorsion or other non-economic methods of cementing their monopoly. The biggest complaint is that they have added additional features to their product to make it more usable and used the widespread use of their Operating System to market other products. Seems to me like government sanctions against Microsoft actually work against a free-market.
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the evil that lives in Redmond either, but I want the market to force Microsoft out, not the government. I want Linux and OSX to improve to the point where there is no reason to run any Windows OS at all, and I believe that day will come.
Hasn't sony said that PS3 will run linux? And they've also said a lot of times that it's a "computer" and not a gaming machine.
Perhaps, haven't followed that too closely, but the hardware will be proprietary anyway. I'm sure they won't release the drivers to the general public. Games probably COULD be developed without the SDK, but no pre-release development could be done, and anyone wanting to make money off of a game is better off buying the license and SDK both in terms of legality and quality of product.
A class action lawsuit against an arm of the Federal Government. Get real.
Yeah, well, it's a nice idea.
And then, they wouldn't be mailing *anything* and the USPS would make even *less* money than it already does forcing it to either raise prices even more than they already have (either will cause the USPS to go out of business).
Ummm... yeah. You say that like it's a bad thing. First, the whole USPS doesn't make any money thing is a myth. Congress swipes all the money they do make to pay other things. Second, the USPS is not satisfied to just deliver letters, they are constantly attempting to generate more revenue and employ more people, they even have an advertising budget. Why is a government agency advertising? If it's going to be run like a private business let's make it a private business (who we could sue), otherwise, lets minimize the number of people and costs needed to run it.
They could start by not sending credit card offers to my dog.
Or not send 10,000 credit offers to my house. I think someone should initiate a class action lawsuit against the US Postal Service for giving mass mailing discounts to these credit card companies making it possible for them to send out so many mailings. If they had to pay $.37 to get a letter delivered like I do we might not have quite as many mailings and less identity theft.
The so called solution turns out to become much worse than the original problem.
I wonder who they will try to pin this problem on? We already invaded Iraq... maybe China? I bet an invasion there would solve the identity theft problem.
As for the economy: It got along fine without Microsoft, and can do the same again if necessary. There have been plenty of other companies (and universities, and volunteer organizations) that made perfectly usable software in the past, and in the absense of the 268 Billion Dollar Gorilla I'm sure there would be again.
Absolutely, and I don't think Microsoft will be around or as dominant as they are in the future, but the bottom line is bankrupting Microsoft would have an immediate negative impact on the economy. Billions of corporations and individuals rely on Microsoft products every day. If Microsoft suddenly went under it would be devestating.
Toxico should obviously not exist. The shareholders should never see a penny. I hope we both agree on this point.
OK, I'm with you now. Yes, in your example it makes sense that the courts should take all of Toxico's money and not allow them to do business in the future. Guess what I was trying to originally get across is that losing a month's revenue for behaviour that may or may not have caused the demise of IBM's OS/2 is probably a reasonable sum. I don't think the courts should fine a company like Microsoft $20 Billion just because the have it in the bank. Seems like the penalty should fit the infraction and that's what the courts appearantly did in this circumstance. I don't want to see the courts specifically bankrupt a company by design. Come to think about it, I would argue that in your example Toxico should only be penalized for the amount of damage they did and what it costs to repair. This sum may be as much or more than Toxico has assets in the bank, but I don't think it's right for the court to look at Toxico's worth just to make sure they don't have any money left.
Dammit, I meant "it would not have a postive impact on the economy"
Sorry.
There are companies that do more harm than good and are profitable only because they do not compensate those that they harm. Those companies should be "bankrupted by the court system". Right?
In a free market these companies should not exist. In theory a company can only exist if it's providing a good or service that's of value to someone. Determining if a company does more harm than good is a tricky proposition. Obviously if a company is commiting fraud or some other illegal act I believe the should be prosecuted by the criminal courts and put out of business - but this is completely different than a company being bankrupted by a civil ruling.
it's hardly going to dent Microsoft. What they need is restraint or some measures with some teeth in them which raise the bar.
This attitude comes up every time we see some kind of legal penalty against Microsoft, and I don't understand it. I'm not Microsoft fan, but I also don't want to see them bankrupted by the court system. Actually, I don't want to see anyone bankrupted by the court system. Microsoft is a big influental company and a big employer. If they were fined $20 Billion it would not have a positive impact on a company.
Any way you slice it, $850 Million is not chump change. I'll guarantee the accountants and financial officers at Microsoft are not thrilled about giving up over 4% of their cash reserves to a competitor. This ruling seems reasonable to me, and if we have enough of them maybe Microsoft will see the light.
What keeps me from writing a game to play on the Sony PS...and not paying them a cent? What is the difference here...you're basically just writing code to execute on a piece of hardware, correct?
Two things mostly. First, you need some kind of SDK to write software for a console unless you want to reverse engineer the whole thing. The difficulty of this is compounded if you want to develop a game prior to the console's release. If big companies like EA didn't get the development kit from Sony before the console is released to the public they would not have a game ready to run on the console's release date.
Second, Sony would probably sue you if you advertised it as Playstation software, used the trademarks, etc...
It's not a right to have a car, it's not a requirement to fit in to society, it's not a requirement for local or national transportation (to paraphrase your aruments).
I see that as different. The ability to drive a car, for many people, is tied directly to their employment and ability to earn a living. Many people drive for a living, many people commute to work. Public transportation is not readily available in most areas (unlike newspapers or radios). Not many people depend on TV for their livelyhood. I belive drving a car SHOULD be a right in our society, but government doesn't agree.
Finally, to answer your question, would I get upset if I couldn't use my car? Yeah, because it effects me directly. OTOH, if I had to walk or ride my bike to work would I save money and get more exercise, both good things, and that was the point of my original post.
Usually all it takes is for them to watch a movie or football game at a friends house on a big wide-screen set to get them saying, "I think I should start saving up for one of those."
Exactly. Not only that, but right now part of the problem is the limited amount of content available in HD. As more brodcasters, satellites and cable companys offer HD feeds the demand for the HDTVs will go up. The American consumer market can change very quickly, I agree that Nintendo may have problems if they don't add HD support.
I guess that in the year 2010 most TV sets in homes will be cheap digital sets that barely do anything above 480p very well. The high def big screens will always be out of the price range of most people.
Just went to Best Buy's website. I can buy a 27" HDTV thats 1080i capable for under $400. Until recently a plain old 27" analog CRT would cost about that. HDTVs are already in the affordable price range for most people. As there is more market demand for them the price will drop.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the loss or profit made on each unit depend initially on the development costs, and then on the actual amount of units produced?
From what I've seen these numbers don't seem to account for R&D costs. From the article:
"Merrill Lynch Japan Securities has recently calculated an analysis that the production of a single PlayStation 3 console will cost Sony approximately 54,000 yen to make ($494), as of its initial release in 2006."
The article also says Sony has over $1.8 Billion invested in chip development. My guess is this is above and beyond the $494/console number.
Looks to me like Sony and Microsoft are both in this 'console war' for the long term. They both have deep pockets and they seem to be playing a very expensive game of chicken. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.
Keep in mind that the HDTV penetration will probably increase significantly in the next year due to the scheduled elimination of analog over-the-air TV broadcasts. HDTVs will probably drop in price and become much more affordable when that happens.
I don't know that any money from the game profits go to the console manufacturer. I believe Sony just charges a licensing fee and provides an SDK to developers that want to create games. The nice thing about this model is Sony gets paid regardless of the success of the game.