Libraries used to be about providing price discrimination for books. Maybe it's time we found a better model?
It will be interesting to see if this has a similar advertising effect as that experienced by the Baen free book library. Cory Doctorow has had very good results from giving his books away over the Internet, and there is evidence that P2P is actually driving some growth in the music industry.
"Reconstruction" should be in quotes
on
The New Face Lift
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I worked (very briefly) with a guy that had had "reconstruction" over 100% of his face from 3rd degree burns. In his case:
successful "reconstruction" = "no longer oozing."
He had no lips, and only kind of had eyelids, he had to constantly roll his eyes to keep them lubed. No nose, just one deformed hole in the front of his head. He was, in a word, hideous. Not his fault. He was a good guy. But his quality of life was in the toilet. This was in the late 1990s, so maybe they're a little better now, but if they can do a complete replacement - more power to them. I would be happy to be a donor once I'm gone. They already get my liver, heart, and eyes. If someone can use this ugly mug, they're welcome to it.
I have the feeling that someone that has had a large part of their face burned off in a bad fire isn't going to be too worried about having to take drugs for the rest of their lives. Ethical? Ask the people who need this kind of surgery if THEY think it's ethical.
"demand => capacity" should be "quantity_demanded_@_price_X >= quantity_supplied_@_price_X" this is the very profitable section of the graph, called "producer surplus", resulting in upward pressure on prices.
poor estimation would *act* like a shift in Demand (while really being a surplus or shortage...
Exactly. This results in excess capacity, "consumer surplus", resulting in downward pressure on prices. But the Demand curve did not actually move, which was what the OP said was necessary.
Demand curves are more konstant than I was aware
The actual location of the Demand curve is (mostly) in the hands of the consumers. Some are pretty stable (I think milk is one of these) and some are all over the place (like architectural paint). Marketing campaigns can drive it up some, market saturation and new product offerings can drive it down some, but it is still about how much the consumer wants the product.
Increased demand would move the equillibrium point... increased profit... producers are already "satisfied...",... others would be looking at this as an oppurtunity.
If existing suppliers have excess capacity, they spool up production. If they don't, they might still be better equipped to build new capacity than a potential new entrant (process maturity, big bankroll, established network of suppliers and distributors.)
barriers to entry of capital investment
Well, yeah. It's not just capital investment, though. It's a capital investment in the face of a sure price war, probable competition through established relationships, and maybe a public relations war over quality and business practices. Potential entrants into these highly capitalized markets have to be confident that there is at least some segment of the market where they can serve better than the incumbents. It's risky.
I don't *want* to believe a company is "satisfied"
I know of at least two ways to be satisfied with your utilization (assuming you are a producer):
1. Your marginal_cost = marginal_revenue. This is the definition of profit maximization. This is what you do if your market has sufficient "producer surplus."
2. You produce at the price where quantity_demanded_@_price_X = quantity_supplied_@_price_X. This is the equilibrium point in an efficient market. This is what you do if your market does not have "producer surplus."
I don't *want* to believe... that quanity supplied is independent of quantity demanded.
I am with you there. They are related. But Demand is not the sole determinent of production.
I am no PhD either, but I think I've got most of this right. I hope I haven't made too much of an ass of myself 8^)
The cities are separated by "redneck country" and the advertising blimps spend more time in transit than you might think. Also, it takes a rifle to reach them (a pistol generally won't do it.) The rifles you tend to find in the posession of the "urban group" are usually fully automatic and are much more likely to attract the attention of the boys in blue. Out in the country, however, lots of good ol' boys have deer rifles (with scopes!) and the sound of a rifle shot is unlikely to draw notice.
Both policies allow pre-emptive stikes. Pre-emptive strikes are those against targets that are intending to strike you. This is "do unto others before they do unto you."
France is not saying they will only strike in retaliation - they may hit first if they think someone is about to hit them. The US is not saying they will hit without provocation - but that they may hit to stop an incoming attack before it gets started.
The problem is that the US is forsaking 60 years of carefully built credibility over the WMD issue - as though the war in Iraq wasn't bad enough. This measure (the new policy) does NOT increase American security. Nation-states already weren't going to attack us because we'd reduce them to smouldering rubble. Terrorists will not be deterred because we will never see it coming, and there is no place to productively bomb in response to a first strike.
There is a bare chance that this will make a pre-emptive strike against N. Korea legal if the President feels an attack is imminent. But it doesn't seem likely to make any meaningful difference to the other stakeholders in the N. Korea question. If the US bombs N. Korea with nukes to stop an attack, Seoul will still be gone in the morning. Is this a sign that the US does not believe that a diplomatic solution to the N. Korean WMD issue will be found?
Okay, I see where you're coming from. When you say "a huge demand" though, it implies that demand>supply. This is especially true for new products, where the demand equation is poorly understood but the demand is clearly larger than the supply, signalled in the marketplace by large profits. New entrants come in and change the supply, prices drop.
As long as demand => capacity, the price drop stops at about the equilibrium price because none of the producers have an incentive to reduce price any further. (Consider Coke/Pepsi in the US market. Not much market growth. Both extremely profitable, neither interested in a price war because they understand game theory (ie. both sides lose in a price war) so they instead try innovative products or creative promotions.)
Once capacity exceeds demand (excess supply) then holders of the excess supply have incentive to compete for market share => prices drop below the old equilibrium price. (Consider Ford/GM/Chrysler in the US market. All are so desperate for sales that they are poisoning their markets with artificially low prices. One consequence? Look at Ford's bond rating. Great for consumers - not so good for firms and shareholders.)
Another thing that can cause price drops is demand loss due to new product innovation. When a new product comes on the market (especially if the new product is from some other supplier) some of the demand for the old product gets shifted to the new product, demand for the old product declines and the suppliers reduce the price of the old product to extract as much revenue from it as possible before it becomes obsolete and demand falls to zero.
Now let's look at the DRAM industry. There is good profitability, but potential new entrants are faced with the necessity of competing with firms that have achieved economies of scale, have covered their largest portion of up-front and depreciation costs, and have larger margins. The threat of retaliation in the form of price cutting is so real and obvious that we're NOT seeing new entrants. Current suppliers are satisfied with their capacity utilization (and their profit margins) so there is no real competition for market share. So prices stabilize at the equilibrium point.
Prices are not stable and high because there is no demand. It is because the supply and demand are appropriately matched at the equilibrium point and there is not an extremely dynamic innovation environment. The kind of price drop you are describing result from poor demand estimation or rapid new product introduction. Higher demand won't do it, it has to be incorrectly assessed demand. Another way to sanity check the original poster's assertions is to look at the number of PCs and DRAM upgrades being shipped this year. Low demand? Not likely.
No, that decrease in price is only likely to decrease the price back to the equilibrium point, which is where it is now. Consumers will pay the current price. If demand increases, supply will expand to the point that that new demand is met and prices will settle back to the equilibrium. The curve down to the eqilibrium price is the curve of the new suppliers trying to keep the revenue high in the early period to cover their depreciation costs and achieve economies of scale. As these economies are reached and the firms get past the steepest part of their depreciation, and the new demand becomes more-nearly met, industry prices subside. Once they reach the equilibrium point again, they have no incentive to lower prices further because the consumers are willing to bear the burden of the equilibrium price.
So : "Consumers are willing to pay the price." Does that sound like any description of "low demand" you've ever heard? Ever?
For the equilibrium point to move there has to be a change in either supply or real demand, but increasing real demand (not moving along the demand curve, but moving the curve itself to the right) will increase the equilibrium price.
I take your point about decreasing cost industries, but I would point out that the chip manufacturers have been charging equilibrium price for a while now and their costs have been dropping. This implies that they have enhanced margins with which to retaliate against new market entrants by just lowering their prices long enough to drive away interested potential competitors. (Think Microsoft. Marginal cost approaching $0. Prices at equilibrium. Customer considers Linux => Microsoft offers deep discounts to protect market share. (In Microsoft's case I believe that this is a losing game long-term because the customer's willingness to support the current equilibrium price is being constantly eroded, but I digress.))
I reiterate: poor demand leads to falling prices (yes, even long-term) and strong or growing demand leads to rising prices (yes, even long-term.) The falling prices seen in the computer industry result from sellers chasing a decreasing equilibrium price caused by specific-product demand decreasing as the strongly motivated buyers (early adopters) become satiated and new products are introduced.
The idea "charge all the traffic will bear" is alive and well in the new millenium.
What are you talking about? Increased demand raises prices, decreased demand lowers prices. Likewise, weak demand in a market causes an increase in competition with its attendant reduction in prices. (Think about airfares after the 9/11 attacks: no demand = rock bottom prices.)
Prices are high due to a lack of excess supply.
A much better answer to the OP's question is that DRAM has reached an equilibrium point where the suppliers are able to charge a price low enough to discourage new entrants, beyond which they have no incentive to lower prices. Once (marginal cost = marginal revenue) you stop looking for increased volume through lower prices because your profit is already maximized. Lowering your price further just decreases your profits.
Make no mistake about it, if demand increased tomorrow for DRAM, prices would rise. If that demand stayed steady, the prices would stay high. They would come down if the demand collapsed because new entrants would be trying to recoup the fixed costs they had incurred to enter the market. That's not a function of a healthy market though, that's a function of poor demand forecasting.
Saying that prices are too high because there's no demand for the product (assuming the production is into efficient economies of scale, which DRAM production is) is like saying all of those people in Africa starved to death because they weren't hungry enough to eat.
You'll play hell getting hospitals to adopt this. Imagine going to the Director and telling him:
"We want to help your patients save money, by letting them buy less of your services."
Sure, some hospitals are having a capacity problem, but it's way better to be overbooked than over-capacitied. This is especially bad when you consider the incredible fixed costs they have (think malpractice insurance for 75-150 doctors and a trauma center.)
Disclaimer: I am an MBA student. I used to be a pipelayer/foreman but blew out my knees and went back to school.
We also study the Challenger explosion and sit around saying "What a bunch of sh*theads." Likewise with Enron and Worldcom. Managers are like anyone else: most are about average, some are better, some are worse. You just don't hear much about the good guys devoting their days to getting stuff done. When a manager cheats, it's front page news. When one behaves responsibly and ethically everyone just goes "So what?"
As far as thinking the MBA is 'better' than an engineering degree? Mostly we just think it's 'different.' Anybody with an engineering degree is gonna be better than me at math, it's a given. Math, however, is not enough to manage an organization.
I think both sides have buttholes. The best we can do is all to try not to be buttholes, and be tolerant of the buttholes we are forced to be around.
Disclosure: I am a Gun Nut (if you're a liberal wanker) or a Freedom Fighter (if you're a conservative wanker.) I do not hunt animals, I do not rob people, and I only shoot at properly constructed and licensed ranges.
There is nothing inherently illegal about owning an M-60. As it is fully automatic it is considered a Class 3 weapon. Any American citizen that has not lost their right to possess a firearm may apply for a Class 3 permit from the ATF. Upon receipt of the permit, the holder may purchase and keep fully automatic weapons. It should be noted that in many jurisdictions the application is routed through the County Sheriff and many of those fine individuals decide not to forward the applications, in effect abridging the rights of those citizens who live under their jurisdiction.
There was for a while on a ban on the manufacture and import of Class 3 weapons, but you could still own those that were already here. With the expiration of the Brady Act, that ban no longer exists so it is now possible to buy brand new Class 3 guns (yay!)
The M-60 is tremendously fun to shoot (albeit very expensive) and the individual weapons are valuable pieces of our national military history.
I think you may have misunderstood why MS did this. It is important for them to notify users that do not know they are using pirated copies of Windows. It is also important that they be able to show in court that they have made efforts to stop piracy of their software.
It is not very important that they immediately stop piracy, as long as they can continue to indoctrinate new computer users into the Microsoft paradigm. As they incrementally increase the difficulty of piracy, eventually these users will migrate to legitimate Windows licenses.
I don't think hubris or stupidity had anything to do with how lame this 'security' is.
That was exactly my thought. This, combined with a previous post (They fired him because he was going to quit), seems extremely likely. "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Sounds like Google material to me.
Also, the invention you propose would be an instant hit. Most real inventions require a longer period of development and refinement before they become financially rewarding. Without patents, someone (like Exxon, in this case) would hit the market with a copy (your estimate of six months to a year seems laughably optimistic considering the capital intensity of the petrochemical industry) and immediately dominate you because of their greater existing distribution network, regardless of their products quality.
Patents DO serve a purpose. We just need a much better implementation than we have now.
Well, your improvement is a better idea than they had to begin with, maybe you should start your own company. If these idiots can do it, maybe it's gonna be like the late 90's again...
So is Search, Instant Messaging, and Satellite Mapping. Yet MS is all over these areas (mapping is under dev.) Why? Because it's all about providing one complete, pervasive experience.
But security is something that we want less of.
I think you mean that security threats are something we want less of, and that's true. But security is something we want more of, and MS realizes that vast numbers of people are using 3rd party software products to get that security. That means that security can be another avenue down which to pursue the all-important Share.
Microsoft's primary business is not in virus scanners or anti-spyware products.
A narrow view is that MS's primary business is Windows and Office. I think that a broader view is MS's primary business is acheiving dominant share and providing as much of the above-mentioned 'experience' as the DOJ will allow.
They're more interested in quickly fixing security because it hurts profits from Windows.
Hmm. MS profits are still growing (albeit at a reduced rate.) MS share is shrinking in some markets, notably browser use. We could make snide comments about MS wanting to fix security without changing Windows architecture, but I think it will be more instructive to consider their actions re Longhorn. Do you think they will ship/integrate/support their AV solution in Longhorn? They will certainly have had time to fix security in it. I think we will continue to see MS provide AV software for as long as there is a market for it, whether Longhorn performs securely or not.
I disagree. Remember the browser wars? By the time enough people were objecting to the bundling of IE with Windows, it was too late. The consequence? Browser monoculture.
When MS bundles AV software with the OS, it is too easy for Joe Sixpack to adopt that as his AV solution. Then it's MS de facto standards for Windows, Office, and computer security. Even harder to get people to switch.
When MS offers another "secure computing" initiative that 'natively' integrates with MS AV, adoption is immediate and almost total across the Windows install base. The fact that the "secure computing" initiative contains strong IP protection, and maybe hardware integration, and maybe transparent usage reporting is never made clear to the average end user.
Never assume that an attempt to increase market share/integration/adoption by MS does not have a profit motive. There are few altruists working on Redmond Campus.
Slashdot Mirror
Libraries used to be about providing price discrimination for books. Maybe it's time we found a better model?
It will be interesting to see if this has a similar advertising effect as that experienced by the Baen free book library. Cory Doctorow has had very good results from giving his books away over the Internet, and there is evidence that P2P is actually driving some growth in the music industry.
I worked (very briefly) with a guy that had had "reconstruction" over 100% of his face from 3rd degree burns. In his case:
successful "reconstruction" = "no longer oozing."
He had no lips, and only kind of had eyelids, he had to constantly roll his eyes to keep them lubed. No nose, just one deformed hole in the front of his head. He was, in a word, hideous. Not his fault. He was a good guy. But his quality of life was in the toilet. This was in the late 1990s, so maybe they're a little better now, but if they can do a complete replacement - more power to them. I would be happy to be a donor once I'm gone. They already get my liver, heart, and eyes. If someone can use this ugly mug, they're welcome to it.
I have the feeling that someone that has had a large part of their face burned off in a bad fire isn't going to be too worried about having to take drugs for the rest of their lives. Ethical? Ask the people who need this kind of surgery if THEY think it's ethical.
Bush wants to nuke north korea just in case the...
Man, I hope you're wrong.
without a war he is just an incompetent, incoherent, religous fundamentalist fool
Well, yeah.
I'm no master of this stuff either.
... increased profit ... producers are already "satisfied ...", ... others would be looking at this as an oppurtunity.
... that quanity supplied is independent of quantity demanded.
I haven't been very clear. I'm sorry.
"demand => capacity" should be "quantity_demanded_@_price_X >= quantity_supplied_@_price_X" this is the very profitable section of the graph, called "producer surplus", resulting in upward pressure on prices.
poor estimation would *act* like a shift in Demand (while really being a surplus or shortage...
Exactly. This results in excess capacity, "consumer surplus", resulting in downward pressure on prices. But the Demand curve did not actually move, which was what the OP said was necessary.
Demand curves are more konstant than I was aware
The actual location of the Demand curve is (mostly) in the hands of the consumers. Some are pretty stable (I think milk is one of these) and some are all over the place (like architectural paint). Marketing campaigns can drive it up some, market saturation and new product offerings can drive it down some, but it is still about how much the consumer wants the product.
Increased demand would move the equillibrium point
If existing suppliers have excess capacity, they spool up production. If they don't, they might still be better equipped to build new capacity than a potential new entrant (process maturity, big bankroll, established network of suppliers and distributors.)
barriers to entry of capital investment
Well, yeah. It's not just capital investment, though. It's a capital investment in the face of a sure price war, probable competition through established relationships, and maybe a public relations war over quality and business practices. Potential entrants into these highly capitalized markets have to be confident that there is at least some segment of the market where they can serve better than the incumbents. It's risky.
I don't *want* to believe a company is "satisfied"
I know of at least two ways to be satisfied with your utilization (assuming you are a producer):
1. Your marginal_cost = marginal_revenue. This is the definition of profit maximization. This is what you do if your market has sufficient "producer surplus."
2. You produce at the price where quantity_demanded_@_price_X = quantity_supplied_@_price_X. This is the equilibrium point in an efficient market. This is what you do if your market does not have "producer surplus."
I don't *want* to believe
I am with you there. They are related. But Demand is not the sole determinent of production.
I am no PhD either, but I think I've got most of this right. I hope I haven't made too much of an ass of myself 8^)
Dang this is a long comment.
If Osama sets off a bomb in NY tomorrow who do we bomb in reply? Pakistan? Mecca?
The cities are separated by "redneck country" and the advertising blimps spend more time in transit than you might think. Also, it takes a rifle to reach them (a pistol generally won't do it.) The rifles you tend to find in the posession of the "urban group" are usually fully automatic and are much more likely to attract the attention of the boys in blue. Out in the country, however, lots of good ol' boys have deer rifles (with scopes!) and the sound of a rifle shot is unlikely to draw notice.
Both policies allow pre-emptive stikes. Pre-emptive strikes are those against targets that are intending to strike you. This is "do unto others before they do unto you."
France is not saying they will only strike in retaliation - they may hit first if they think someone is about to hit them. The US is not saying they will hit without provocation - but that they may hit to stop an incoming attack before it gets started.
The problem is that the US is forsaking 60 years of carefully built credibility over the WMD issue - as though the war in Iraq wasn't bad enough. This measure (the new policy) does NOT increase American security. Nation-states already weren't going to attack us because we'd reduce them to smouldering rubble. Terrorists will not be deterred because we will never see it coming, and there is no place to productively bomb in response to a first strike.
There is a bare chance that this will make a pre-emptive strike against N. Korea legal if the President feels an attack is imminent. But it doesn't seem likely to make any meaningful difference to the other stakeholders in the N. Korea question. If the US bombs N. Korea with nukes to stop an attack, Seoul will still be gone in the morning. Is this a sign that the US does not believe that a diplomatic solution to the N. Korean WMD issue will be found?
Okay, I see where you're coming from. When you say "a huge demand" though, it implies that demand>supply. This is especially true for new products, where the demand equation is poorly understood but the demand is clearly larger than the supply, signalled in the marketplace by large profits. New entrants come in and change the supply, prices drop.
As long as demand => capacity, the price drop stops at about the equilibrium price because none of the producers have an incentive to reduce price any further. (Consider Coke/Pepsi in the US market. Not much market growth. Both extremely profitable, neither interested in a price war because they understand game theory (ie. both sides lose in a price war) so they instead try innovative products or creative promotions.)
Once capacity exceeds demand (excess supply) then holders of the excess supply have incentive to compete for market share => prices drop below the old equilibrium price. (Consider Ford/GM/Chrysler in the US market. All are so desperate for sales that they are poisoning their markets with artificially low prices. One consequence? Look at Ford's bond rating. Great for consumers - not so good for firms and shareholders.)
Another thing that can cause price drops is demand loss due to new product innovation. When a new product comes on the market (especially if the new product is from some other supplier) some of the demand for the old product gets shifted to the new product, demand for the old product declines and the suppliers reduce the price of the old product to extract as much revenue from it as possible before it becomes obsolete and demand falls to zero.
Now let's look at the DRAM industry. There is good profitability, but potential new entrants are faced with the necessity of competing with firms that have achieved economies of scale, have covered their largest portion of up-front and depreciation costs, and have larger margins. The threat of retaliation in the form of price cutting is so real and obvious that we're NOT seeing new entrants. Current suppliers are satisfied with their capacity utilization (and their profit margins) so there is no real competition for market share. So prices stabilize at the equilibrium point.
Prices are not stable and high because there is no demand. It is because the supply and demand are appropriately matched at the equilibrium point and there is not an extremely dynamic innovation environment. The kind of price drop you are describing result from poor demand estimation or rapid new product introduction. Higher demand won't do it, it has to be incorrectly assessed demand. Another way to sanity check the original poster's assertions is to look at the number of PCs and DRAM upgrades being shipped this year. Low demand? Not likely.
No, that decrease in price is only likely to decrease the price back to the equilibrium point, which is where it is now. Consumers will pay the current price. If demand increases, supply will expand to the point that that new demand is met and prices will settle back to the equilibrium. The curve down to the eqilibrium price is the curve of the new suppliers trying to keep the revenue high in the early period to cover their depreciation costs and achieve economies of scale. As these economies are reached and the firms get past the steepest part of their depreciation, and the new demand becomes more-nearly met, industry prices subside. Once they reach the equilibrium point again, they have no incentive to lower prices further because the consumers are willing to bear the burden of the equilibrium price.
So : "Consumers are willing to pay the price." Does that sound like any description of "low demand" you've ever heard? Ever?
For the equilibrium point to move there has to be a change in either supply or real demand, but increasing real demand (not moving along the demand curve, but moving the curve itself to the right) will increase the equilibrium price.
I take your point about decreasing cost industries, but I would point out that the chip manufacturers have been charging equilibrium price for a while now and their costs have been dropping. This implies that they have enhanced margins with which to retaliate against new market entrants by just lowering their prices long enough to drive away interested potential competitors. (Think Microsoft. Marginal cost approaching $0. Prices at equilibrium. Customer considers Linux => Microsoft offers deep discounts to protect market share. (In Microsoft's case I believe that this is a losing game long-term because the customer's willingness to support the current equilibrium price is being constantly eroded, but I digress.))
I reiterate: poor demand leads to falling prices (yes, even long-term) and strong or growing demand leads to rising prices (yes, even long-term.) The falling prices seen in the computer industry result from sellers chasing a decreasing equilibrium price caused by specific-product demand decreasing as the strongly motivated buyers (early adopters) become satiated and new products are introduced.
The idea "charge all the traffic will bear" is alive and well in the new millenium.
WTF?
What are you talking about? Increased demand raises prices, decreased demand lowers prices. Likewise, weak demand in a market causes an increase in competition with its attendant reduction in prices. (Think about airfares after the 9/11 attacks: no demand = rock bottom prices.)
Prices are high due to a lack of excess supply.
A much better answer to the OP's question is that DRAM has reached an equilibrium point where the suppliers are able to charge a price low enough to discourage new entrants, beyond which they have no incentive to lower prices. Once (marginal cost = marginal revenue) you stop looking for increased volume through lower prices because your profit is already maximized. Lowering your price further just decreases your profits.
Make no mistake about it, if demand increased tomorrow for DRAM, prices would rise. If that demand stayed steady, the prices would stay high. They would come down if the demand collapsed because new entrants would be trying to recoup the fixed costs they had incurred to enter the market. That's not a function of a healthy market though, that's a function of poor demand forecasting.
Saying that prices are too high because there's no demand for the product (assuming the production is into efficient economies of scale, which DRAM production is) is like saying all of those people in Africa starved to death because they weren't hungry enough to eat.
... I think you're my hero.
You'll play hell getting hospitals to adopt this. Imagine going to the Director and telling him:
"We want to help your patients save money, by letting them buy less of your services."
Sure, some hospitals are having a capacity problem, but it's way better to be overbooked than over-capacitied. This is especially bad when you consider the incredible fixed costs they have (think malpractice insurance for 75-150 doctors and a trauma center.)
Disclaimer: I am an MBA student. I used to be a pipelayer/foreman but blew out my knees and went back to school.
We also study the Challenger explosion and sit around saying "What a bunch of sh*theads." Likewise with Enron and Worldcom. Managers are like anyone else: most are about average, some are better, some are worse. You just don't hear much about the good guys devoting their days to getting stuff done. When a manager cheats, it's front page news. When one behaves responsibly and ethically everyone just goes "So what?"
As far as thinking the MBA is 'better' than an engineering degree? Mostly we just think it's 'different.' Anybody with an engineering degree is gonna be better than me at math, it's a given. Math, however, is not enough to manage an organization.
I think both sides have buttholes. The best we can do is all to try not to be buttholes, and be tolerant of the buttholes we are forced to be around.
In South Korea, only old people
Disclosure: I am a Gun Nut (if you're a liberal wanker) or a Freedom Fighter (if you're a conservative wanker.) I do not hunt animals, I do not rob people, and I only shoot at properly constructed and licensed ranges.
There is nothing inherently illegal about owning an M-60. As it is fully automatic it is considered a Class 3 weapon. Any American citizen that has not lost their right to possess a firearm may apply for a Class 3 permit from the ATF. Upon receipt of the permit, the holder may purchase and keep fully automatic weapons. It should be noted that in many jurisdictions the application is routed through the County Sheriff and many of those fine individuals decide not to forward the applications, in effect abridging the rights of those citizens who live under their jurisdiction.
There was for a while on a ban on the manufacture and import of Class 3 weapons, but you could still own those that were already here. With the expiration of the Brady Act, that ban no longer exists so it is now possible to buy brand new Class 3 guns (yay!)
The M-60 is tremendously fun to shoot (albeit very expensive) and the individual weapons are valuable pieces of our national military history.
Hard as it is to believe, though, the birth certificate is often even easier than the home network.
I think you may have misunderstood why MS did this. It is important for them to notify users that do not know they are using pirated copies of Windows. It is also important that they be able to show in court that they have made efforts to stop piracy of their software.
It is not very important that they immediately stop piracy, as long as they can continue to indoctrinate new computer users into the Microsoft paradigm. As they incrementally increase the difficulty of piracy, eventually these users will migrate to legitimate Windows licenses.
I don't think hubris or stupidity had anything to do with how lame this 'security' is.
That was exactly my thought. This, combined with a previous post (They fired him because he was going to quit), seems extremely likely. "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Sounds like Google material to me.
Whatever version they pick it will be written in both French and English.
Well, it's good to see they're not skimping on the hard parts...
Also, the invention you propose would be an instant hit. Most real inventions require a longer period of development and refinement before they become financially rewarding. Without patents, someone (like Exxon, in this case) would hit the market with a copy (your estimate of six months to a year seems laughably optimistic considering the capital intensity of the petrochemical industry) and immediately dominate you because of their greater existing distribution network, regardless of their products quality.
Patents DO serve a purpose. We just need a much better implementation than we have now.
Well, your improvement is a better idea than they had to begin with, maybe you should start your own company. If these idiots can do it, maybe it's gonna be like the late 90's again...
ftp.sunet.se huh? I'll have to check that out. If it's any good I'll post a link with some share groups I belong to.
Internet browsing is a totally different issue.
So is Search, Instant Messaging, and Satellite Mapping. Yet MS is all over these areas (mapping is under dev.) Why? Because it's all about providing one complete, pervasive experience.
But security is something that we want less of.
I think you mean that security threats are something we want less of, and that's true. But security is something we want more of, and MS realizes that vast numbers of people are using 3rd party software products to get that security. That means that security can be another avenue down which to pursue the all-important Share.
Microsoft's primary business is not in virus scanners or anti-spyware products.
A narrow view is that MS's primary business is Windows and Office. I think that a broader view is MS's primary business is acheiving dominant share and providing as much of the above-mentioned 'experience' as the DOJ will allow.
They're more interested in quickly fixing security because it hurts profits from Windows.
Hmm. MS profits are still growing (albeit at a reduced rate.) MS share is shrinking in some markets, notably browser use. We could make snide comments about MS wanting to fix security without changing Windows architecture, but I think it will be more instructive to consider their actions re Longhorn. Do you think they will ship/integrate/support their AV solution in Longhorn? They will certainly have had time to fix security in it. I think we will continue to see MS provide AV software for as long as there is a market for it, whether Longhorn performs securely or not.
I disagree. Remember the browser wars? By the time enough people were objecting to the bundling of IE with Windows, it was too late. The consequence? Browser monoculture.
When MS bundles AV software with the OS, it is too easy for Joe Sixpack to adopt that as his AV solution. Then it's MS de facto standards for Windows, Office, and computer security. Even harder to get people to switch.
When MS offers another "secure computing" initiative that 'natively' integrates with MS AV, adoption is immediate and almost total across the Windows install base. The fact that the "secure computing" initiative contains strong IP protection, and maybe hardware integration, and maybe transparent usage reporting is never made clear to the average end user.
Never assume that an attempt to increase market share/integration/adoption by MS does not have a profit motive. There are few altruists working on Redmond Campus.