They would make far less money on the extracted oil than they are having to pay already. They would have saved much more money than they are making if they could have plugged it in the first place. How much money so far? Somewhere around $4b.
That means they have spent about as much cleaning this up as they profit in an entire year. There is no way this not particularly large well would have made that much money for them.
Numbers? Let's assume they were *getting* 100,000 barrels per day (which is probably way too high). If my math is correct, that's roughly $6 million at $60 per barrel, right? But their operating costs were about $1m per day, which means $5 million per day.
At $5m per day, it would take them 20 days to get to $1b. To get to their current $4b mark, that would be 80 days.
But we already know they were getting no more than 20k barrels per day... they were capturing 5k at first, and then somewhere between 15k and 30k as I recall. So it would probably take over a year, at that speed, to even break even to what they have paid for so far... and I doubt they have paid as much as they will pay, since this would not include most of the claims and they already put up $20b to that escrow thingy.
So the real issue is semantic. DRM doesn't usually refer only to copy protection and usually does not refer to serial-number-type copy protection. Registration codes are a form of copy protection, but not usually lumped into "DRM."
Then they attempted to nicke and dime me with the horse armour debacle and voila. I pirated every game of them sin
I feel that it is people like you who I have to thank for having to go through the DRM and copy protection that I have to go through to play a game legitimately.
Same deal. I only get burned once. These companies have no hope of every restoring confidence with me again. Ever.
And apparently, vice versa. They have no hope of getting pirates to play/pay legit games. So they are forced to try to beat pirates with DRM. It does'nt work, it makes paying customers annoyed. This appears to be a cyclical problem, and those that respond in the way you do... are not appearing to help the situation whatsoever. You could just refuse to PLAY Bioware or Bethesda games... but apparently, you DO want to have the content they offer, but simply refuse to pay because you don't like the company? That's just as unethical as what you accuse the company of...
LEARN about BASIC customer satisfaction. It ain't hard, thousand, no millions of businesses do it all the time
It's hard to satisfy customers who think they should be allowed to play for free and refuse to pay even for games they like.
People who don't want to pay to play your games are never going to pay to play your games. Either they'll find a way to play it for free, or they'll go find something else to spend their time on.
This sentence does not quite make sense. You assign two traits to a hypothetical person:
Do not want to play game X
Find game X for free
Why would this person not want to play game X and then spend the bandwidth and time to get a pirated copy of game X?
I think this is more realistic: Person wants to play game X but is not willing to pay for it. Whether or not you feel that is a justified unwillingness is up to you, but saying a person pirates a game because he doesn't want to play it is ridiculous. You don't play games that you don't want to play. And there are a lot of people that play games they want to play, but pirate them anyways.
I am not arguing that said pirating is bad or good, I am simply arguing that your ascribed motives to said actions are a bit contradictory. I've never met someone who played a game that they did not want to play. I have met many people who did not pay for the game they were playing.:)
It does, somewhat, try to prevent you from copying/using the content in ways or on devices that the copyright owner doesn't want you to, though. I am not supposed to give you my registration code.
Now, it doesn't very strictly enforce this, obviously... it's quite weak and keygens are quite readily available... but I would argue that the idea IS the same. I would cede the point that someone else made, that it's doesn't limit it in the same way like encrypted exe's or encrypted cds/dvds.
I guess it depends on what you mean when you say "DRM." Digital Rights Management. It's a generic term... according to wikipedia though, it does not generally refer to serial numbers/key files, so I guess you are right. That's considered "copy protection" still, though.
My terminology was apparently significantly looser than how it is generally used, but it appears that many people think "DRM" == "Copy Protection"... including you, since you seemed to refer to DRM as being something that prevented you from copying it.
Hence the "somrt sort of" and "thing" and quotes around "DRM."
The idea is the same; somehow make it so that you can't play the full version without paying for it...
In this case, it's easily cracked typically and isn't really all that annoying and you can move it around, etc. I don't mind the registration code thing at all actually.
Me personally? I work at one of those large companies you mentioned. We support x86 (32 and 64 bit), ia64, Power, PARISC (HPUX), and SPARC... OS's are RHEL/SLES (x86, ia64), HP-UX (PARISC and ia64), Solaris (SPARC), and AIX (POWER). We have very large test matrices.
I know there are some big-hitter free software projects that are backed by large companies and have fairly large revenue streams. I was thinking more about the small-time free software projects, not corporate-backed projects.
So, because of experiences with Vista x64 (which everyone agrees was not exactly a great OS to begin with), you have decided that 7 x64 is bad. Even though almost everyone in this thread has reported GREAT experiences with the x64 version of Windows 7.
I ran Vista x64 and Windows 7 x64 and had few problems with either (none with 7, a couple with Vista). So now we are even with our one-on-one anecdotal evidence.;)
What, you mean software is supposed to be tested on what it claims to support? I thought we could just assume the coding was fine.;)
Seriously though, you're right. You don't claim to support something unless you tested it on that, usually. Perhaps this is different with *cough cough* most free software, I don't know (I wouldn't blame them particularly, since I doubt most free/open-source devs have access to copious amounts of ram).
The purpose was to create a boost during a bad time AND get better cars on the roads. In fact, 1 person I know bought a new car for the 1st time and normally would never do so.
That was a very high cost to get a "better car" on the road.
I am speaking of a market trend, not an individual person buying. The reasoning that appears to be shown by the market trend is this: people were going to buy a car anyway, and they did it sooner rather than later because of the CFC program. This moved a lot of the car-buyers all into one time - a spike. Then, all those folks didn't buy a car when they were normally going to - a drop. Then it continued as normal.
Auto sales were already rising. Cash for Clunkers spiked above that rise, then "spiked" below that rise, and then it caught up to the rise. In other words, the only thing CFC did was add a spike up and a dip down in a more or less steady rise, while costing the taxpayer money.
I use the for-Debian "open client." It's actually pretty good and generally has pretty good support, etc. I have Chrome, Firefox, and Opera all installed, too. Most IBM sites work with all of them... actually, it's mostly embedded hardware stuff that doesn't work with certain browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
Nooo...
They would make far less money on the extracted oil than they are having to pay already. They would have saved much more money than they are making if they could have plugged it in the first place. How much money so far? Somewhere around $4b.
That means they have spent about as much cleaning this up as they profit in an entire year. There is no way this not particularly large well would have made that much money for them.
Numbers? Let's assume they were *getting* 100,000 barrels per day (which is probably way too high). If my math is correct, that's roughly $6 million at $60 per barrel, right? But their operating costs were about $1m per day, which means $5 million per day.
At $5m per day, it would take them 20 days to get to $1b. To get to their current $4b mark, that would be 80 days.
But we already know they were getting no more than 20k barrels per day ... they were capturing 5k at first, and then somewhere between 15k and 30k as I recall. So it would probably take over a year, at that speed, to even break even to what they have paid for so far... and I doubt they have paid as much as they will pay, since this would not include most of the claims and they already put up $20b to that escrow thingy.
E-mailed registration codes are awesome... if your e-mail is easily searchable and will last a while. :) hehe.
Hehe, you're right. I missed the "pay to" in the first part.
Doh. Insert stupidity icon. I misread and thought you said that people who don't want to play won't pay. Sorry about that :P :)
So the real issue is semantic. DRM doesn't usually refer only to copy protection and usually does not refer to serial-number-type copy protection. Registration codes are a form of copy protection, but not usually lumped into "DRM."
Then they attempted to nicke and dime me with the horse armour debacle and voila. I pirated every game of them sin
I feel that it is people like you who I have to thank for having to go through the DRM and copy protection that I have to go through to play a game legitimately.
Same deal. I only get burned once. These companies have no hope of every restoring confidence with me again. Ever.
And apparently, vice versa. They have no hope of getting pirates to play/pay legit games. So they are forced to try to beat pirates with DRM. It does'nt work, it makes paying customers annoyed. This appears to be a cyclical problem, and those that respond in the way you do ... are not appearing to help the situation whatsoever. You could just refuse to PLAY Bioware or Bethesda games... but apparently, you DO want to have the content they offer, but simply refuse to pay because you don't like the company? That's just as unethical as what you accuse the company of...
LEARN about BASIC customer satisfaction. It ain't hard, thousand, no millions of businesses do it all the time
It's hard to satisfy customers who think they should be allowed to play for free and refuse to pay even for games they like.
People who don't want to pay to play your games are never going to pay to play your games. Either they'll find a way to play it for free, or they'll go find something else to spend their time on.
This sentence does not quite make sense. You assign two traits to a hypothetical person:
Why would this person not want to play game X and then spend the bandwidth and time to get a pirated copy of game X?
I think this is more realistic: Person wants to play game X but is not willing to pay for it. Whether or not you feel that is a justified unwillingness is up to you, but saying a person pirates a game because he doesn't want to play it is ridiculous. You don't play games that you don't want to play. And there are a lot of people that play games they want to play, but pirate them anyways.
I am not arguing that said pirating is bad or good, I am simply arguing that your ascribed motives to said actions are a bit contradictory. I've never met someone who played a game that they did not want to play. I have met many people who did not pay for the game they were playing. :)
X% are willing to pay. Y% aren't. Y is usually significantly greater than X, apparently.
It does, somewhat, try to prevent you from copying/using the content in ways or on devices that the copyright owner doesn't want you to, though. I am not supposed to give you my registration code.
Now, it doesn't very strictly enforce this, obviously... it's quite weak and keygens are quite readily available... but I would argue that the idea IS the same. I would cede the point that someone else made, that it's doesn't limit it in the same way like encrypted exe's or encrypted cds/dvds.
I guess it depends on what you mean when you say "DRM." Digital Rights Management. It's a generic term... according to wikipedia though, it does not generally refer to serial numbers/key files, so I guess you are right. That's considered "copy protection" still, though.
My terminology was apparently significantly looser than how it is generally used, but it appears that many people think "DRM" == "Copy Protection" ... including you, since you seemed to refer to DRM as being something that prevented you from copying it.
Hence the "somrt sort of" and "thing" and quotes around "DRM."
The idea is the same; somehow make it so that you can't play the full version without paying for it...
In this case, it's easily cracked typically and isn't really all that annoying and you can move it around, etc. I don't mind the registration code thing at all actually.
And still does it, to some extent. Shareware games still exist, but they usually have some sort of "DRM" thing ... like registration codes...
And I have never had a problem running AV programs on x64 installs... usually using Avast.
Me personally? I work at one of those large companies you mentioned. We support x86 (32 and 64 bit), ia64, Power, PARISC (HPUX), and SPARC... OS's are RHEL/SLES (x86, ia64), HP-UX (PARISC and ia64), Solaris (SPARC), and AIX (POWER). We have very large test matrices.
I know there are some big-hitter free software projects that are backed by large companies and have fairly large revenue streams. I was thinking more about the small-time free software projects, not corporate-backed projects.
So, because of experiences with Vista x64 (which everyone agrees was not exactly a great OS to begin with), you have decided that 7 x64 is bad. Even though almost everyone in this thread has reported GREAT experiences with the x64 version of Windows 7.
I ran Vista x64 and Windows 7 x64 and had few problems with either (none with 7, a couple with Vista). So now we are even with our one-on-one anecdotal evidence. ;)
What, you mean software is supposed to be tested on what it claims to support? I thought we could just assume the coding was fine. ;)
Seriously though, you're right. You don't claim to support something unless you tested it on that, usually. Perhaps this is different with *cough cough* most free software, I don't know (I wouldn't blame them particularly, since I doubt most free/open-source devs have access to copious amounts of ram).
It renders oddly in Chrome as well.
The purpose was to create a boost during a bad time AND get better cars on the roads. In fact, 1 person I know bought a new car for the 1st time and normally would never do so.
That was a very high cost to get a "better car" on the road.
Okay.
Graph of the "cliff."
Retail sales data put into a chart (with links to origin of graph and the sales data itself, which came from the government, in case the right-wing bias of hotair.com makes you want to disregard). Here is the original graph/blog and person that made it.. It also has a variety of other info, like the cost per ton of CO2 reduced, etc.
Anecdotal evidence FTW.
I am speaking of a market trend, not an individual person buying. The reasoning that appears to be shown by the market trend is this: people were going to buy a car anyway, and they did it sooner rather than later because of the CFC program. This moved a lot of the car-buyers all into one time - a spike. Then, all those folks didn't buy a car when they were normally going to - a drop. Then it continued as normal.
Auto sales were already rising. Cash for Clunkers spiked above that rise, then "spiked" below that rise, and then it caught up to the rise. In other words, the only thing CFC did was add a spike up and a dip down in a more or less steady rise, while costing the taxpayer money.
I'm not sure of the point of this article.
You don't? I think it's rather painfully obvious. "We hate Microsoft" is the point. ;)
I use the for-Debian "open client." It's actually pretty good and generally has pretty good support, etc. I have Chrome, Firefox, and Opera all installed, too. Most IBM sites work with all of them... actually, it's mostly embedded hardware stuff that doesn't work with certain browsers.
Did they tell the court that the browser is inextricably bound to the CURRENT OS or to future OS's?
Try wikipedia?
2. Nearly everyone goes to hell. Hell is just the state of being dead, nothing more. Even Jesus is spoken of as being in 'hell' when he died.
Um. Yes. State of being dead, where there is "wailing and gnashing of teeth." Everyone knows that when you die, you end up wailing and gnashing teeth!