It's still a tax I pay nonetheless. I'm not going to complain about having to pay an additional few cents on every piece of media I purchase, because my tax dollars have afforded me luxuries I could normally not afford (health care).
If I took what my tax dollars give me for granted, then I'd bitch about the levy.
The CPCC may be a pack of crooks, but at least my health care is paid for through taxing. If it wasn't, then I'd care about paying royalties on blank media.
The coolest part of that trailer was the end with the huge Doom logo, since it, let's face it, kicks ass.
Unfortunately, the rest of the trailer looks like an advertisement for most other movies of this genre. I was really hoping the Doom concept would carry over some unique ideas and reasons to watch the movie beyond the popular title, but I don't think this movie is going to be any different. And that's a shame.
Since every software (open source or not) worth a penny has some sort of backing support, are you suggesting they all suck?
You do realize that the majority of support calls are a result of the user not being too keen with computers and/or the software, and not a result of a problem with the software?
I'm curious when the seeding of ridiculous technologies and systems used to impoverish (on paper) the threat of terrorism will be bridled.
The need for precautionary systems has been driven by one terrorist attack in the last 5 years (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've known of no other terrorist movement on US grounds since September 11th), hardly an adequate cause to introduce asburd technologies which track foreigners throughout the country.
Tell the guard your visiting Maine, and you head to California? What then?
I look across the border and see an unfortunately large group of people bound by the paranoia and fear induced by a single terrorist attack. All this nonsense about tracking tags is perfect for making a terrorists day that much more enjoyable.
I've been through plenty of work where compadibility was required. No problem.
However, there are instances where compadibility isn't required, and it's money out of your pocket to take the extra time to do so. Then it's an individual decision whether to spend your time to ensure compadibility. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but when your on the clock and being paid to meet a deadline, your not fiddling around with items not in the requirements.
JavaScript also allows inline conditional statements, which can help with code readability:
var foo = (condition) ? conditionIsTrue : conditionIsFalse;
Since when should terse programming be advocated like this? Give me a break. I thought programmers were aware of the fact that terse statements only serve to complicate code readability and should not be used. There are acceptable uses of terse syntax (the ++ increment operator, for example), but the ternary operator has never been one of them.
There's a huge difference between website designb and applications which you are confusing.
Websites should conform to at least IE and Firefox rendering requirements, while applications will depend on the client's requirements. They will not necessarily be mandated to conform to multiple browsers.
You know, toting NES Duck Hunt guns while jingling chrome USB cables from their neck and sexy ASIMO's shaking ass with thermal paste dripping from their chest.
You can choose, they can't (yes, can not, because they simply don't have enough knowledge to choose).
When Linux picks up a major need like Windows/Mac has done, then the issue of 'not enough knowledge' will be disputable. The reason (in my mind) that Linux has a less appeal, and consequently less knowledge about it than Windows is because Windows meets a niche for everyday business/personal needs. Linux has not reached this yet; not even close.
To say that I'm numb, dumb or a combination of those -- well, that's a fair statement if you would sooner chase Microsoft's tail like thousands of others than use your brain to filter out the bullshit statements.
It has everything to do with market need and very little to do with Microsoft's tactic. They have a more marketable, appealing product. Any major retail store that attempts to sell Linux PC's knows they are risking some financial loss. The customer base isn't there for Linux like it is for Windows, hence the reason why you would rarely (if at all) see Linux PC's on the shelf.
when was the last time you walked in to BestBuy/CompUSA/Frye's and walked out with a PC that has Linux pre-installed?
Never, because the market need isn't there. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a Linux PC in any major retail stores.
Your confusing a lack of consumer need with Microsoft being tactfully overpowering (and I'm not suggesting they aren't, but in this situation, their aggressiveness has little to do with Linux finding it's way on to retail PC's).
Took a good five minutes to load, but here's the summary folks. Also, keep checking this mirror, I'm sure it will be up soon.
Over the past decade, the personal computer industry has seen a major reduction in competition in the operating system platform market. A computer operating system platform is the software which computer users learn to operate their computer with, the software that independent software vendors develop applications for and the software that third-party computer hardware developers create compliant hardware for.
Competition in the desktop computer operating system space is practically non-existent, with one platform from a single supplier commanding a very high proportion (over 95%) of the Australian market. This single platform from a sole vendor is Microsoft Windows. Cybersource believes that a sizeable portion of this market share is due to the fact that over many years, most consumers were never given the option to acquire alternative operating system platforms. Instead, Microsoft Windows was always bundled with most vendors' computer products, whether consumers wanted that bundled product on not.
We have seen that the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has acted in the best interests of consumers to increase competition in such areas as telecommunications. Cybersource wants to see similar actions introduced in the computer operating system platform space.
In the software market, as in the telecommunications market, a single, powerful and well-leveraged vendor can cause the reduction of real competition and the corralling of almost all consumers into a single monopolistic platform situation. This causes significant reduction in choice, price competitiveness and innovation. Cybersource calls upon the ACCC to rectify this situation for the benefit of the local Information Technology industry and of all Australian IT consumers.
Key Points
1. It is impossible or extremely difficult for consumers to purchase a desktop PC or laptop from a tier-1 or tier-2 computer manufacturer without also having to purchase an OEM copy of Microsoft Windows operating system platform.
2. Cybersource believes that this greatly reduces choice for consumers and competition for the industry. Such a reduction in choice, and consequent reduction in competition, costs the Australian economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually, through paying one vendor needlessly high prices for monopolistic products.
3. The computer market is many ways similar to the telecommunications market. When one vendor has over 95% of the market, that vendor should be bound by a universal service obligation to ensure that all consumers can access the content, documents and data which reside on that vendor's platform. Neglecting such an obligation hinders all consumers and third-party developers not using that vendor's platform, further increasing anti-competitive pressures.
4. Cybersource believes that such anti-competitive practices should be stopped as soon as possible, through remedies introduced by the ACCC, to secure both a broader competitive base and increased options for consumers.
5. The first remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that all tier-1 and tier-2 vendors should be required to offer their desktop and laptop products without an operating system pre-installed, that this choice be presented to consumers as broadly as the products themselves are, and that the price difference between the with and without operating system options should also be clearly and broadly presented at retail outlets, on vendor marketing literature and vendor websites.
6. The second remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that Microsoft should be required to offer unfettered and unencumbered access to all major content, document, data and applications formats which could enable interchange and interoperability between users of its platform and users of other alternative platforms.
Can someone explain to me how Linux has been "locked-out" from users? It's widely available to be used on a system with Windows (dual boot).
The reason I don't use Linux is because I know it to be a much less intuitive system, but I'd struggle to refer to my choice for not using Linux as being locked out by Microsoft.
I read above and see so many complaints about this, which is troubling. I can confidently say if this was almost any other company, this issue would be hardly contestable.
Nevertheless, I have a couple words for those who find it necessary to complain about Microsft trying to crack down on piracy of it's own products: buy it.
I find it very interesting that images taken fifteen years ago find practicality and use in new applications. Maybe satellite imagery technology was ahead of its time, providing so much detail that it was sufficient for use fifteen years down the road?
These days, typical fifteen year old technology finds more use inside a cardboard box in a basement than it does on a brand new software application.
I think it's safe to say that most people had not experienced much satellite imagery until Google/Microsoft publicized its service (I'm one). And in light of this, I find it very cool cool that despite imagery being tens of years old, it still provides equal amount of detail as imagery taken today.
Just because he was a promiment innovator many years ago doesn't imply he is just as innovative now. It's a possibility that HP is letting him go because he isn't innovating or contributing on par with other researchers.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression the two taxes were much in the same, hence my original statement. Thanks for clearing that up :)
If I took what my tax dollars give me for granted, then I'd bitch about the levy.
Since the link is down, here's another article.
The CPCC may be a pack of crooks, but at least my health care is paid for through taxing. If it wasn't, then I'd care about paying royalties on blank media.
Unfortunately, the rest of the trailer looks like an advertisement for most other movies of this genre. I was really hoping the Doom concept would carry over some unique ideas and reasons to watch the movie beyond the popular title, but I don't think this movie is going to be any different. And that's a shame.
Vin Diesel's only good when he dresses up like The Rock.
Since every software (open source or not) worth a penny has some sort of backing support, are you suggesting they all suck?
You do realize that the majority of support calls are a result of the user not being too keen with computers and/or the software, and not a result of a problem with the software?
The need for precautionary systems has been driven by one terrorist attack in the last 5 years (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've known of no other terrorist movement on US grounds since September 11th), hardly an adequate cause to introduce asburd technologies which track foreigners throughout the country.
Tell the guard your visiting Maine, and you head to California? What then?
I look across the border and see an unfortunately large group of people bound by the paranoia and fear induced by a single terrorist attack. All this nonsense about tracking tags is perfect for making a terrorists day that much more enjoyable.
However, there are instances where compadibility isn't required, and it's money out of your pocket to take the extra time to do so. Then it's an individual decision whether to spend your time to ensure compadibility. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but when your on the clock and being paid to meet a deadline, your not fiddling around with items not in the requirements.
Then apparantely you've never dealt with a client and/or never developed according to a client's mandate.
var foo = (condition) ? conditionIsTrue : conditionIsFalse;
Since when should terse programming be advocated like this? Give me a break. I thought programmers were aware of the fact that terse statements only serve to complicate code readability and should not be used. There are acceptable uses of terse syntax (the ++ increment operator, for example), but the ternary operator has never been one of them.
Websites should conform to at least IE and Firefox rendering requirements, while applications will depend on the client's requirements. They will not necessarily be mandated to conform to multiple browsers.
I am dying in anticipation.
When Linux picks up a major need like Windows/Mac has done, then the issue of 'not enough knowledge' will be disputable. The reason (in my mind) that Linux has a less appeal, and consequently less knowledge about it than Windows is because Windows meets a niche for everyday business/personal needs. Linux has not reached this yet; not even close.
To say that I'm numb, dumb or a combination of those -- well, that's a fair statement if you would sooner chase Microsoft's tail like thousands of others than use your brain to filter out the bullshit statements.
It has everything to do with market need and very little to do with Microsoft's tactic. They have a more marketable, appealing product. Any major retail store that attempts to sell Linux PC's knows they are risking some financial loss. The customer base isn't there for Linux like it is for Windows, hence the reason why you would rarely (if at all) see Linux PC's on the shelf.
Never, because the market need isn't there. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a Linux PC in any major retail stores.
Your confusing a lack of consumer need with Microsoft being tactfully overpowering (and I'm not suggesting they aren't, but in this situation, their aggressiveness has little to do with Linux finding it's way on to retail PC's).
Over the past decade, the personal computer industry has seen a major reduction in competition in the operating system platform market. A computer operating system platform is the software which computer users learn to operate their computer with, the software that independent software vendors develop applications for and the software that third-party computer hardware developers create compliant hardware for.
Competition in the desktop computer operating system space is practically non-existent, with one platform from a single supplier commanding a very high proportion (over 95%) of the Australian market. This single platform from a sole vendor is Microsoft Windows. Cybersource believes that a sizeable portion of this market share is due to the fact that over many years, most consumers were never given the option to acquire alternative operating system platforms. Instead, Microsoft Windows was always bundled with most vendors' computer products, whether consumers wanted that bundled product on not.
We have seen that the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has acted in the best interests of consumers to increase competition in such areas as telecommunications. Cybersource wants to see similar actions introduced in the computer operating system platform space.
In the software market, as in the telecommunications market, a single, powerful and well-leveraged vendor can cause the reduction of real competition and the corralling of almost all consumers into a single monopolistic platform situation. This causes significant reduction in choice, price competitiveness and innovation. Cybersource calls upon the ACCC to rectify this situation for the benefit of the local Information Technology industry and of all Australian IT consumers.
Key Points
1. It is impossible or extremely difficult for consumers to purchase a desktop PC or laptop from a tier-1 or tier-2 computer manufacturer without also having to purchase an OEM copy of Microsoft Windows operating system platform.
2. Cybersource believes that this greatly reduces choice for consumers and competition for the industry. Such a reduction in choice, and consequent reduction in competition, costs the Australian economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually, through paying one vendor needlessly high prices for monopolistic products.
3. The computer market is many ways similar to the telecommunications market. When one vendor has over 95% of the market, that vendor should be bound by a universal service obligation to ensure that all consumers can access the content, documents and data which reside on that vendor's platform. Neglecting such an obligation hinders all consumers and third-party developers not using that vendor's platform, further increasing anti-competitive pressures.
4. Cybersource believes that such anti-competitive practices should be stopped as soon as possible, through remedies introduced by the ACCC, to secure both a broader competitive base and increased options for consumers.
5. The first remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that all tier-1 and tier-2 vendors should be required to offer their desktop and laptop products without an operating system pre-installed, that this choice be presented to consumers as broadly as the products themselves are, and that the price difference between the with and without operating system options should also be clearly and broadly presented at retail outlets, on vendor marketing literature and vendor websites.
6. The second remedy that Cybersource seeks from the ACCC is that Microsoft should be required to offer unfettered and unencumbered access to all major content, document, data and applications formats which could enable interchange and interoperability between users of its platform and users of other alternative platforms.
The reason I don't use Linux is because I know it to be a much less intuitive system, but I'd struggle to refer to my choice for not using Linux as being locked out by Microsoft.
Nevertheless, I have a couple words for those who find it necessary to complain about Microsft trying to crack down on piracy of it's own products: buy it.
For those like-minded people who were curious about how much propellant/fuel the launch used after being struck (as always) by the awesome power produced, I did some searching and came up with a figure of around $500,000 for the propellant costs (liquid oxygen/liquid nitrogen).
These days, typical fifteen year old technology finds more use inside a cardboard box in a basement than it does on a brand new software application.
I think it's safe to say that most people had not experienced much satellite imagery until Google/Microsoft publicized its service (I'm one). And in light of this, I find it very cool cool that despite imagery being tens of years old, it still provides equal amount of detail as imagery taken today.
What good is creativity working for a company when you don't have any focus? Thanks for supporting my statement.
Just because he was a promiment innovator many years ago doesn't imply he is just as innovative now. It's a possibility that HP is letting him go because he isn't innovating or contributing on par with other researchers.
I think recovering would be a more appropriate word.
Yahoo.