The non-replaceable battery kills it for a lot of business people.
Why? What about it having an internal battery makes it unacceptable for business people? Does Excel refuse to run if the battery is not swappable or something?
This may be the first Apple upgrade ever to be cheaper from the factory than DIY.
No. The first Powermac with the built-in Superdrive (DVD burner) offered it way cheaper than it cost to buy the same drive separately. This was when DVD burning was very expensive, and nobody supplied PCs with DVD burners built-in.
1 replaceable battery (meaning that your travelers won't be able to carry a spare)
Why not? They could just take an external battery. I'd bet that this will be one of the first accessories available from third parties. Will probably be cheaper than an Apple-made swappable battery, too.
And who does this "community" decision making? Who sets that agenda? Who makes the rules? Who organizes "everyone"?
Well, everybody does. Of course, some people might choose not to participate, but that's democracy for you.
They say they are acting on behalf of everyone, but really, in the end, it becomes another corrupt, inefficient, amoral and unresponsive bureacracy
Yes, bureaucracies tend to be bureaucratic. But that's a problem with bureacracies of all strips, it has nothing to do with socialist philosophy.
Capitalism is about investment, nothing more or less. There's nothing in capitalism that requires central planning, and very little that requires government.
Right - but the goal in captialism is to own as much as possible. Capitalists love owning their own centrally planned empires. See your Randolph Hearsts, and your Bill Gates, for example. And of course it doesn't require government - but then everybody would fucked. Government is required to limit the excesses of capitalism.
Based on what cartoons have you been watching?
Cartoons? It's reality buddy. Anybody who uses religion as propaganda in the way they do is evil. And haven't you seen how many of them who preach against sexual sin and smut have been caught committing depraved acts of carnality? I don't mind the carnality, when it doesn't involve child abuse. It's the blatant hypocrisy and lying that is so hard to stomach. You're seriously trying to suggest that people who would send adolescent kids to die in unnecessary wars aren't evil? That those who value profits from oil companies over life and health aren't evil?
And Democrats put on a "I'm a good, environmentally sound person"
Again, why are you bringing up Democrats? They suck, too. None of this makes Republicans good.
while they go and enslave everyone to their socialist borgian nightmare.
Now this is totally off the rails. Democrats are socialists? I may as well stop here, because you are so far detached from reality. Democrats are a strange mish-mash of conservatism and liberlism, but one thing they are definitely not is socialist. They are a slightly right-wing centrist party.
Yes, both parties are crummy, but evil requires intent. I think most politicians are somewhat greedy and incompetent. But it's the Republicans who take it to a higher level of actual evil intent. That they claim to be God's chosen people and that their opponents are heathens, just makes it that much more disgusting.
Oh, and your claim that you think both parties are bad doesn't ring very true - because you seem to be ignoring the faults of Republicans, pretending their bad side doesn't exist at all.
But there's a problem. Your assumption that the game would appeal to about 1 million people is correct, but as it happens, about 25% of those people pirate the game. Thus only 0.75 million people actually pay for it, thus you make 0.75*40 == $30 million. But wait - that was your budget! So actually you make no money at all on this particular project.
The problem here is not piracy, it's retarded business planning. Why wasn't that 25% of pirates included in the estimates? You have to allow for that kind of thing. You know, reality. What makes you assume that that 25% of people would have paid for the game in the first place? If they didn't pirate it - they probably would have just not bought it. So the actuall loss is zero. the pirates are essentially people that haven't become customers - not customers that have been lost. You can't force people to be your customers. There are no guarantees that any business venture will be profitable.
Shocking, there are companies out there which make games that are heavily pirated - yet they are still raking in millions. The level of piracy of your software is actually a very good indicator of success. It demonstrates deemand for your product. For every pirate, there are probably 3 paying customers or more.
OK. Your company is at least not actually bankrupt... lucky for you 75% of your customers are not freeloading! You decide to make a new game. But this time, you know that only 75% of the people it appeals to will buy the game. So you reduce the budget for the game to account for that. Maybe you don't hire such good artists. Maybe you make the levels smaller, or the game shorter, or you reduce the number of programmers and leave out some features you wanted.
Again, this is retarded business sense. Making the game worse makes it less appealing. The approach that works is making the game bigger and better. It's called competition. Those who would not compete or produce, based on the excuse of "piracy" probably shouldn't be in the game to begin with. Somehow the industry manages to function just fine and make profits with piracy. I'd even make the argument that some companies (such as Adobe and Microsoft) wouldn't be nearly as profitable as they are today, if it weren't for people pirating their products and making them popular.
Aside from the hypotheticals, do you have any real-world examples of people no being hired because of piracy?
Socialism is about assigning resources to people based on other than economic terms. You need to have a central authority to do that.
No you don't. Socialism is about distributing decision-making to the community, rather than concentrating it in the hands of the wealthy or powerful. It's capitalism and communism that are about central planning and ownership.
Actually no. It's just that most Republicans support their candidates because they are the lesser of two evils
Thanks for demonstrating the fundamental dishonesty of Republicans. the Republican canditates are almost always the most evil possible. And they put on a "I'm a good, God-fearing person" mask - while in reality they molest children and enslave women. They use religion for propaganda. They're very evil and dishonest.
Again, no. Yes, there are some who wrongly believe national security trumps concerns over privacy rights,
You say "no", but then go on to say that actually, plenty of Republicans are for it. If Republicans are against spying as you say, then why has there been a massive increase in it under a Republican administration?
No, they just support policies that you feel threaten you.
No, they actually do want to destroy communities to benefit the rich and powerful, especially corporations. Are you really that blind to reality?
and not a single Democratic candidate has offered to withdraw from the WTO or promote American products
When did I ever mention Democrats? your entire argument seems to be "Republicans aren't bad, because Democrats do the same thing." not a compelling argument for the goodness of Republicans.
If there is going to be a welcome resurgence in isolationism,
Isolationism? Yeah, that's going to work. Can you explain why you think isolationism would be a good thing, especially in a world that is inextricably global? Do you want to turn the internet off while you're at it?
You can't be simultaneously an advocate for both FOSS and Apple products. That's like being simultaneously an advocate for FOSS and Microsoft products.
Why not? I advocate what works. I support FOSS philosophy, but I also use proprietary software. Software isn't a religion to me, it's a tool. Saying you have to use one or the other is not going to helpo promote FOSS. Especially if you imply that people are traitors to "the cause" if they use proprietary software. I support freedom. That includes the freedom to choose. I think it's more hyprocritical to say you support "freedom" but only if it is from a certain subset of choices.
Instead of a Mac laptop, buy a generic. Instead of iPhone and iPod, get a Nokia N800 or N810 and use a free phone with Bluetooth to make your calls.
That doesn't make any sense. All of the hardware you mention is made by big corporations. Why is a non-Mac laptop any more "freedom friendly" than a Mac? What makes a Nokia phone more "free" than an Apple phone? Do you think that companies other than Apple make hardware out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than for profit? Sounds like a religious argument to me.
whereas a machine with Windows would indeed have an added cost of Windows.
Actually, this isn't necessarily true. When an OEM ships Windows, they can be paid to bundle crapware on the machine by the developers of said crapware. It's possible that the fee they get paid for bundling crapware is higher than the cost of the Windows license from Microsoft. Therefore, a machine with Windows can potentially be cheaper than a machine with no OS, or with Linux installed. (Generally FOSS developers won't pay fees to hardware vendors for bundling their software.)
if you want to support someone financially, how about the artists whose music you download, the movie makers whose movies you watch, and the developers whose programs you use?
Or is it just easier to stick two fingers up to all those people whilst sending money to someone who promises you can have everything for free.
I don't recall the post you are replying to saying anything like that. How do you know that he doesn't support artists directly? That he doesn't only use Free & Open Source software and buy music direct fropm independent artists' websites?
sorry...correction, that you can have what *other people*, (not him) produce , for free...
Some people are perfectly happy to give away their creations for free.
Anyone over 13 years old who thinks this stuff is a credible plan for society needs to read some history books on how the system has worked in the past.
Would you care to enlighten us on what the fuck you're talking about? For example, what is "this stuff" you refer to, and which "system" are you referring to. Amateur hour indeed. You can't even be bothered to form a coherent argument, and your reply doesn't actually relate to anything written in the post you are responding to.
No effect, none at all. Not on the people employed by that business, the people involved in the production of the work, or the people who enjoy it.
Nope. None at all. I've yet to see anybody lose money or lose their job because of somebody "pirating" their work, or the work of their employer. As for the people who enjoy the work - I have seen their enjoyment increase immensely because of "piracy." For example fans of TV shows who live in countries where a show is not aired, can then participate and enjoy, thanks to "piracy." This tends to make more money for producers, because often the downloader will subsequently buy the DVD when it becomes available.
The only cases I've seen are people losing their jobs becaause they have committed piracy at work, or those who get sued by the RIAA. Actual producers aren't hurt in any way by it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Dude, you're trying to roll the big boulder uphill like Sisyphus. 99% of humanity is now batshit insane with rigid ideology and rabid hate.
Riiiiiight. 99%. Whatever you say, boss.
You can't argue with people like this. They are blinded far beyond reason and critical thought.
Uhhh... I believe the GP (tyroneking) was being humorous. His post even had an "emoticon" at the end to let you know he was joking. I know slashdotters have a poor sense of humor, but it's truly sad when people don't even get a joke that is explicitly marked out as such.
So, who is really the one blinded to reason and critical thought? Your comment sounds like the mirror equivalent of the mindless America basher. I guess you must just be part of that 99% of humanity you mentioned earlier.
Bashing The U.S.A. (one of the most diverse nations ever created) with generalizations is just the latest excuse people use to avoid having to actually think.
Yeah right, whatever. I guess you also believe any criticism is "bashing".
Or, in more general terms, why are people quick to criticize prudent reasons for refusing charity as "ideology" while simultaneously dismissing the actual motivations behind the ideology of "charity"?
Because people are fucking idiots who can't see beyond their own self-gratification - and wealthy corporations act as a proxy for the self-gratification that they can't achieve.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? What about it having an internal battery makes it unacceptable for business people? Does Excel refuse to run if the battery is not swappable or something?
No. The first Powermac with the built-in Superdrive (DVD burner) offered it way cheaper than it cost to buy the same drive separately. This was when DVD burning was very expensive, and nobody supplied PCs with DVD burners built-in.
Why not? They could just take an external battery. I'd bet that this will be one of the first accessories available from third parties. Will probably be cheaper than an Apple-made swappable battery, too.
So, why couldn't you just take an external battery pack? It would take up the same amount of space as a swappable one.
Huh? We already have Spam.
It saves a step, therefore is easier/quicker. Why add unnecessary complexity?
Well, you'd be wrong. There are musicians who sill record on analog tape.
Why can't you encode while you're ripping?
Well, everybody does. Of course, some people might choose not to participate, but that's democracy for you.
They say they are acting on behalf of everyone, but really, in the end, it becomes another corrupt, inefficient, amoral and unresponsive bureacracyYes, bureaucracies tend to be bureaucratic. But that's a problem with bureacracies of all strips, it has nothing to do with socialist philosophy.
Capitalism is about investment, nothing more or less. There's nothing in capitalism that requires central planning, and very little that requires government.Right - but the goal in captialism is to own as much as possible. Capitalists love owning their own centrally planned empires. See your Randolph Hearsts, and your Bill Gates, for example. And of course it doesn't require government - but then everybody would fucked. Government is required to limit the excesses of capitalism.
Based on what cartoons have you been watching?Cartoons? It's reality buddy. Anybody who uses religion as propaganda in the way they do is evil. And haven't you seen how many of them who preach against sexual sin and smut have been caught committing depraved acts of carnality? I don't mind the carnality, when it doesn't involve child abuse. It's the blatant hypocrisy and lying that is so hard to stomach. You're seriously trying to suggest that people who would send adolescent kids to die in unnecessary wars aren't evil? That those who value profits from oil companies over life and health aren't evil?
And Democrats put on a "I'm a good, environmentally sound person"Again, why are you bringing up Democrats? They suck, too. None of this makes Republicans good.
while they go and enslave everyone to their socialist borgian nightmare.Now this is totally off the rails. Democrats are socialists? I may as well stop here, because you are so far detached from reality. Democrats are a strange mish-mash of conservatism and liberlism, but one thing they are definitely not is socialist. They are a slightly right-wing centrist party.
Yes, both parties are crummy, but evil requires intent. I think most politicians are somewhat greedy and incompetent. But it's the Republicans who take it to a higher level of actual evil intent. That they claim to be God's chosen people and that their opponents are heathens, just makes it that much more disgusting.
Oh, and your claim that you think both parties are bad doesn't ring very true - because you seem to be ignoring the faults of Republicans, pretending their bad side doesn't exist at all.
The problem here is not piracy, it's retarded business planning. Why wasn't that 25% of pirates included in the estimates? You have to allow for that kind of thing. You know, reality. What makes you assume that that 25% of people would have paid for the game in the first place? If they didn't pirate it - they probably would have just not bought it. So the actuall loss is zero. the pirates are essentially people that haven't become customers - not customers that have been lost. You can't force people to be your customers. There are no guarantees that any business venture will be profitable.
Shocking, there are companies out there which make games that are heavily pirated - yet they are still raking in millions. The level of piracy of your software is actually a very good indicator of success. It demonstrates deemand for your product. For every pirate, there are probably 3 paying customers or more.
OK. Your company is at least not actually bankruptAgain, this is retarded business sense. Making the game worse makes it less appealing. The approach that works is making the game bigger and better. It's called competition. Those who would not compete or produce, based on the excuse of "piracy" probably shouldn't be in the game to begin with. Somehow the industry manages to function just fine and make profits with piracy. I'd even make the argument that some companies (such as Adobe and Microsoft) wouldn't be nearly as profitable as they are today, if it weren't for people pirating their products and making them popular.
Aside from the hypotheticals, do you have any real-world examples of people no being hired because of piracy?
No you don't. Socialism is about distributing decision-making to the community, rather than concentrating it in the hands of the wealthy or powerful. It's capitalism and communism that are about central planning and ownership.
Actually no. It's just that most Republicans support their candidates because they are the lesser of two evilsThanks for demonstrating the fundamental dishonesty of Republicans. the Republican canditates are almost always the most evil possible. And they put on a "I'm a good, God-fearing person" mask - while in reality they molest children and enslave women. They use religion for propaganda. They're very evil and dishonest.
Again, no. Yes, there are some who wrongly believe national security trumps concerns over privacy rights,You say "no", but then go on to say that actually, plenty of Republicans are for it. If Republicans are against spying as you say, then why has there been a massive increase in it under a Republican administration?
No, they just support policies that you feel threaten you.No, they actually do want to destroy communities to benefit the rich and powerful, especially corporations. Are you really that blind to reality?
and not a single Democratic candidate has offered to withdraw from the WTO or promote American productsWhen did I ever mention Democrats? your entire argument seems to be "Republicans aren't bad, because Democrats do the same thing." not a compelling argument for the goodness of Republicans.
If there is going to be a welcome resurgence in isolationism,Isolationism? Yeah, that's going to work. Can you explain why you think isolationism would be a good thing, especially in a world that is inextricably global? Do you want to turn the internet off while you're at it?
Why not? I advocate what works. I support FOSS philosophy, but I also use proprietary software. Software isn't a religion to me, it's a tool. Saying you have to use one or the other is not going to helpo promote FOSS. Especially if you imply that people are traitors to "the cause" if they use proprietary software. I support freedom. That includes the freedom to choose. I think it's more hyprocritical to say you support "freedom" but only if it is from a certain subset of choices.
Instead of a Mac laptop, buy a generic. Instead of iPhone and iPod, get a Nokia N800 or N810 and use a free phone with Bluetooth to make your calls.That doesn't make any sense. All of the hardware you mention is made by big corporations. Why is a non-Mac laptop any more "freedom friendly" than a Mac? What makes a Nokia phone more "free" than an Apple phone? Do you think that companies other than Apple make hardware out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than for profit? Sounds like a religious argument to me.
Well, there's the rub. The price is good, but with many FOSS apoplications, the quality just isn't there. With some notable exceptions, of course.
Yeah, that's sustainable...
Actually, this isn't necessarily true. When an OEM ships Windows, they can be paid to bundle crapware on the machine by the developers of said crapware. It's possible that the fee they get paid for bundling crapware is higher than the cost of the Windows license from Microsoft. Therefore, a machine with Windows can potentially be cheaper than a machine with no OS, or with Linux installed. (Generally FOSS developers won't pay fees to hardware vendors for bundling their software.)
You have some very odd ideas about socialism.
c) Honesty.If you're trying to appeal to Republicans, wouldn't honesty be the opposite of what would be accepted?
d) No spying.Again, isn't it the Republicans who have a hard-on for spying?
e) A real community.Sheesh, 3 for 3. Again, it's the Republicans who want to destroy community.
Are you some kind of mental defective?
I don't recall the post you are replying to saying anything like that. How do you know that he doesn't support artists directly? That he doesn't only use Free & Open Source software and buy music direct fropm independent artists' websites?
sorry...correction, that you can have what *other people*, (not him) produce , for free...Some people are perfectly happy to give away their creations for free.
Anyone over 13 years old who thinks this stuff is a credible plan for society needs to read some history books on how the system has worked in the past.Would you care to enlighten us on what the fuck you're talking about? For example, what is "this stuff" you refer to, and which "system" are you referring to. Amateur hour indeed. You can't even be bothered to form a coherent argument, and your reply doesn't actually relate to anything written in the post you are responding to.
Nope. None at all. I've yet to see anybody lose money or lose their job because of somebody "pirating" their work, or the work of their employer. As for the people who enjoy the work - I have seen their enjoyment increase immensely because of "piracy." For example fans of TV shows who live in countries where a show is not aired, can then participate and enjoy, thanks to "piracy." This tends to make more money for producers, because often the downloader will subsequently buy the DVD when it becomes available.
The only cases I've seen are people losing their jobs becaause they have committed piracy at work, or those who get sued by the RIAA. Actual producers aren't hurt in any way by it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Riiiiiight. 99%. Whatever you say, boss.
You can't argue with people like this. They are blinded far beyond reason and critical thought.Uhhh... I believe the GP (tyroneking) was being humorous. His post even had an "emoticon" at the end to let you know he was joking. I know slashdotters have a poor sense of humor, but it's truly sad when people don't even get a joke that is explicitly marked out as such.
So, who is really the one blinded to reason and critical thought? Your comment sounds like the mirror equivalent of the mindless America basher. I guess you must just be part of that 99% of humanity you mentioned earlier.
Bashing The U.S.A. (one of the most diverse nations ever created) with generalizations is just the latest excuse people use to avoid having to actually think.Yeah right, whatever. I guess you also believe any criticism is "bashing".
Uhhh, what? Why?
A treat? Don't you mean punishment?
"Ah, so that's where I left those."
So how exactly are you a Libertarian, then?
Because people are fucking idiots who can't see beyond their own self-gratification - and wealthy corporations act as a proxy for the self-gratification that they can't achieve.