True, because nobody lives in small towns that feature video stores with horrible selections of videos.
There do still exist people in North America for whom the drive to a decent, well-stocked video store is much, much more than 5 minutes...and many of them do have access to broadband. Entire towns full of such people exist, all across the midwest and mountain west.
Not everybody lives in metro areas...even small metro areas.
Re:A's or B's should eat "dead" everthing elses
on
Next-Gen Game of Life
·
· Score: 1
That would leave far too many "base" life forms (which I visualize as plants) crowding the universe. It would have to be a one-time thing...with "a" being an expended form, "A" being a re-matured form, perhaps "@" as a one-time use form, or something like that.
Perhaps if I'm bored in the near future I'll see about implementing this in my spare time.
It will be interesting to see what this does to the populartion of B's and C's...though I don't think it will have much effect, since those evolve rapidly enough under the default setting to keep their own population down, and death by starvation is much less common in this model than death by consumption.
Either way, thanks to the author for giving me something to kill time with. It's actually a very interesting simulation, especially if you start tweaking some of the default settings. Good stuff!
From what I remember of the failed attempts: PDAs and notebooks in 1995 sold many "ruggedized" variants: the kind that could stand a (single) three foot drop onto concrete, or partial or total immersion in water. These versions tended to be four to five times the cost of a "non-ruggedized" version.
Not all the attempts failed. I'm typing this on a Panasonic Toughbook CF-29* (hardened case, shock-resistant HD, water resistant, sunlight-readable display, touchscreen). They didn't find widespread consumer success, but there is definitely a market for them...mostly military.
They most definitely are not cheap, but they are built to last. As long as you don't hit the LCD and break it from the front, you're gonna have a hard time hurting one.
* - This is the "real" Toughbook. they also offer a couple other models that aren't really all that ruggedized, just a little sturdier than that average laptop. There is also a "subnotebook" variant in the line, which lacks any form of removable media built in and features a miniature keyboard and smaller screen.
Cameras, streaming music, web browsing, PalmOS, txt chat, games... and now, television. But I wonder how good it is at being an actual phone? You know, the kind we use to make calls.
It's the Swiss Army Knife mentality. After all, the Swiss Army Knife is one of the best tools in the world, right? A Gerber multitool is an even better example. It can do lots of things passably...but nothing well. Given a choice between a screwdriver and a Swiss Army Knife or Gerber to tighten a screw, I'll go with the screwdriver every time.
And it's not just phones. I'll take a GameBoy Advance over a PSP any day of the week if I want to actually play games, less power or no. Everybody seems to want the iPod to play movies, act as PDA, and do everything else under the sun...funny, I just want to listen to music on mine.
All that the US Government is doing is creating bandaids that do nothing but remove our freedoms. Yes, the terrorists hate "freedom" and because of this erosion of personal freedoms in newsmedia, personal life, airplanes, telephony, and Internet they have weakened us a lot more than when they took down the Towers.
Not only are they just creating band-aids, but they're putting them on completely uninjured parts of the body while they're at it. What was the chance that in-flight broadband was ever going to be used in a terrorist attack? I'm guessing it rounds to 0%.
Not that I really care on this one...it isn't as if I expect wifi on an airplane to be the most private connection in the world anyway...anything I didn't want everybody and their baby cousin seeing was going to be encrypted to start with. Out of all the erosions of freedoms in the US since 9/11/2001, this one barely registers. It's more that somebody, somewhere, spent actual man-hours thinking up this plan instead of doing something...well, useful. In any way useful.
Given the choice between the DHS and the guys from Super Troopers to protect me from harm, I'll go with the Vermont Highway Patrol every time.
...guess this means that terrorists will have to revert to using such items as cell-phones or pagers to remote-detonate bombs and something all complicated like _watches_ to coordinate attacks (with a little planning ahead of time, of course).
I should shut up now, before the DHS bans all cell phones, pagers, and watches from US flights.
The Xbox 360, PS3, and the Revolution are all supposed to be powered by PPC chips. IBM Can't keep demand as it is. Alot of time and effort will be placed on the console gaming system chips. Apple had to leave IBM becuse there is no way IBM would have kept up with demand.
First I'd just like to take a moment to mention that the GameCube was already running on a PPC chip, before all the cool kids were doing it. Yes, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.
That said, it really is funny when people talk about how Apple's move to Intel would hurt IBM in any real way. Right. If anything, it's one less headache for IBM to deal with...the volume of chips Apple was buying is nothing compared to what they'll be moving with this next generation of consoles, and certainly not worth the hassle in comparison. They'll be crying all the way to the bank.
Not that I don't love Apple or anything...they just really didn't have much to offer IBM anymore.
No. Volume discounts are not illegal. Only offering volume discounts to customers who stay away from your competitors products might be, but that is not the same thing.
Even this isn't necessarily illegal...the main reason Intel might be looking to get in trouble for it is that by doing it they are using established market strength in an attempt to force out any competition...a monopolistic tactic.
David could get away with it...Goliath might not be able to.
Only to a slashdotter does it make sense to buy a nice Apple computer so that it can run non-Mac programs and other operating systems like you can on a cheap PC.
Only to a slashdotter? So being able to spend 90% of your time in OSX (with all the benefits you described) and use something similar to VirtualPC to run your Windows-based office-suites / games / crazy-Australian-tax-software easily and at nearly full performance is something something a slashdotter can appreciate?
Aye, a wierd bunch we are.
So do I wish I had BSD, Linux or Windows on any of my Macs? Nope.
Nor I...but every now and then I wish I could run one of the pieces of non-OSX software I own, for which I don't feel like paying for an OSX equivalent. There aren't a lot of them, but there are definitely a few...and VirtualPC on a G4 PowerBook isn't necessarily gonna cut it, performance-wise.
Or just use the oldest trick in the book ("We are looking at using some chips from AMD."), and then see what "discounts" you qualify for;-)
Except that Apple isn't really holding all that many cards in this scenario. It isn't as if they are really going to be buying that significant of a percentage of Intel's chips. When Dell says they might switch to AMD, Intel probably shudders...if Apple said it, they'd probably laugh.
Especially considering how important the PowerBook/iBook line is to Apple...as much as I love AMD for desktop computers, Intel has them beat on mobiles.
It really is no surprise to me that DS is outperforming PSP in marketshare and apparently mindshare, given these factors. (Of course, given these factors, I still maintain that the GBA SP is the best portable system on the market).
I think it will be a long time before anything dethrones the GBA SP for all-time King of Handheld Gaming. As you said, size, battery life, games, and price...no other handheld has been able to flip shut, protecting the screen, and fit into a pocket so well.
Not to mention that it had (and pretty much still has) the market cornered on 2D gaming, which despite what Sony has been forcing us to believe since the original PS is still fun and still has a market.
Mature in what way? Blood and guts? T&A? Some would say that smacks more of "immature" products designed for high school and college students.
Oh my! That was harsh. I liked it. Time for an obligatory PA quote...
From the strip.
"I think I've had enough of all the "Kids games," "Adult games" thing. It completely misses the point. Are they afraid playing a game with colors will make them a dork? Well, that boat already sailed. You play videogames? Welcome to Dorksville. You wanna know how cool your videogames are? Ask your f**king girlfriend how cool. And if you don't have a girlfriend? That's part of the test."
-- "just as the XBOX outsells the GameCube by quite a lot in NA."
Define "quite a lot."
Last I heard, "quite a lot" in this context is roughly equivalent to "not all that much." Something like 10%-15%. I could be wrong.
Though it could depend on whether you're talking outsells or has outsold...I would wager GC sales have tapered off more than Xbox.
I think a lot of people have this idea that the GC has sold horribly in North America, when really is has sold quite well. People assume that just because neither they nor their friends own one that -nobody- owns one.
Even so, US screening goes far beyond the pale - it does a lot of things that are inconvenient and expensive to make it LOOK secure when in fact it doesn't do much at all.
That's what I was trying to get at. The additional search on my bag seemed somewhat like a waste of time, but I really only added it because it complemented the rest. But the additional search of my person, even though I hadn't set off the metal detector...that was just plain silly.
And the whole taking off of the shoes is the perfect example of an inconvenience that provides no real security. It isn't even required...as I stated elsewhere I have gone through, wearing the same boots I was wearing that day, with no problem. In civilian clothes.
And yes, there is the occasional Timothy McVeigh (and yes, he was a former soldier...at my former duty station, no less). But the chance of a terrorist actually posing as a soldier in uniform, wife in tow, with a forged military ID is small enough that if he doesn't set off the metal detector, you should probably just let him walk through. But US airport security seems geared instead towards being as obnoxious as possible while providing the minimum amount of security possible.
Sometimes I think that our Department of Homeland Security's entire job is just to do everything they can to keep Americans feeling scared so they'll go along with anything the government wants from them.
Random is just that, random. You could have been a little old lady and they would have gotten you. I've flown at least 6 times since 9/11 and I've taken off my shoes and had my laptop(s) powered up before I even get over to screening booth. If you're lazy and arrogant enough to think that being a soldier is going to get you a free ride through security, you deserved getting screened. Personally, I could see terrorists using the BDU's or ACU's (whichever you're wearing at the moment) as a sign of trust.
Part of my point is that truly random searches are a waste of time. Every soldier travelling back from leave, every little old lady, every geriatric CMH winner that has their things subjected to additional search is another bag that -isn't- getting searched.
As for the reason I didn't take off my boots, it's because the new Bellevilles that are issued through RFI don't set off metal detectors, and I have gotten through airport security before without taking them off...in civilian clothes, no less. Which is the fun part of US airport security...it's nothing if not inconsistant. Some airports you can get through without taking off your shoes, assuming you don't set off the metal detector. Technically, the whole taking off the shoes thing is "suggested" but not required. I'm almost positive that the likelihood of you being subject to additional search in this situation is directly related to whether or not that TSA agent has had their morning coffee.
Basically, you're whole argument says that every time I go on a base here in Germany, I should be trusted because I have a military ID card, military tags on my car and I'm American? Boy, you're pretty damn smart... Just like you, I can cause all kinds of problems on base, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't get searched. I get searched at least once a week now.
Not every time, but it would be silly (to me, at least) if they searched you while they sent random civilians through. Again, in the situation I was in, there was no hard and fast rule that I required additional search at that checkpoint because I didn't take my boots off...I had gotten through similar checkpoints, in similar situations (in fact, I had breezed right through security just two weeks earlier, doing nothing different).
Remember, the whole point I was making related to the perception of security as compared to the real thing. Anybody who truly thinks we're safer because everybody has to take their shoes off at the airport is naive. But it makes some people feel safer, so that's why we do it. The TSA agent who searched my person spent about 5-10 minutes doing it. That's 5-10 minutes he wasn't keeping somebody else from sneaking a bomb on the plane.
Hey, I've already got an iPod, so I have a slight hint of coolness already. Of course, when everyone looks and finds that I'm listening to "A Flock of Seagulls" and "Wham", that hint of coolness will probably fade.
That's why you need a Shuffle...the green LED tells no tales.
So you install an expensive scanner at the entrance to Piccadilly Circus tube station. A huge queue forms, waiting to walk through the scanner. Add in a "queuing system" (tansabarriers etc.), so you have 200+ people waiting patiently in an enclosed space. Bang.
The sad part is that if that actually happened, the government would probably try to say you gave them the idea and they wouldn't have thought of it on their own. Fun, huh?:)
But it's all bread and circuses. It's about the perception of security. And governments are great at spending money to create that.
No joke. Excellent example...I recently had the singular joy of going through a US airport. I was forced to take off my boots (I say forced because I initially chose not to, and was still singled out for additional search even though I didn't set off the metal detector), and had my luggage randomly selected for additional search.
Oh, I must have forgotten to mention that I was a soldier returning to Iraq, in uniform, with government-purchased tickets and a valid military ID. Definitely a high-threat passenger.
If I wanted to kill some Americans, I could make it happen much more easily. I have access to a weapon, ammunition, and with a little planning even explosives every single day over here.
Are we more safe because they spent longer searching me than nearly everybody else on the plane? I'm gonna go with a no. Are we safer when the US government spends more per capita on security in Wyoming than New York City? Not really.
It's really just a giant game of whack-a-mole anyway. Make planes safer, they hit subways. Make subways safer, it'll be busses. After that shopping malls, then city streets. Then when random sidewalk bombs and carbombs force the government to stretch themselves so thin that they can barely cover every possible terrorist attack...they'll go back to planes, because lack of funding will have compromised security there.
One of the most effective terrorist attacks ever (not THE most, mind you) was probably the DC sniper...not in lives lost, of course, but in actual disruption to people's daily lives and fear caused. And all an attack like that requires is a guy with a gun, and good aim. You may not even get caught, especially if cover a wide area (multiple cities, for instance).
You can't win a war against terrorists, especially not with cops, soldiers, and gadgets.
I did a research study while working on my doctorate, and you would be surprised at how much simple things like "Limited Quantities In Stock - More Soon" or "This item may quickly become backordered" can greatly increase conversions at a store.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all on that one...I'm sure "Limited Time Offer" falls in this category, as well.
That's how it works when you're playing on the field that Harry Potter is now -- the quality of what you have no longer matters, your publicity firm has made it a must have either way.
Very true, though I don't think the quality in this series has suffered (as of the fifth book). And I don't think the publisher particularly needed a lot of publicity...return readers from the series were likely to make this book a bestseller either way. Though given the choice between making a fairly large amount of money and an absolutely unholy amount of money, no business is likely to choose the former.
That, and despite the already established popularity of the series, they have a very compelling reason to try to attract new readers...many new customers they attract are likely to be 6 books sold, not one. That's the beauty of sequels:).
And frankly, good for them. Publishers/Booksellers/Authors need major releases like this. No one reads anymore, and that's a shame.
Amen. That's the real reason I responded...just had to second that one.
Maybe in general, but with this book every retailer is going to sell every single copy they have, and they all know that. If a Barnes and Noble store receives their shipment 12 hours before the store down the street, because of trucking differences or whatever, it just means they'll run out 12 hours sooner. I think that in this case all the sychronized delivery crap is being done purely to heighten the excitement and make it more of an event.
You're partly right. Though often the difference in when stores recieve their shipments of stuff like this is multiple days, no hours. And no, it wouldn't affect the number of copies sold (because you're correct that nearly every copy will sell pretty much immediately). What it mainly affects is the price stores can charge. Knowing that everybody will be selling it at the same time (discounting stores that do midnight releases and those that don't) just creates a level playing field, price-wise.
And while generally publishers simply use tape and a big "do not sell until" sticker rather than steel boxes and chains, almost all book, movie, and CD releases follow this same procedure...even minor ones.
I don't think the publisher really needed to go through all this trouble just to drum up more publicity for the book...the excitement was already there, and it was already going to be an event.
This, to me, is a chicken and egg type problem...do the details of the delivery create more anticipation for the book, or did the anticipation for the book just draw more attention to the details of the delivery. My vote is on the latter.
Luckily, business competition doesn't have to be entertaining to watch, it just has to give customers what they want.
Not really...businesses in general have no obligation whatsoever to give customers what they want. Especially the entertainment business. Theoretically, Scholastic could decide tonight, in conjunction with the author, that they don't want to sell the book at all. They could give the stores their money back, compensate them for money lost to marketing, etc., and drop all the books in the ocean*. A good example of this would be the DVD release of the original Star Wars trilogy. While a majority of customers would probably prefer to see the original versions released on DVD, they have not yet and may never be offered.
Is this always a good thing? No, of course not. But personally, I think Scholastic is right to tell retailers when they are allowed to sell the books, as long as that is made clear before the orders are made. If certain stores, such as any store you would be likely to own, don't like that...well, they can just not sell that book. Remember, it is the publishers, not the law, that set these dates and enforce them. And since it's their product, it is their choice**.
In all actuality, I believe street dates often lead to customers being able to purchase items -earlier- than they otherwise would be able to. At least most customers. Publishers choose the dates they want their products to hit the street according to factors I know nothing about, but often it has nothing to do with when the actual work is finished. They have a date in their mind that they want the product to hit the shelves, and for some reason a week earlier simply would not do. They have two options: try to work the date they ship it out so that it hits the street on the date they desire, or ship it out a week (or even more) earlier, and just require stores to hold it until they want it to hit the street. With the latter it might seem like you get the product later, but in all actuality many areas of the country (especially those farther down the supply chain) get it _earlier_ this way. Before street dates were the norm for most video games, where I lived we often didn't get games until two or three days after the "release date"...sometimes longer. So I'd propose that often customers get the product earlier (thus, delivering what they want) by shipping early and enforcing a street date. With no street date, the publisher would just ship _later_, so it isn't like the book (or movie, or album) would really hit the street any earlier.
Though none of that probably mattered much to you, since you seem more interested in the role of stores vs. other stores, and the competition that is involved there.
You don't like the idea of release dates, that's cool. I do. I've actually worked in a store that lived by them, I feel that gives me a little more insight...but it doesn't make you wrong, since either way it's just opinion. But at some point people who know more than I do decided that street dates were important, and I think this is unlikely to change anytime soon...and I think in the long wrong neither of our opinions is likely to matter much.:)
* - I realize it may well be more complicated as that, as far as legal obligations and contracts go...but as long as they were willing to settle whatever lawsuits might arise, they probably still could. And the point remains the same.
** - And not all publishers bother. Some small movie studios, as well as some video game companies, do not set any hard street dates. They ship the product out, and when it enters your store you can go ahead and sell it.
Wow...that was a real wall of words. Sorry about that...I should go do some work or something.:)
There is a reason that only entertainment goods are generally limited by street dates. Generally, they are the only goods that are time-sensitive...nobody is generally standing in line to get the newest Panasonic TV on the date it's released, or the newest lamp, or whatever. But even a one-day head start on something like movies and music can create a gigantic advantage, what some would argue is an unfair one.
As for your shipping example, no, that wouldn't be unfair. Larger stores don't just compete on price...they also, for instance, have better agreements in place for return unsold product. They also have more locations, more marketing, the ability to do more tie-ins with other related merchandise, the ability to move unsold product to other locations where it is selling better, and on, and on.
In fact, about the ONLY aspect where they are required to compete fairly is on release date. Maybe you think that's silly. Personally, I'd hate to watch a foot-race where whoever gets to the track first gets to start first. It'd pretty much come down to who lives closest to the venue, who had the fastest car, etc.
I think you just don't fully understand that entertainment products are a completely different ballgame from other retail goods...possibly you've never worked in a store that more or less exclusively dealt in movies and music.
Oh, and I talk a lot about movies and music even though this relates to a book...but that's because Harry Potter books are one of the very few in that arena that approach the popularity of blockbuster movie releases. The same holds true.
A foot race where no one is allowed to run faster than anyone else isn't a fair competition at all. As long as these companies aren't doing anything abusive, there's no reason to handicap them.
As somebody else mentioned, you missed the point in your own analogy. Nobody is saying everybody has to run at the same speed, they are just saying they all have to start at the same time. I'm no athlete, but I'm pretty sure this has been a standard in foot races pretty much since the dawn of time.
Also, it isn't always the big boys that get things earlier (though yeah, this is usually the case). I know, for instance, that a locally owned video store in town often got their new releases a day or two before the Blockbuster I worked at. How they managed it, I can't imagine...but street date made sure they could never use it to their advantage.
I can't recall ever having known the street date for any book I have ever bought, or even cared about it for that matter. I most certainly have never seen any book other than the Harry Potter series have a street date be the subject of the general press, let alone any form of "security" whatsoever.
Books generally don't recieve this kind of attention, because there isn't that much marketing associated with them. However, you have probably known the street date for movies or music you've bought (assuming you buy these things) even if you didn't realize it. Street dates for movies are well advertised, especially big releases. And that "this item won't be released until" notice you see on Amazon.com is also letting you know the street date. The only reason you are seeing this with Harry Potter is because of the large popularity of the book...the concept is nothing new. Walk into a Barnes and Noble and look around...you'll see signs posted announcing the street dates of various upcoming books. The only reason it doesn't make news is because nobody cares...they aren't as popular as Harry Potter.
The publishers did not create the frenzy on this on, sorry to say. The customers did. And they are only enforcing their release dates this strictly because the more popular the item, the more likely the street date will be broken.
This whole schmegegy has little to nothing to do with fair competition, but a whole lot to do with marketing, drumming up the fervor of the torch and pitchfork bearing mob that makes it appear the security measures are necessary in the first place.
I can say it is very much about fair competition. Think of it this way...do you think that Harry Potter would sell that many less copies if a few stores sold it a day or two early? I don't. So it does NOT affect the publisher. But by enforcing a release date they can protect themselves against accusations of favoring one chain of bookstores over another, for instance, because they got their copies first and it gives that bookstore an unfair advantage.
You may or may not have ever worked in retail, so this might seem like it's a new thing to you. I was once manager of a Blockbuster Video (evil bastards that they are). We would sometimes get movies as much as a week before their release date. But our agreement with distributors forbade us from displaying them until the official release date. Not only did we honor that, but at random we would actually send employees to other stores to make sure that nobody else broke street date either.
Again, street dates and the strict enforcement of them are nothing new. The advertisement of them is nothing new either. Walk into any video store (and even many bookstores, as mentioned) and you'll see posted the dates of upcoming releases. The only reason this is news at all is because of the gigantic popularity of the Harry Potter book that's coming out. And that buzz was _not_ created by the publisher for the release of this book...it was created by the widespread popularity of the previous books. The Harry Potter books are as popular as many blockbuster movies, and they are being treated as such. I personally find it uplifting to see a book getting this kind of treatement; I had long since gave up and figured that most people in the US were just illiterate.
Slashdot Mirror
True, because nobody lives in small towns that feature video stores with horrible selections of videos.
There do still exist people in North America for whom the drive to a decent, well-stocked video store is much, much more than 5 minutes...and many of them do have access to broadband. Entire towns full of such people exist, all across the midwest and mountain west.
Not everybody lives in metro areas...even small metro areas.
That would leave far too many "base" life forms (which I visualize as plants) crowding the universe. It would have to be a one-time thing...with "a" being an expended form, "A" being a re-matured form, perhaps "@" as a one-time use form, or something like that.
Perhaps if I'm bored in the near future I'll see about implementing this in my spare time.
It will be interesting to see what this does to the populartion of B's and C's...though I don't think it will have much effect, since those evolve rapidly enough under the default setting to keep their own population down, and death by starvation is much less common in this model than death by consumption.
Either way, thanks to the author for giving me something to kill time with. It's actually a very interesting simulation, especially if you start tweaking some of the default settings. Good stuff!
From what I remember of the failed attempts: PDAs and notebooks in 1995 sold many "ruggedized" variants: the kind that could stand a (single) three foot drop onto concrete, or partial or total immersion in water. These versions tended to be four to five times the cost of a "non-ruggedized" version.
Not all the attempts failed. I'm typing this on a Panasonic Toughbook CF-29* (hardened case, shock-resistant HD, water resistant, sunlight-readable display, touchscreen). They didn't find widespread consumer success, but there is definitely a market for them...mostly military.
They most definitely are not cheap, but they are built to last. As long as you don't hit the LCD and break it from the front, you're gonna have a hard time hurting one.
* - This is the "real" Toughbook. they also offer a couple other models that aren't really all that ruggedized, just a little sturdier than that average laptop. There is also a "subnotebook" variant in the line, which lacks any form of removable media built in and features a miniature keyboard and smaller screen.
Cameras, streaming music, web browsing, PalmOS, txt chat, games ... and now, television. But I wonder how good it is at being an actual phone? You know, the kind we use to make calls.
It's the Swiss Army Knife mentality. After all, the Swiss Army Knife is one of the best tools in the world, right? A Gerber multitool is an even better example. It can do lots of things passably...but nothing well. Given a choice between a screwdriver and a Swiss Army Knife or Gerber to tighten a screw, I'll go with the screwdriver every time.
And it's not just phones. I'll take a GameBoy Advance over a PSP any day of the week if I want to actually play games, less power or no. Everybody seems to want the iPod to play movies, act as PDA, and do everything else under the sun...funny, I just want to listen to music on mine.
All that the US Government is doing is creating bandaids that do nothing but remove our freedoms. Yes, the terrorists hate "freedom" and because of this erosion of personal freedoms in newsmedia, personal life, airplanes, telephony, and Internet they have weakened us a lot more than when they took down the Towers.
Not only are they just creating band-aids, but they're putting them on completely uninjured parts of the body while they're at it. What was the chance that in-flight broadband was ever going to be used in a terrorist attack? I'm guessing it rounds to 0%.
Not that I really care on this one...it isn't as if I expect wifi on an airplane to be the most private connection in the world anyway...anything I didn't want everybody and their baby cousin seeing was going to be encrypted to start with. Out of all the erosions of freedoms in the US since 9/11/2001, this one barely registers. It's more that somebody, somewhere, spent actual man-hours thinking up this plan instead of doing something...well, useful. In any way useful.
Given the choice between the DHS and the guys from Super Troopers to protect me from harm, I'll go with the Vermont Highway Patrol every time.
...guess this means that terrorists will have to revert to using such items as cell-phones or pagers to remote-detonate bombs and something all complicated like _watches_ to coordinate attacks (with a little planning ahead of time, of course).
I should shut up now, before the DHS bans all cell phones, pagers, and watches from US flights.
The Xbox 360, PS3, and the Revolution are all supposed to be powered by PPC chips. IBM Can't keep demand as it is. Alot of time and effort will be placed on the console gaming system chips. Apple had to leave IBM becuse there is no way IBM would have kept up with demand.
First I'd just like to take a moment to mention that the GameCube was already running on a PPC chip, before all the cool kids were doing it. Yes, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.
That said, it really is funny when people talk about how Apple's move to Intel would hurt IBM in any real way. Right. If anything, it's one less headache for IBM to deal with...the volume of chips Apple was buying is nothing compared to what they'll be moving with this next generation of consoles, and certainly not worth the hassle in comparison. They'll be crying all the way to the bank.
Not that I don't love Apple or anything...they just really didn't have much to offer IBM anymore.
No. Volume discounts are not illegal. Only offering volume discounts to customers who stay away from your competitors products might be, but that is not the same thing.
Even this isn't necessarily illegal...the main reason Intel might be looking to get in trouble for it is that by doing it they are using established market strength in an attempt to force out any competition...a monopolistic tactic.
David could get away with it...Goliath might not be able to.
Only to a slashdotter does it make sense to buy a nice Apple computer so that it can run non-Mac programs and other operating systems like you can on a cheap PC.
Only to a slashdotter? So being able to spend 90% of your time in OSX (with all the benefits you described) and use something similar to VirtualPC to run your Windows-based office-suites / games / crazy-Australian-tax-software easily and at nearly full performance is something something a slashdotter can appreciate?
Aye, a wierd bunch we are.
So do I wish I had BSD, Linux or Windows on any of my Macs? Nope.
Nor I...but every now and then I wish I could run one of the pieces of non-OSX software I own, for which I don't feel like paying for an OSX equivalent. There aren't a lot of them, but there are definitely a few...and VirtualPC on a G4 PowerBook isn't necessarily gonna cut it, performance-wise.
Or just use the oldest trick in the book ("We are looking at using some chips from AMD."), and then see what "discounts" you qualify for ;-)
Except that Apple isn't really holding all that many cards in this scenario. It isn't as if they are really going to be buying that significant of a percentage of Intel's chips. When Dell says they might switch to AMD, Intel probably shudders...if Apple said it, they'd probably laugh.
Especially considering how important the PowerBook/iBook line is to Apple...as much as I love AMD for desktop computers, Intel has them beat on mobiles.
It really is no surprise to me that DS is outperforming PSP in marketshare and apparently mindshare, given these factors. (Of course, given these factors, I still maintain that the GBA SP is the best portable system on the market).
I think it will be a long time before anything dethrones the GBA SP for all-time King of Handheld Gaming. As you said, size, battery life, games, and price...no other handheld has been able to flip shut, protecting the screen, and fit into a pocket so well.
Not to mention that it had (and pretty much still has) the market cornered on 2D gaming, which despite what Sony has been forcing us to believe since the original PS is still fun and still has a market.
Mature in what way? Blood and guts? T&A? Some would say that smacks more of "immature" products designed for high school and college students.
Oh my! That was harsh. I liked it. Time for an obligatory PA quote... From the strip.
"I think I've had enough of all the "Kids games," "Adult games" thing. It completely misses the point. Are they afraid playing a game with colors will make them a dork? Well, that boat already sailed. You play videogames? Welcome to Dorksville. You wanna know how cool your videogames are? Ask your f**king girlfriend how cool. And if you don't have a girlfriend? That's part of the test."
-- "just as the XBOX outsells the GameCube by quite a lot in NA."
Define "quite a lot."
Last I heard, "quite a lot" in this context is roughly equivalent to "not all that much." Something like 10%-15%. I could be wrong.
Though it could depend on whether you're talking outsells or has outsold...I would wager GC sales have tapered off more than Xbox.
I think a lot of people have this idea that the GC has sold horribly in North America, when really is has sold quite well. People assume that just because neither they nor their friends own one that -nobody- owns one.
Even so, US screening goes far beyond the pale - it does a lot of things that are inconvenient and expensive to make it LOOK secure when in fact it doesn't do much at all.
That's what I was trying to get at. The additional search on my bag seemed somewhat like a waste of time, but I really only added it because it complemented the rest. But the additional search of my person, even though I hadn't set off the metal detector...that was just plain silly.
And the whole taking off of the shoes is the perfect example of an inconvenience that provides no real security. It isn't even required...as I stated elsewhere I have gone through, wearing the same boots I was wearing that day, with no problem. In civilian clothes.
And yes, there is the occasional Timothy McVeigh (and yes, he was a former soldier...at my former duty station, no less). But the chance of a terrorist actually posing as a soldier in uniform, wife in tow, with a forged military ID is small enough that if he doesn't set off the metal detector, you should probably just let him walk through. But US airport security seems geared instead towards being as obnoxious as possible while providing the minimum amount of security possible.
Sometimes I think that our Department of Homeland Security's entire job is just to do everything they can to keep Americans feeling scared so they'll go along with anything the government wants from them.
Though, of course, that could be just me.
Random is just that, random. You could have been a little old lady and they would have gotten you. I've flown at least 6 times since 9/11 and I've taken off my shoes and had my laptop(s) powered up before I even get over to screening booth. If you're lazy and arrogant enough to think that being a soldier is going to get you a free ride through security, you deserved getting screened. Personally, I could see terrorists using the BDU's or ACU's (whichever you're wearing at the moment) as a sign of trust.
Part of my point is that truly random searches are a waste of time. Every soldier travelling back from leave, every little old lady, every geriatric CMH winner that has their things subjected to additional search is another bag that -isn't- getting searched.
As for the reason I didn't take off my boots, it's because the new Bellevilles that are issued through RFI don't set off metal detectors, and I have gotten through airport security before without taking them off...in civilian clothes, no less. Which is the fun part of US airport security...it's nothing if not inconsistant. Some airports you can get through without taking off your shoes, assuming you don't set off the metal detector. Technically, the whole taking off the shoes thing is "suggested" but not required. I'm almost positive that the likelihood of you being subject to additional search in this situation is directly related to whether or not that TSA agent has had their morning coffee.
Basically, you're whole argument says that every time I go on a base here in Germany, I should be trusted because I have a military ID card, military tags on my car and I'm American? Boy, you're pretty damn smart... Just like you, I can cause all kinds of problems on base, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't get searched. I get searched at least once a week now.
Not every time, but it would be silly (to me, at least) if they searched you while they sent random civilians through. Again, in the situation I was in, there was no hard and fast rule that I required additional search at that checkpoint because I didn't take my boots off...I had gotten through similar checkpoints, in similar situations (in fact, I had breezed right through security just two weeks earlier, doing nothing different).
Remember, the whole point I was making related to the perception of security as compared to the real thing. Anybody who truly thinks we're safer because everybody has to take their shoes off at the airport is naive. But it makes some people feel safer, so that's why we do it. The TSA agent who searched my person spent about 5-10 minutes doing it. That's 5-10 minutes he wasn't keeping somebody else from sneaking a bomb on the plane.
Hey, I've already got an iPod, so I have a slight hint of coolness already. Of course, when everyone looks and finds that I'm listening to "A Flock of Seagulls" and "Wham", that hint of coolness will probably fade.
That's why you need a Shuffle...the green LED tells no tales.
a lot of software companies put out software that is windows only
... I have to agree with you there.
But those are companies, not the government...and they are paid with sales revenues, not taxes. Though...
i think there are much larger issues to check the govt on...
So you install an expensive scanner at the entrance to Piccadilly Circus tube station. A huge queue forms, waiting to walk through the scanner. Add in a "queuing system" (tansabarriers etc.), so you have 200+ people waiting patiently in an enclosed space. Bang.
:)
The sad part is that if that actually happened, the government would probably try to say you gave them the idea and they wouldn't have thought of it on their own. Fun, huh?
But it's all bread and circuses. It's about the perception of security. And governments are great at spending money to create that.
No joke. Excellent example...I recently had the singular joy of going through a US airport. I was forced to take off my boots (I say forced because I initially chose not to, and was still singled out for additional search even though I didn't set off the metal detector), and had my luggage randomly selected for additional search.
Oh, I must have forgotten to mention that I was a soldier returning to Iraq, in uniform, with government-purchased tickets and a valid military ID. Definitely a high-threat passenger.
If I wanted to kill some Americans, I could make it happen much more easily. I have access to a weapon, ammunition, and with a little planning even explosives every single day over here.
Are we more safe because they spent longer searching me than nearly everybody else on the plane? I'm gonna go with a no. Are we safer when the US government spends more per capita on security in Wyoming than New York City? Not really.
It's really just a giant game of whack-a-mole anyway. Make planes safer, they hit subways. Make subways safer, it'll be busses. After that shopping malls, then city streets. Then when random sidewalk bombs and carbombs force the government to stretch themselves so thin that they can barely cover every possible terrorist attack...they'll go back to planes, because lack of funding will have compromised security there.
One of the most effective terrorist attacks ever (not THE most, mind you) was probably the DC sniper...not in lives lost, of course, but in actual disruption to people's daily lives and fear caused. And all an attack like that requires is a guy with a gun, and good aim. You may not even get caught, especially if cover a wide area (multiple cities, for instance).
You can't win a war against terrorists, especially not with cops, soldiers, and gadgets.
I did a research study while working on my doctorate, and you would be surprised at how much simple things like "Limited Quantities In Stock - More Soon" or "This item may quickly become backordered" can greatly increase conversions at a store.
:).
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all on that one...I'm sure "Limited Time Offer" falls in this category, as well.
That's how it works when you're playing on the field that Harry Potter is now -- the quality of what you have no longer matters, your publicity firm has made it a must have either way.
Very true, though I don't think the quality in this series has suffered (as of the fifth book). And I don't think the publisher particularly needed a lot of publicity...return readers from the series were likely to make this book a bestseller either way. Though given the choice between making a fairly large amount of money and an absolutely unholy amount of money, no business is likely to choose the former.
That, and despite the already established popularity of the series, they have a very compelling reason to try to attract new readers...many new customers they attract are likely to be 6 books sold, not one. That's the beauty of sequels
And frankly, good for them. Publishers/Booksellers/Authors need major releases like this. No one reads anymore, and that's a shame.
Amen. That's the real reason I responded...just had to second that one.
Maybe in general, but with this book every retailer is going to sell every single copy they have, and they all know that. If a Barnes and Noble store receives their shipment 12 hours before the store down the street, because of trucking differences or whatever, it just means they'll run out 12 hours sooner. I think that in this case all the sychronized delivery crap is being done purely to heighten the excitement and make it more of an event.
You're partly right. Though often the difference in when stores recieve their shipments of stuff like this is multiple days, no hours. And no, it wouldn't affect the number of copies sold (because you're correct that nearly every copy will sell pretty much immediately). What it mainly affects is the price stores can charge. Knowing that everybody will be selling it at the same time (discounting stores that do midnight releases and those that don't) just creates a level playing field, price-wise.
And while generally publishers simply use tape and a big "do not sell until" sticker rather than steel boxes and chains, almost all book, movie, and CD releases follow this same procedure...even minor ones.
I don't think the publisher really needed to go through all this trouble just to drum up more publicity for the book...the excitement was already there, and it was already going to be an event.
This, to me, is a chicken and egg type problem...do the details of the delivery create more anticipation for the book, or did the anticipation for the book just draw more attention to the details of the delivery. My vote is on the latter.
Luckily, business competition doesn't have to be entertaining to watch, it just has to give customers what they want.
:)
:)
Not really...businesses in general have no obligation whatsoever to give customers what they want. Especially the entertainment business. Theoretically, Scholastic could decide tonight, in conjunction with the author, that they don't want to sell the book at all. They could give the stores their money back, compensate them for money lost to marketing, etc., and drop all the books in the ocean*. A good example of this would be the DVD release of the original Star Wars trilogy. While a majority of customers would probably prefer to see the original versions released on DVD, they have not yet and may never be offered.
Is this always a good thing? No, of course not. But personally, I think Scholastic is right to tell retailers when they are allowed to sell the books, as long as that is made clear before the orders are made. If certain stores, such as any store you would be likely to own, don't like that...well, they can just not sell that book. Remember, it is the publishers, not the law, that set these dates and enforce them. And since it's their product, it is their choice**.
In all actuality, I believe street dates often lead to customers being able to purchase items -earlier- than they otherwise would be able to. At least most customers. Publishers choose the dates they want their products to hit the street according to factors I know nothing about, but often it has nothing to do with when the actual work is finished. They have a date in their mind that they want the product to hit the shelves, and for some reason a week earlier simply would not do. They have two options: try to work the date they ship it out so that it hits the street on the date they desire, or ship it out a week (or even more) earlier, and just require stores to hold it until they want it to hit the street. With the latter it might seem like you get the product later, but in all actuality many areas of the country (especially those farther down the supply chain) get it _earlier_ this way. Before street dates were the norm for most video games, where I lived we often didn't get games until two or three days after the "release date"...sometimes longer. So I'd propose that often customers get the product earlier (thus, delivering what they want) by shipping early and enforcing a street date. With no street date, the publisher would just ship _later_, so it isn't like the book (or movie, or album) would really hit the street any earlier.
Though none of that probably mattered much to you, since you seem more interested in the role of stores vs. other stores, and the competition that is involved there.
You don't like the idea of release dates, that's cool. I do. I've actually worked in a store that lived by them, I feel that gives me a little more insight...but it doesn't make you wrong, since either way it's just opinion. But at some point people who know more than I do decided that street dates were important, and I think this is unlikely to change anytime soon...and I think in the long wrong neither of our opinions is likely to matter much.
* - I realize it may well be more complicated as that, as far as legal obligations and contracts go...but as long as they were willing to settle whatever lawsuits might arise, they probably still could. And the point remains the same.
** - And not all publishers bother. Some small movie studios, as well as some video game companies, do not set any hard street dates. They ship the product out, and when it enters your store you can go ahead and sell it. Wow...that was a real wall of words. Sorry about that...I should go do some work or something.
There is a reason that only entertainment goods are generally limited by street dates. Generally, they are the only goods that are time-sensitive...nobody is generally standing in line to get the newest Panasonic TV on the date it's released, or the newest lamp, or whatever. But even a one-day head start on something like movies and music can create a gigantic advantage, what some would argue is an unfair one.
As for your shipping example, no, that wouldn't be unfair. Larger stores don't just compete on price...they also, for instance, have better agreements in place for return unsold product. They also have more locations, more marketing, the ability to do more tie-ins with other related merchandise, the ability to move unsold product to other locations where it is selling better, and on, and on.
In fact, about the ONLY aspect where they are required to compete fairly is on release date. Maybe you think that's silly. Personally, I'd hate to watch a foot-race where whoever gets to the track first gets to start first. It'd pretty much come down to who lives closest to the venue, who had the fastest car, etc.
I think you just don't fully understand that entertainment products are a completely different ballgame from other retail goods...possibly you've never worked in a store that more or less exclusively dealt in movies and music.
Oh, and I talk a lot about movies and music even though this relates to a book...but that's because Harry Potter books are one of the very few in that arena that approach the popularity of blockbuster movie releases. The same holds true.
A foot race where no one is allowed to run faster than anyone else isn't a fair competition at all. As long as these companies aren't doing anything abusive, there's no reason to handicap them.
As somebody else mentioned, you missed the point in your own analogy. Nobody is saying everybody has to run at the same speed, they are just saying they all have to start at the same time. I'm no athlete, but I'm pretty sure this has been a standard in foot races pretty much since the dawn of time.
Also, it isn't always the big boys that get things earlier (though yeah, this is usually the case). I know, for instance, that a locally owned video store in town often got their new releases a day or two before the Blockbuster I worked at. How they managed it, I can't imagine...but street date made sure they could never use it to their advantage.
I can't recall ever having known the street date for any book I have ever bought, or even cared about it for that matter. I most certainly have never seen any book other than the Harry Potter series have a street date be the subject of the general press, let alone any form of "security" whatsoever.
Books generally don't recieve this kind of attention, because there isn't that much marketing associated with them. However, you have probably known the street date for movies or music you've bought (assuming you buy these things) even if you didn't realize it. Street dates for movies are well advertised, especially big releases. And that "this item won't be released until" notice you see on Amazon.com is also letting you know the street date. The only reason you are seeing this with Harry Potter is because of the large popularity of the book...the concept is nothing new. Walk into a Barnes and Noble and look around...you'll see signs posted announcing the street dates of various upcoming books. The only reason it doesn't make news is because nobody cares...they aren't as popular as Harry Potter.
The publishers did not create the frenzy on this on, sorry to say. The customers did. And they are only enforcing their release dates this strictly because the more popular the item, the more likely the street date will be broken.
This whole schmegegy has little to nothing to do with fair competition, but a whole lot to do with marketing, drumming up the fervor of the torch and pitchfork bearing mob that makes it appear the security measures are necessary in the first place.
I can say it is very much about fair competition. Think of it this way...do you think that Harry Potter would sell that many less copies if a few stores sold it a day or two early? I don't. So it does NOT affect the publisher. But by enforcing a release date they can protect themselves against accusations of favoring one chain of bookstores over another, for instance, because they got their copies first and it gives that bookstore an unfair advantage.
You may or may not have ever worked in retail, so this might seem like it's a new thing to you. I was once manager of a Blockbuster Video (evil bastards that they are). We would sometimes get movies as much as a week before their release date. But our agreement with distributors forbade us from displaying them until the official release date. Not only did we honor that, but at random we would actually send employees to other stores to make sure that nobody else broke street date either.
Again, street dates and the strict enforcement of them are nothing new. The advertisement of them is nothing new either. Walk into any video store (and even many bookstores, as mentioned) and you'll see posted the dates of upcoming releases. The only reason this is news at all is because of the gigantic popularity of the Harry Potter book that's coming out. And that buzz was _not_ created by the publisher for the release of this book...it was created by the widespread popularity of the previous books. The Harry Potter books are as popular as many blockbuster movies, and they are being treated as such. I personally find it uplifting to see a book getting this kind of treatement; I had long since gave up and figured that most people in the US were just illiterate.