It's all pretty simple and boils down to relative profit margins. Whatever people might think, the actual operating profit to a Wal-Mart or Best Buy on PC hardware is not more than 2-3%, i.e. about $15 maximum for the majority of PCs sold. The profit margin on a $40 recovery CD is pretty much $40.
Therefore, they should push the recovery CD as strongly as possible, until the point where they are so aggressive that they are losing 1 in 3 PC sales due SOLELY to their pushing of the CD. They haven't reached that point yet.
Don't give the credit to SatanicPuppy, give it to TS Eliot's "The Naming of Cats."
Last verse:
When you notice a cat in profound meditation, The reason, I tell you, is always the same: His mind is engaged in rapt contemplation Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name: His ineffable effable Effanineffable Deep and inscrutable singular Name.
Why does everyone get up in arms about these companies who have absolutely no verification of your identity? I usually just fill out something like "Penguin P. Finsbury" and a ZIP code of 90210, and put equally garbage data in the rest of the fields.
Save your energies for the real scary privacy stuff, like the credit card companies who actually know who you are. Just give garbage data to the cheesy websites; their market research will be crap as a result and no one will buy it.
You don't need to have a company's complete value in cash to make an acquisition. You usually acquire with a mix of stock and cash; Microsoft would issue equity to buy Google.
If they were going to buy Google they would have done it when they could have picked them up for $15-20b.
so could I write a proprietary piece of software based on GPL'd code, and then charge $1 billion for a distribution fee? I wouldn't restrict the right of anyone to redistribute the source code for free, once they had purchased the first copy...
ahh...exactly! The table of jaywalking prevalence would be much more useful, if you are trying to learn about jaywalking. If you are trying to learn about Boston, instead of being sidetracked by a table of numbers, sometime a sentence is more appropriate.
Having just bought a Britannica for the princely sum of $50 a month ago, I can say without question that its superiority is not in its accuracy (most mistakes in it would go undetected by me), but in the quality of the writing. Just pull up the article on "Children's Literature" if you want to compare; the Britannica is full of the sardonic wit that makes it enjoyable to read for 2 hours, while Wikipedia is best for scrounging up information when I need it.
It seems as though one of the key reasons for this is that Britannica is willing to take a position on many issues, such as "Bostonians are incorrigible jaywalkers," while this would violate Wikipedia NPOV and would probably be replaced with a table of jaywalking prevalence in major American cities.
It's clear to anyone who thinks seriously about this issue that an encyclopedia which doesn't allow immediate revision of errors by anyone who finds them will never have the credibility of a wiki.
It's clear to anyone who thinks seriously about this issue that an encyclopedia which allowsimmediate introduction of errors by anyone who wants to will never have the credibility of a old-fashioned encyclopedia.
Your gap in logic here is astounding. "Anjanappa" is not necessarily phoenetically spelled, it's just that you are looking at an ENGLISH PHOENIC TRANSCRIPTION of a language with a totally different alphabet. The transcription was created to be pronounced just as it's spelled, so observing that "Hey! It's pronounced just like it's spelled" isn't that profound.
That being said, some languages, like Italian, do maintain close-to-phoenetic spelling in their native alphabet. But comparing English to phoenetic transcriptions of foreign languages is just crazy.
with the Time Traveler Convention. I refuse to use the word "meme," but its Slashdotting triggered an avalanche of mainstream publicity, culminating in a front-page New York Times article; Slashdot is more relevant than I once thought. Total hits exceeded 1 million before the Times article came out.
They actually don't have much cash sitting around for failed experiments. The Times has had projected financial troubles for quite some time now and it seems as though they are grasping at straws here. Looks like they could have thought up something more sensible in this case.
erm...isn't it a genetic defect? It seems like anything that would reduce your interest in procreating could only be called a disease/genetic defect. Of course, so is having six fingers on one hand, or having pattern baldness. The point is that you shouldn't deprive people of their rights because of some inconsequential genetic defect.
A few weeks ago, I did a few Google searches which didn't turn up ANY good results, and in frustration I went to MSN where each #1 hit was perfect. I've switched to MSN for now. If Google is planning on getting lazy they should remember how low the search engine switching costs are (after all, that's how they stole all the users from AltaVista).
In a case like this, was it wise to link the Christian Science Monitor's main page? I feel like that wasted a click for me, and it's trivial to get from the article itself to the CS Monitor's main page. What do others think? Should the poster have linked "iPod" to Apple's website? I think linking to a higher level of a domain linked elsewhere in the post is useless.
Could someone point me to a reference about the laws regarding proprietary standards in the first place? Can't I write my own program to manipulate files in any format, whether or not the file format was created by someone else? Then is it illegal to create a program where Ctrl+C means copy, since ____ (Apple?) invented that?
Slashdot Mirror
It's all pretty simple and boils down to relative profit margins. Whatever people might think, the actual operating profit to a Wal-Mart or Best Buy on PC hardware is not more than 2-3%, i.e. about $15 maximum for the majority of PCs sold. The profit margin on a $40 recovery CD is pretty much $40. Therefore, they should push the recovery CD as strongly as possible, until the point where they are so aggressive that they are losing 1 in 3 PC sales due SOLELY to their pushing of the CD. They haven't reached that point yet.
Don't give the credit to SatanicPuppy, give it to TS Eliot's "The Naming of Cats."
Last verse:
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought,
of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.
News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters? ??? ?????
Uh, what's "troll" about this comment? I'd mod it funny!
Why does everyone get up in arms about these companies who have absolutely no verification of your identity? I usually just fill out something like "Penguin P. Finsbury" and a ZIP code of 90210, and put equally garbage data in the rest of the fields. Save your energies for the real scary privacy stuff, like the credit card companies who actually know who you are. Just give garbage data to the cheesy websites; their market research will be crap as a result and no one will buy it.
You don't need to have a company's complete value in cash to make an acquisition. You usually acquire with a mix of stock and cash; Microsoft would issue equity to buy Google. If they were going to buy Google they would have done it when they could have picked them up for $15-20b.
so could I write a proprietary piece of software based on GPL'd code, and then charge $1 billion for a distribution fee? I wouldn't restrict the right of anyone to redistribute the source code for free, once they had purchased the first copy...
Um, I'm sure that the Yahoo guy was the envy of the party. Have you seen the new Yahoo mail beta?
ahh...exactly! The table of jaywalking prevalence would be much more useful, if you are trying to learn about jaywalking. If you are trying to learn about Boston, instead of being sidetracked by a table of numbers, sometime a sentence is more appropriate.
Having just bought a Britannica for the princely sum of $50 a month ago, I can say without question that its superiority is not in its accuracy (most mistakes in it would go undetected by me), but in the quality of the writing. Just pull up the article on "Children's Literature" if you want to compare; the Britannica is full of the sardonic wit that makes it enjoyable to read for 2 hours, while Wikipedia is best for scrounging up information when I need it. It seems as though one of the key reasons for this is that Britannica is willing to take a position on many issues, such as "Bostonians are incorrigible jaywalkers," while this would violate Wikipedia NPOV and would probably be replaced with a table of jaywalking prevalence in major American cities.
It's clear to anyone who thinks seriously about this issue that an encyclopedia which doesn't allow immediate revision of errors by anyone who finds them will never have the credibility of a wiki.
It's clear to anyone who thinks seriously about this issue that an encyclopedia which allowsimmediate introduction of errors by anyone who wants to will never have the credibility of a old-fashioned encyclopedia.
How much of this "income effect" is due to Sergey Brin and Larry Page?
Assuming they're worth $20 billion each, and the US has 50 million Google users, they are together worth about $1000 per Google user.
I don't know the net worth of the Yahoo guys but I suspect that their effect is less than a quarter of Google's.
And for Bill Gates, he's a smart guy. He probably uses Google or Yahoo.
Your gap in logic here is astounding. "Anjanappa" is not necessarily phoenetically spelled, it's just that you are looking at an ENGLISH PHOENIC TRANSCRIPTION of a language with a totally different alphabet. The transcription was created to be pronounced just as it's spelled, so observing that "Hey! It's pronounced just like it's spelled" isn't that profound. That being said, some languages, like Italian, do maintain close-to-phoenetic spelling in their native alphabet. But comparing English to phoenetic transcriptions of foreign languages is just crazy.
with the Time Traveler Convention. I refuse to use the word "meme," but its Slashdotting triggered an avalanche of mainstream publicity, culminating in a front-page New York Times article; Slashdot is more relevant than I once thought. Total hits exceeded 1 million before the Times article came out.
They actually don't have much cash sitting around for failed experiments. The Times has had projected financial troubles for quite some time now and it seems as though they are grasping at straws here. Looks like they could have thought up something more sensible in this case.
erm...isn't it a genetic defect? It seems like anything that would reduce your interest in procreating could only be called a disease/genetic defect. Of course, so is having six fingers on one hand, or having pattern baldness. The point is that you shouldn't deprive people of their rights because of some inconsequential genetic defect.
A few weeks ago, I did a few Google searches which didn't turn up ANY good results, and in frustration I went to MSN where each #1 hit was perfect. I've switched to MSN for now. If Google is planning on getting lazy they should remember how low the search engine switching costs are (after all, that's how they stole all the users from AltaVista).
In a case like this, was it wise to link the Christian Science Monitor's main page? I feel like that wasted a click for me, and it's trivial to get from the article itself to the CS Monitor's main page. What do others think? Should the poster have linked "iPod" to Apple's website? I think linking to a higher level of a domain linked elsewhere in the post is useless.
know that Caltech is more hardcore. We also hear that it's more miserable.
Could someone point me to a reference about the laws regarding proprietary standards in the first place? Can't I write my own program to manipulate files in any format, whether or not the file format was created by someone else? Then is it illegal to create a program where Ctrl+C means copy, since ____ (Apple?) invented that?