You chuckle, but Symantec makes pretty good money off of Norton AntiVirus for Macintosh. Not so much for the home users, but companies want a solution that will work on both PCs and Macs, just to make sure those snarky Mac users don't inadvertently e-mail a virus to some PC user as well as that "just in case" scenario...
It's one of those cases where if you want to sell the 5000 seat Windows license, you need to support the 200 Macs. That's why Symantec, McAffee, Sophos, and CA have Mac versions of their Anti-Virus. Having the Mac version helps them get those 5000-seat licenses.
I'll admit, though, I don't feel particularly shafted that I can't get Microsoft's OneCare for Macintosh...
Verizon is interested in becoming a "cable company"--like Time-Warner, Cox, Comcast, Cablevision, etc. To do this, they have to "build out" their connections to your house in order to provide more bandwidth. While they'll certainly sell that extra bandwidth to consumers, they also want to get into the business of selling content like HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, etc.
So, ideally, what they'd do is sell you a 5Mbps Internet connection and--to pull a number out of my ass--a 20Mbps video connection. Sure, it may be over the same 25Mbps wire coming into your house, but the packets for their TV stuff would get priority over the Internet packets to make certain that your TV didn't stutter while you were downloading Google videos.
The problem is, the Telecom Act won't let them do this. The Telecom act says that they have to sell you the 25Mbps connection. While they can provide you with the TV services, they can't give priority to the TV services you paid them for over other services. Thus, you may see your DVR start dropping frames while you download Google video.
Again, the telecoms see these content-services as helping to pay for this bandwidth build-out. There are plenty of people who think their 5Mbps connection is great for connecting to the Internet. They're not going to pay an extra $50/month for 25Mbps until/unless the services become available. So, Verizon wants to provide the service to try to convince you to pony up that extra money.
Well, if you're talking about sending probes, I'd say do both (though I'd start with the mountains). I read the articles and the one that discusses the mountains makes some very good points about the habitability of the mountains.
First, you get much more solar power by sitting up there. Second, you are always in communication with the Earth. Third is the possibility of water ice which--if confirmed--could supply water and oxygen to the base. This is the winner, in my book. Of course, if there is no water ice, then all bets are off.
While the "manufacturing" possibilities are better at the equator, the first requirement to me is to get people to the moon and figure out how to keep them alive without having to ship everything they need from Earth. Once that's done, we can start thinking about other sites for doing other things. Heck, there might be a migration away from the poles if the hydrogen/oxygen potential of the rocks at the equator are realized. Though you'd probably still want that sunlight from the poles for power, that could be beamed via satellite eventually.
"Who goes on holiday when their house is a mess eh?"
Why do you think early man migrated from continent to continent? Because their caves were a mess!
It has been the desire to not clean up our own messes which has driven mankind to the ends of the Earth. It only makes sense that getting out of cleaning up our messes should be what drives us into the solar system.
"Clean out the gutters? But honey! I'm going to the moon!"
"If the Big Bang is merely an opinion, then the last ~100 years of scientific progress have been for naught."
I have to admit, that's the part that got me, too. I have no problem with "Theory" being placed after 'Big Bang' because it is a theory. And while I can understand that there is confusion over multiple definitions of "theory", the Big Bang is certainly not an opinion.
Hell, I wandered over to dictionary.com. According to them, a "theory" is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world." An "opinion" is a "personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty."
What's frightening is that this guy is a Journalism major. Do journalists no longer have to use dictionaries?
If I am running a business which is "Open to the Public", I cannot discriminate based on race. Things that are "private clubs" and such can discriminate based on just about any reason.
So if I'm having a party at my house, I can choose to invite every white person in town and no black people and that's perfectly legitimate. But that's different from running a business which is open to the public.
"You can't keep two homes, one of them in D.C., for any less than $350,000/year, and current slary for most is $162,100/yr."
Actually, I had a better idea. If you're a senator, you're in DC to represent the state, right?
Have the State buy the house. The State owns it. The Senator lives in it, rent free. If he wants to change it, he asks the state legislature for the money to do so. When the Senator leaves office, he moves out and his successor moves in.
"Let each state determine that state's method of electing or appointing and unseating senators."
Actually, as I understand it--and I may be wrong--senators are appointed by the governor and can be recalled at any time by that governor. The governor can send anybody he or she wants. That said, the governor usually stands by an election because that's what the people want. So the state can decide on whatever system they want for a senator.
Every country where we have an embassy has American troops to defend it. You might also have regional people based at the embassies of the country.
For example, Antigua has 2 Air Force officers. From what I can see, those two guys maintain a missile-tracking facility. New Zealand has 7--two Army, two Navy, and three Air Force. Hardly what I'd call "policing against the will of the citizens."
Well, as always, there's that question: How much money should NASA spend on researching new technologies when the old technologies are "good enough"? The linked article, in some ways, and your opinion show the duality of this question.
For example, you mention the "flying clusterfuck" of the Space Shuttle. I might agree, though I'd point out that many of the Shuttle systems are pinnacles of 1970s technology. Remember that, for the Shuttle, they created all new systems. Rather than using the old heat-shield that had served NASA well for 20 years or so, NASA developed a new system using thermal tiles. Pretty much everything in the Shuttle was developed from scratch.
The article you reference complains about how NASA is using tried and true technology in the CEV rather than some new experimental system which would cost more money to develop into a reliable system. But the author points out that NASA used "untried" systems on the Shuttle (SRBs, for example) so why, he asks, aren't they willing to do this on the CEV? But by using untried systems, wouldn't that help create more of a "flying clusterfuck"? So wouldn't it be better to use the tried, tested, reliable, and cheaper systems on the CEV? But according to what you're saying, that's turning it into the same kind of "flying clusterfuck."
So which is it? Should NASA be developing all new stuff for the CEV and pushing the state-of-the-art? Or should they be playing it safe and cheap? If they go state-of-the-art, will you complain about how NASA is taking too long and wasting too much money? If they stick with the tried-and-true, will you complain about how NASA isn't pushing the state-of-the-art?
I have no problem with the government surveilling our active stated enemies. I do have a problem with the President doing so.
The President is not the government.
This is one of my biggest concerns. As we've seen, the President has determined that various American organizations--organizations which, coincidentally, don't agree with his policies--are worthy of spying. No one had to go in front of a judge and say, "Hey, we want to spy on these guys because they're against the war in Iraq."
I want the rest of the government involved in these decisions. The information as to who is being spied upon should be available to all members of the House Special Intelligence Committee and the Senate's Committee on Intelligence. There should be judges involved in looking at the government's reasons for assuming that a group should be spied upon before allowing them to do so.
Again, the concept that the President alone shall decide who qualifies as an "enemy of the state" is a frightening thing.
"I buy the Dell, get the discount, then take them off and put on whatever I want."
But that's not what I said. Dell can sell you the apps as long as they do so exclusively (ie, they don't sell competitors software).
Let's say Dell sells a PC with Windows installed for $300. No "extra" software comes for free. Let's say HP also sells a PC with Windows installed for $300. Basically the same PC, right? Not a heck of a lot of difference.
But if Dell refuses to sell Eudora and will only sell Microsoft Outlook, they can shave $30 off their price. Basically the same PC, but $30 cheaper. All they have to do is not sell any Microsoft application software competitors if they want to sell Windows cheaper.
Most people buy their applications when they buy the computer--you've got your wallet out to give Dell some money, it's a good time to hit them up for more. So controlling that distribution channel is a great way to make some big money and cut off your opponents at the pass.
"If they're not good enough for me to bother uninstalling the default stuff then, imho, they don't deserve that market share."
The problem is that Dell's decision to carry Microsoft application software has nothing to do with them being better/worse than Microsoft's competitors. It has to do with the fact that Dell gets a benefit on a product that they must have--Windows--if they exclusively carry other products.
I have no problem with Microsoft selling me Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Media Player, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and their anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. It's their box and they can do with it as they will. I do have a problem with Microsoft strong-arming Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. to also include these products by forcing "sweetheart deals" with those who do and charging extra for those who don't.
For example, if Dell includes all these other things, they get Windows for $70. If they don't, they pay $100 for Windows. Since you have to have Windows, this gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over, say, Eudora, QuickTime, Opera, and Symantec products.
Again, we'll make Dell the bad guy. Let's say Dell does this. They don't have to bundle them, they just have to sell them exclusively to get the discount. So now Dell saves $30 on each Windows license they sell with their computers and Microsoft's competitors are shut out.
Gee, like Internet Explorer? They didn't get into any problems with that.
So let me get this straight: Microsoft gives away virus "subscriptions" and pays for this by selling operating systems? And this wouldn't have anti-trust implications...why?
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't
on
No Anti-Virus in Vista
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.
Personally, I think it's good that they don't include it. If I decided I needed antivirus services--something that is generally in need of constant updates--I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this protection.
As long as Microsoft doesn't start strong-arming these other companies ("Nice Windows license you have--it'd be a shame if something happened to it."), I don't have a problem with it. But it definitely should give our anti-trust monitors something to keep an eye on...
Slashdot Mirror
You chuckle, but Symantec makes pretty good money off of Norton AntiVirus for Macintosh. Not so much for the home users, but companies want a solution that will work on both PCs and Macs, just to make sure those snarky Mac users don't inadvertently e-mail a virus to some PC user as well as that "just in case" scenario...
It's one of those cases where if you want to sell the 5000 seat Windows license, you need to support the 200 Macs. That's why Symantec, McAffee, Sophos, and CA have Mac versions of their Anti-Virus. Having the Mac version helps them get those 5000-seat licenses.
I'll admit, though, I don't feel particularly shafted that I can't get Microsoft's OneCare for Macintosh...
Well, you're missing part of the point.
Verizon is interested in becoming a "cable company"--like Time-Warner, Cox, Comcast, Cablevision, etc. To do this, they have to "build out" their connections to your house in order to provide more bandwidth. While they'll certainly sell that extra bandwidth to consumers, they also want to get into the business of selling content like HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, etc.
So, ideally, what they'd do is sell you a 5Mbps Internet connection and--to pull a number out of my ass--a 20Mbps video connection. Sure, it may be over the same 25Mbps wire coming into your house, but the packets for their TV stuff would get priority over the Internet packets to make certain that your TV didn't stutter while you were downloading Google videos.
The problem is, the Telecom Act won't let them do this. The Telecom act says that they have to sell you the 25Mbps connection. While they can provide you with the TV services, they can't give priority to the TV services you paid them for over other services. Thus, you may see your DVR start dropping frames while you download Google video.
Again, the telecoms see these content-services as helping to pay for this bandwidth build-out. There are plenty of people who think their 5Mbps connection is great for connecting to the Internet. They're not going to pay an extra $50/month for 25Mbps until/unless the services become available. So, Verizon wants to provide the service to try to convince you to pony up that extra money.
Well, if you're talking about sending probes, I'd say do both (though I'd start with the mountains). I read the articles and the one that discusses the mountains makes some very good points about the habitability of the mountains.
First, you get much more solar power by sitting up there. Second, you are always in communication with the Earth. Third is the possibility of water ice which--if confirmed--could supply water and oxygen to the base. This is the winner, in my book. Of course, if there is no water ice, then all bets are off.
While the "manufacturing" possibilities are better at the equator, the first requirement to me is to get people to the moon and figure out how to keep them alive without having to ship everything they need from Earth. Once that's done, we can start thinking about other sites for doing other things. Heck, there might be a migration away from the poles if the hydrogen/oxygen potential of the rocks at the equator are realized. Though you'd probably still want that sunlight from the poles for power, that could be beamed via satellite eventually.
"Who goes on holiday when their house is a mess eh?"
Why do you think early man migrated from continent to continent? Because their caves were a mess!
It has been the desire to not clean up our own messes which has driven mankind to the ends of the Earth. It only makes sense that getting out of cleaning up our messes should be what drives us into the solar system.
"Clean out the gutters? But honey! I'm going to the moon!"
Actually, I like the line: A Conservative is a Liberal who got mugged.
Same here. I drive it to the mechanic.
Next.
"If the Big Bang is merely an opinion, then the last ~100 years of scientific progress have been for naught."
I have to admit, that's the part that got me, too. I have no problem with "Theory" being placed after 'Big Bang' because it is a theory. And while I can understand that there is confusion over multiple definitions of "theory", the Big Bang is certainly not an opinion.
Hell, I wandered over to dictionary.com. According to them, a "theory" is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world." An "opinion" is a "personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty."
What's frightening is that this guy is a Journalism major. Do journalists no longer have to use dictionaries?
"Yes! Bring it all back! The inquisition! [...]"
Nobody expects the American Inquisition!
IANAL, but I'm not sure of that.
If I am running a business which is "Open to the Public", I cannot discriminate based on race. Things that are "private clubs" and such can discriminate based on just about any reason.
So if I'm having a party at my house, I can choose to invite every white person in town and no black people and that's perfectly legitimate. But that's different from running a business which is open to the public.
"[...] we only serve white people [...]"
Mr. Chambers! Don't go in that diner!
Well, duh! But why can't the stork bring babies to same sex couples?!
"You can't keep two homes, one of them in D.C., for any less than $350,000/year, and current slary for most is $162,100/yr."
Actually, I had a better idea. If you're a senator, you're in DC to represent the state, right?
Have the State buy the house. The State owns it. The Senator lives in it, rent free. If he wants to change it, he asks the state legislature for the money to do so. When the Senator leaves office, he moves out and his successor moves in.
"Let each state determine that state's method of electing or appointing and unseating senators."
Actually, as I understand it--and I may be wrong--senators are appointed by the governor and can be recalled at any time by that governor. The governor can send anybody he or she wants. That said, the governor usually stands by an election because that's what the people want. So the state can decide on whatever system they want for a senator.
"8 out of 11 of the projects we're working with right now are going to have in-game advertising at a maximum level... "
:^)
Don't you mean that they'll have in game advertising TO THE MAX! Or AT AN X-TREME LEVEL!
You obviously don't really work for a promotion company...
Well, you can always get Norton AntiVirus...
You're being a tad facetious in some of this.
Every country where we have an embassy has American troops to defend it. You might also have regional people based at the embassies of the country.
For example, Antigua has 2 Air Force officers. From what I can see, those two guys maintain a missile-tracking facility. New Zealand has 7--two Army, two Navy, and three Air Force. Hardly what I'd call "policing against the will of the citizens."
"On one hand, it's the government and command structure that's setting the policy, so it's unfair to hate the grunts for 'just following orders.'"
Although here's another argument. We decided years ago that "I was just following orders" was not a valid excuse for a crime.
Well, as always, there's that question: How much money should NASA spend on researching new technologies when the old technologies are "good enough"? The linked article, in some ways, and your opinion show the duality of this question.
For example, you mention the "flying clusterfuck" of the Space Shuttle. I might agree, though I'd point out that many of the Shuttle systems are pinnacles of 1970s technology. Remember that, for the Shuttle, they created all new systems. Rather than using the old heat-shield that had served NASA well for 20 years or so, NASA developed a new system using thermal tiles. Pretty much everything in the Shuttle was developed from scratch.
The article you reference complains about how NASA is using tried and true technology in the CEV rather than some new experimental system which would cost more money to develop into a reliable system. But the author points out that NASA used "untried" systems on the Shuttle (SRBs, for example) so why, he asks, aren't they willing to do this on the CEV? But by using untried systems, wouldn't that help create more of a "flying clusterfuck"? So wouldn't it be better to use the tried, tested, reliable, and cheaper systems on the CEV? But according to what you're saying, that's turning it into the same kind of "flying clusterfuck."
So which is it? Should NASA be developing all new stuff for the CEV and pushing the state-of-the-art? Or should they be playing it safe and cheap? If they go state-of-the-art, will you complain about how NASA is taking too long and wasting too much money? If they stick with the tried-and-true, will you complain about how NASA isn't pushing the state-of-the-art?
Well, I sort of agree.
I have no problem with the government surveilling our active stated enemies. I do have a problem with the President doing so.
The President is not the government.
This is one of my biggest concerns. As we've seen, the President has determined that various American organizations--organizations which, coincidentally, don't agree with his policies--are worthy of spying. No one had to go in front of a judge and say, "Hey, we want to spy on these guys because they're against the war in Iraq."
I want the rest of the government involved in these decisions. The information as to who is being spied upon should be available to all members of the House Special Intelligence Committee and the Senate's Committee on Intelligence. There should be judges involved in looking at the government's reasons for assuming that a group should be spied upon before allowing them to do so.
Again, the concept that the President alone shall decide who qualifies as an "enemy of the state" is a frightening thing.
"It is his job to protect and serve the people."
What?! Huh?! Wait, I missed this one.
The President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. No mention of the people.
Show me where it is the President's job to protect the people...
Foam wants to be free.
"I buy the Dell, get the discount, then take them off and put on whatever I want."
But that's not what I said. Dell can sell you the apps as long as they do so exclusively (ie, they don't sell competitors software).
Let's say Dell sells a PC with Windows installed for $300. No "extra" software comes for free. Let's say HP also sells a PC with Windows installed for $300. Basically the same PC, right? Not a heck of a lot of difference.
But if Dell refuses to sell Eudora and will only sell Microsoft Outlook, they can shave $30 off their price. Basically the same PC, but $30 cheaper. All they have to do is not sell any Microsoft application software competitors if they want to sell Windows cheaper.
Most people buy their applications when they buy the computer--you've got your wallet out to give Dell some money, it's a good time to hit them up for more. So controlling that distribution channel is a great way to make some big money and cut off your opponents at the pass.
"If they're not good enough for me to bother uninstalling the default stuff then, imho, they don't deserve that market share."
The problem is that Dell's decision to carry Microsoft application software has nothing to do with them being better/worse than Microsoft's competitors. It has to do with the fact that Dell gets a benefit on a product that they must have--Windows--if they exclusively carry other products.
Well...yes. And no.
I have no problem with Microsoft selling me Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Media Player, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and their anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. It's their box and they can do with it as they will. I do have a problem with Microsoft strong-arming Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. to also include these products by forcing "sweetheart deals" with those who do and charging extra for those who don't.
For example, if Dell includes all these other things, they get Windows for $70. If they don't, they pay $100 for Windows. Since you have to have Windows, this gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over, say, Eudora, QuickTime, Opera, and Symantec products.
Again, we'll make Dell the bad guy. Let's say Dell does this. They don't have to bundle them, they just have to sell them exclusively to get the discount. So now Dell saves $30 on each Windows license they sell with their computers and Microsoft's competitors are shut out.
"Give it away as a free download."
Gee, like Internet Explorer? They didn't get into any problems with that.
So let me get this straight: Microsoft gives away virus "subscriptions" and pays for this by selling operating systems? And this wouldn't have anti-trust implications...why?
"Perhaps, somehow, Natalie Portman is a matter of national security."
When this movie comes out, she will be...
This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.
Personally, I think it's good that they don't include it. If I decided I needed antivirus services--something that is generally in need of constant updates--I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this protection.
As long as Microsoft doesn't start strong-arming these other companies ("Nice Windows license you have--it'd be a shame if something happened to it."), I don't have a problem with it. But it definitely should give our anti-trust monitors something to keep an eye on...