At least with a console, you know that any game you buy for it was written for it--for its processor and graphics engine. That includes when you find and old game for an old console. So long as the console labeling matches the system for which you're buying the game, you have a green light. With PCs, it's a different world.
Yes, even PCs go through various changes and generations, but games are sold for specific minimum system specifications. That means you need to match up numerous items:processor level, RAM, graphics capabilities, DirectX support. It's nowhere near as simple as knowing an XBox game is for XBox or that a GameCube game is still good on a GameCube. Also, console makers often try to make sure their current platform is backwards compatible with games from the prior platform, meaning those n-1 platform games may still be usable on the new console (e.g., GameCube games on the Wii).
That said, many PC games can be played on newer hardware, but it's more of a crap shoot. Windows OS changes can be the biggest roadblock to that type of backwards compatibility. Even with their "compatibility modes" feature, I've found that many older games will not run on later PC platforms.
Console platforms change every few years, while the PC platform is constantly evolving. As such, consoles provide a greater level of stability for the gamer. Yes, newer PCs will have better graphics, engines, and processors, but the same doom-and-gloom about consoles was everywhere before the last major concurrent releases by the big three (Xbox, PS3, Wii). At the time of the release, everyone was noting how the consoles were considerably better than the average PC gaming experience, but shortly before that release, people were talking about how the PC gaming platform had matured. Some even wondered if consoles were the dead man's market.
So, here we are again. The consoles are getting old and everyone is noticing how robust PCs are. If and when the console makers come to market with new units, it is likely that they will again be on the cutting edge, making PC gaming look pale by comparison. While the PC platform is moving ahead at a relatively steady pace, the console makers tend to play leap frog.
The US is a republic. It is not a full democracy, though it does espouse many democratic principles. At best, it is a representative democracy, which history tells us was the intention of the framers.
Most of the founding fathers did not trust pure democracy (i.e., rule by the direct vote of the people), because they knew that public opinion could be fickle. While elected officials were instituted to represent their constituents, they were also considered a check/balance on the ebb and flow of public opinion: elected officials are duty bound to protect the Constitution and the Republic ahead of their duty to enact the will of the people. Where those two duties are in conflict, elected officials should act in a manner that aligns with their first duty.
The electoral college system is another example of how the founders intended a reasoned people to be able to intervene apart from the direct vote. Sadly, the electoral college is now a bastardization of its original intent, with separate groups of partisan electors selected to serve depending on which candidate wins, rather than an independent body that was intended to ratify--or void--the popular vote. There have been times in history when electors have voted for candidates other than those that won the popular vote, and I believe the founders intended that to be part of the game.
If Konrath's observations prove even marginally true for other authors, like yourself, you might want to keep that $0.99 price point even after you are well known.
when he lowered the price of his book The List from $2.99 to 99 cents, he started selling 20 times as many copies
Would you rather sell 1,000 copies at $3.00 and make $1,050, or 20,000 copies at $0.99 and make nearly $7,000?
1000 x ($3.00 x 0.35) = $1,050.00
20,000 x ($0.99 x 0.35) = $6,930.00
Even if your increased volume is not 20-fold, you still stand to make a lot more by selling as few as five times more copies:
5,000 x ($0.99 x 0.35) = $1,732.00.
While you might feel better knowing your books will sell at a higher price (it's a nice stroke for the ego), your pocketbook will feel better if you can sell vastly more copies at the lower price.
That, after all, was Sam Walton's original premise: he preferred to sell 10,000 of something and make $0.50 on each over selling only 1,000 of something that made him $3.00 each.
First of all, I love your sig...
I'm not offering to sell anything to a teen. How a browser could be considered "inappropriate for children" I do not know. I do know that the prohibition is against 17-year-olds downloading a specific browser. That's the only scenario to which I was playing.
I'll set up a kiosk at the mall and offer to hit the "dowload" button or link. As someone over 17, I can download it without violating the agreement, and if every kid pays me a dollar, I'd have slushies for life!
This isn't the government we're talking about. It's Facebook. They are just setting up one more affinity group, albeit one with tighter rules for association that commonly seen in the Facebook environment.
I've been picking up old SciFi books at my local thrift store and just finished on that dealt with the topic, The Ballad of Beta-2 by Samuel R. Delany. The plot centers around a student who must conduct an anthropological study of the "Star Folk"--the first interstellar travelers from Earth whose vessels were so slow that the rest of the galaxy was settled (by colonists in later, faster ships) before they arrived. They're considered a throw-back society that has received little attention.
Delany did a good job of tackling the kinds of issues that would come up on such long journeys, including procreation. I won't say more. It's an enjoyable read if you can get your hands on a copy.
Ever been to a Curves location? They're workout facilities for women only.
The strange thing is that, during the '70s, women sued to get in to men-only fitness clubs. Now, here we are, 30+ years later, and we have women-only facilities. Surely the pendulum swings both ways.
That statistic may be accurate. Sixty-one percent (61%) might never yell at their computers, but that doesn't mean electronic frustrations don't affect them. They might not yell at their computers, but they just might bite the head off the next person who rubs them the wrong way. I'm not saying that's the case for all people. Some will truly be able to remain calm no matter what, some will blow their tops at a device, and for others, it might just eat away at their sanity day after day after day until they...
In light of the iPhone decision (that allowed "jailbreaking"), I wonder if they really have a leg on which to stand. Or is it that the iPhone decision only pertains to opening it up to additional software choicese (does the PS3 break imply more)?
Why is everyone complaining about not giving "express permission"? When a FB user signs up and accepts the site's terms of service, they do expressly give permission for Facebook to use their phots and likeness as they deem fit. Of course, you can opt out by modifying your privacy settings (I did, to block both their use of my photos and the location check-in feature). Save your rants for cases where companies step on your rights without permission. If you gave them your permission, I have little patience for the whining or pity for the end result.
The right to use your pictures and/or likeness has been part of their terms of service for a very long time (compared to how long the site has been around).
Everyone seems to think that all businesses run their IT operations the same way. Some businesses are either too small (or too cheap) to allow for such overall management of the workstations--they get their office suite via the OEM, the OS the same way (thus, no master image can be used since the license key for each install is tied to vendor OEM builds). When we migrate office suites, it's because the version installed on the new PCs is newer than what we have installed already. So, yes, that means we may have two or three versions of MS Office installed at any one time. No, it's not the ideal--I'd change it in an instant if allowed--but it's the only environment for which senior management is willing to pay.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who can bridge that divide--between understanding a topic from the IT side and understanding it from the business side. That's not saying that what is is what should be. It's simply an acknowledgement of the reality that is present in so many workplaces.
We got a specific CRM tool pushed into production because a friend of the President told him that's what we really needed. It didn't matter that we already had a CRM tool purchased and in place, or that the annual subscription fees for the new SaaS CRM tool would nearly make the company collapse during the downturn. It was his decision, daggummit, and we could either abide by it or try to find jobs elsewhere...
I do bash M$ for not adopting (or fully adopting) open standards (or pushing for their own to replace exisiting ones). The fact remains, however, that Microsoft's Office products are the de facto standards based on what people know and use on a daily basis. Hell, I've had a hard time with the local school system requiring that my kids' assignments be turned in only in *.DOC format versus the near universally-readable *.RTF format. It's all politics!
The only reason why school systems and businesses stick to Microsoft products is because they believe that those formats (*.DOC, *.XLS, and *.PPT) are largely ubiquitous.
Well, until more places (more places that matter) start using (and requiring) other formats, the Microsoft formate will be ubiquitous.
It's about perceptions. It's about brand. What you're saying is that OpenOffice really just changed its name (in terms understood by the casual observer) to LibreOffice. That simple.
It's not that simple.
What would happen if Ford's Mustang group simply announced next week that they were splitting off and forming their own company that will build their own Mustangs: Libre Mustangs (setting aside any copyright/patent arguments for the sake of this illustration). Would anyone trust the new company to produce a real Mustang?
Not without a major ad campaign and huge wads of cash.
Let's face it. The apps may be the same, but the brand is now different. People like me have spent time trying to warm up senior decision makers to open source software, and that often came about by familiarizing them with specific brands, whether they were browsers (e.g., Chrome, FireFox), distros (e.g., Red Hat, Fedora, Ubunto), or productivity suites (e.g., OpenOffice.org). This change simply makes it harder to convice them that any specific open source project is worth adopting (much less, supporting).
You know what I'm talking about, then. There's what would be best for the company's technology infrastructure, and then what some people want. All too often, those people with the wants are close friends with those who can approve, veto, or reverse any decision.
No,at a mid-sized employer, getting that pre-installed OEM schlock is far cheaper than having someone on staff (even part time!) who can handle customizations, programming, and/or training. The cost of such software is amortized along with the cost of the PC, giving the employer a tax deduction. Any employee just means more overhead (e.g., employer's share of taxes, benefits, administrative costs, office space, PC).
As soon as you show them evidence that it has been around a long time, many of them revert back to the old stand by of "This other company is still using Microsoft products". Some will find any excuse the can to maintain the status quo.
Let's face it. Many senior decision makers already have a strong opinion (or even have their minds made up) before anything comes before them for consideration. It is the rare individual who is willing to step out and make a change. Spending hours and hours trying to educate senior management might work on someone on the fence, but it will not work for someone who already has his or her mind made up, for whatever reason.
Sure, recent versions have changed the GUI, but that's not what really mattered to anyone here. They've been sending.DOC,.XLS, and.PPT files for over a decade. Sure, we have.DOCX and the like now, but everything they save is still readable by all customers and vendors without requiring instructions on how to "Open with..." or on how to set up file associations. Soon, all will be.DOCX and the like, too, and unless they start changing things more frequently, it will still look like stability.
Open Office looked like an unsupported third option to senior managemet here (and at other companies where I've worked). Now that it has been around long enough for some of those folks to realize it is not going to die away, we have this fork... The perception of stability was eroded when that news swept through. Whether the perceptions are true or not matters little. The fact remains that those who have the most say in such decisions now have the perception of instability again. It means those of us who want to push for open source are back to square one, and need to fight many battles over again.
Just as I was getting senior staff comfortable with the idea of giving OpenOffice a try on some of our machines, this fork happened and someone brought in news of it. Now it doesn't matter that both can write to the same formats, and that you can have the programs save by default to MS formats. It introduced uncertainty, and many business leaders associate uncertainty with increased costs. Do you blame them? There's no confidence that a selected open source solution will provide a stable, long-term platform.
Now, I'm just happy I've been able to get some of our workstations moved over to FF. The entire open source movement has plenty of benefits, but those benefits are viewed as drawbacks by much of the traditional business community.
Slashdot Mirror
At least with a console, you know that any game you buy for it was written for it--for its processor and graphics engine. That includes when you find and old game for an old console. So long as the console labeling matches the system for which you're buying the game, you have a green light. With PCs, it's a different world.
Yes, even PCs go through various changes and generations, but games are sold for specific minimum system specifications. That means you need to match up numerous items:processor level, RAM, graphics capabilities, DirectX support. It's nowhere near as simple as knowing an XBox game is for XBox or that a GameCube game is still good on a GameCube. Also, console makers often try to make sure their current platform is backwards compatible with games from the prior platform, meaning those n-1 platform games may still be usable on the new console (e.g., GameCube games on the Wii).
That said, many PC games can be played on newer hardware, but it's more of a crap shoot. Windows OS changes can be the biggest roadblock to that type of backwards compatibility. Even with their "compatibility modes" feature, I've found that many older games will not run on later PC platforms.
Console platforms change every few years, while the PC platform is constantly evolving. As such, consoles provide a greater level of stability for the gamer. Yes, newer PCs will have better graphics, engines, and processors, but the same doom-and-gloom about consoles was everywhere before the last major concurrent releases by the big three (Xbox, PS3, Wii). At the time of the release, everyone was noting how the consoles were considerably better than the average PC gaming experience, but shortly before that release, people were talking about how the PC gaming platform had matured. Some even wondered if consoles were the dead man's market.
So, here we are again. The consoles are getting old and everyone is noticing how robust PCs are. If and when the console makers come to market with new units, it is likely that they will again be on the cutting edge, making PC gaming look pale by comparison. While the PC platform is moving ahead at a relatively steady pace, the console makers tend to play leap frog.
The US is a republic. It is not a full democracy, though it does espouse many democratic principles. At best, it is a representative democracy, which history tells us was the intention of the framers.
Most of the founding fathers did not trust pure democracy (i.e., rule by the direct vote of the people), because they knew that public opinion could be fickle. While elected officials were instituted to represent their constituents, they were also considered a check/balance on the ebb and flow of public opinion: elected officials are duty bound to protect the Constitution and the Republic ahead of their duty to enact the will of the people. Where those two duties are in conflict, elected officials should act in a manner that aligns with their first duty.
The electoral college system is another example of how the founders intended a reasoned people to be able to intervene apart from the direct vote. Sadly, the electoral college is now a bastardization of its original intent, with separate groups of partisan electors selected to serve depending on which candidate wins, rather than an independent body that was intended to ratify--or void--the popular vote. There have been times in history when electors have voted for candidates other than those that won the popular vote, and I believe the founders intended that to be part of the game.
Would you rather sell 1,000 copies at $3.00 and make $1,050, or 20,000 copies at $0.99 and make nearly $7,000?
1000 x ($3.00 x 0.35) = $1,050.00
20,000 x ($0.99 x 0.35) = $6,930.00
Even if your increased volume is not 20-fold, you still stand to make a lot more by selling as few as five times more copies:
5,000 x ($0.99 x 0.35) = $1,732.00.
While you might feel better knowing your books will sell at a higher price (it's a nice stroke for the ego), your pocketbook will feel better if you can sell vastly more copies at the lower price.
That, after all, was Sam Walton's original premise: he preferred to sell 10,000 of something and make $0.50 on each over selling only 1,000 of something that made him $3.00 each.
When one of my kids says "affel", I might wonder what he heard from his older brothers. When they get to "You affel!", the meaning becomes clear.
...that the submission should have had a different title:
Hard Disk Sector Defrags ?
First of all, I love your sig... I'm not offering to sell anything to a teen. How a browser could be considered "inappropriate for children" I do not know. I do know that the prohibition is against 17-year-olds downloading a specific browser. That's the only scenario to which I was playing.
I'll set up a kiosk at the mall and offer to hit the "dowload" button or link. As someone over 17, I can download it without violating the agreement, and if every kid pays me a dollar, I'd have slushies for life!
This isn't the government we're talking about. It's Facebook. They are just setting up one more affinity group, albeit one with tighter rules for association that commonly seen in the Facebook environment.
Sperm motility may be another factor. Without gravity, I'm guessing that little journey gets quite a bit more difficult, too.
I've been picking up old SciFi books at my local thrift store and just finished on that dealt with the topic, The Ballad of Beta-2 by Samuel R. Delany. The plot centers around a student who must conduct an anthropological study of the "Star Folk"--the first interstellar travelers from Earth whose vessels were so slow that the rest of the galaxy was settled (by colonists in later, faster ships) before they arrived. They're considered a throw-back society that has received little attention.
Delany did a good job of tackling the kinds of issues that would come up on such long journeys, including procreation. I won't say more. It's an enjoyable read if you can get your hands on a copy.
Ever been to a Curves location? They're workout facilities for women only.
The strange thing is that, during the '70s, women sued to get in to men-only fitness clubs. Now, here we are, 30+ years later, and we have women-only facilities. Surely the pendulum swings both ways.
That statistic may be accurate. Sixty-one percent (61%) might never yell at their computers, but that doesn't mean electronic frustrations don't affect them. They might not yell at their computers, but they just might bite the head off the next person who rubs them the wrong way. I'm not saying that's the case for all people. Some will truly be able to remain calm no matter what, some will blow their tops at a device, and for others, it might just eat away at their sanity day after day after day until they...
In light of the iPhone decision (that allowed "jailbreaking"), I wonder if they really have a leg on which to stand. Or is it that the iPhone decision only pertains to opening it up to additional software choicese (does the PS3 break imply more)?
PRIOR ART???
Why is everyone complaining about not giving "express permission"? When a FB user signs up and accepts the site's terms of service, they do expressly give permission for Facebook to use their phots and likeness as they deem fit. Of course, you can opt out by modifying your privacy settings (I did, to block both their use of my photos and the location check-in feature). Save your rants for cases where companies step on your rights without permission. If you gave them your permission, I have little patience for the whining or pity for the end result.
The right to use your pictures and/or likeness has been part of their terms of service for a very long time (compared to how long the site has been around).
Everyone seems to think that all businesses run their IT operations the same way. Some businesses are either too small (or too cheap) to allow for such overall management of the workstations--they get their office suite via the OEM, the OS the same way (thus, no master image can be used since the license key for each install is tied to vendor OEM builds). When we migrate office suites, it's because the version installed on the new PCs is newer than what we have installed already. So, yes, that means we may have two or three versions of MS Office installed at any one time. No, it's not the ideal--I'd change it in an instant if allowed--but it's the only environment for which senior management is willing to pay.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who can bridge that divide--between understanding a topic from the IT side and understanding it from the business side. That's not saying that what is is what should be. It's simply an acknowledgement of the reality that is present in so many workplaces.
We got a specific CRM tool pushed into production because a friend of the President told him that's what we really needed. It didn't matter that we already had a CRM tool purchased and in place, or that the annual subscription fees for the new SaaS CRM tool would nearly make the company collapse during the downturn. It was his decision, daggummit, and we could either abide by it or try to find jobs elsewhere...
I do bash M$ for not adopting (or fully adopting) open standards (or pushing for their own to replace exisiting ones). The fact remains, however, that Microsoft's Office products are the de facto standards based on what people know and use on a daily basis. Hell, I've had a hard time with the local school system requiring that my kids' assignments be turned in only in *.DOC format versus the near universally-readable *.RTF format. It's all politics!
The only reason why school systems and businesses stick to Microsoft products is because they believe that those formats (*.DOC, *.XLS, and *.PPT) are largely ubiquitous.
Well, until more places (more places that matter) start using (and requiring) other formats, the Microsoft formate will be ubiquitous.
It's about perceptions. It's about brand. What you're saying is that OpenOffice really just changed its name (in terms understood by the casual observer) to LibreOffice. That simple.
It's not that simple.
What would happen if Ford's Mustang group simply announced next week that they were splitting off and forming their own company that will build their own Mustangs: Libre Mustangs (setting aside any copyright/patent arguments for the sake of this illustration). Would anyone trust the new company to produce a real Mustang?
Not without a major ad campaign and huge wads of cash.
Let's face it. The apps may be the same, but the brand is now different. People like me have spent time trying to warm up senior decision makers to open source software, and that often came about by familiarizing them with specific brands, whether they were browsers (e.g., Chrome, FireFox), distros (e.g., Red Hat, Fedora, Ubunto), or productivity suites (e.g., OpenOffice.org). This change simply makes it harder to convice them that any specific open source project is worth adopting (much less, supporting).
You know what I'm talking about, then. There's what would be best for the company's technology infrastructure, and then what some people want. All too often, those people with the wants are close friends with those who can approve, veto, or reverse any decision.
No,at a mid-sized employer, getting that pre-installed OEM schlock is far cheaper than having someone on staff (even part time!) who can handle customizations, programming, and/or training. The cost of such software is amortized along with the cost of the PC, giving the employer a tax deduction. Any employee just means more overhead (e.g., employer's share of taxes, benefits, administrative costs, office space, PC).
As soon as you show them evidence that it has been around a long time, many of them revert back to the old stand by of "This other company is still using Microsoft products". Some will find any excuse the can to maintain the status quo.
Let's face it. Many senior decision makers already have a strong opinion (or even have their minds made up) before anything comes before them for consideration. It is the rare individual who is willing to step out and make a change. Spending hours and hours trying to educate senior management might work on someone on the fence, but it will not work for someone who already has his or her mind made up, for whatever reason.
Sure, recent versions have changed the GUI, but that's not what really mattered to anyone here. They've been sending .DOC, .XLS, and .PPT files for over a decade. Sure, we have .DOCX and the like now, but everything they save is still readable by all customers and vendors without requiring instructions on how to "Open with..." or on how to set up file associations. Soon, all will be .DOCX and the like, too, and unless they start changing things more frequently, it will still look like stability.
Open Office looked like an unsupported third option to senior managemet here (and at other companies where I've worked). Now that it has been around long enough for some of those folks to realize it is not going to die away, we have this fork... The perception of stability was eroded when that news swept through. Whether the perceptions are true or not matters little. The fact remains that those who have the most say in such decisions now have the perception of instability again. It means those of us who want to push for open source are back to square one, and need to fight many battles over again.
Just as I was getting senior staff comfortable with the idea of giving OpenOffice a try on some of our machines, this fork happened and someone brought in news of it. Now it doesn't matter that both can write to the same formats, and that you can have the programs save by default to MS formats. It introduced uncertainty, and many business leaders associate uncertainty with increased costs. Do you blame them? There's no confidence that a selected open source solution will provide a stable, long-term platform.
Now, I'm just happy I've been able to get some of our workstations moved over to FF. The entire open source movement has plenty of benefits, but those benefits are viewed as drawbacks by much of the traditional business community.