I live in North Dakota, the generally really flat place that is boring as hell to drive through as there's no scenery. Trust me when I say that a wind farm really adds a lot to the landscape around here. That and at certain parts of the day they can look downright amazing. Here's an image I found on Google image search to show you what I'm talking about. There are a few other really nice ones at well.
I think that if this were done in EVE he would need a significantly more powerful ship in order to destroy his opposition. The people he targeted were capable of fighting back and the article mentions occasionally people would attempt to group up to stop him, but that he would always manage to defeat anyone who fought back. Either he was playing with some incredibly broken character type that is great for PvP or he only picked on people considerably weaker than himself. Either way he had the ability to essentially do as he pleased within the confines of the game as no one was able to stop him.
I find it difficult to believe that no one could defeat him, even if people would gang up against him, but I have not played the game so I have no idea how easy or difficult this would be to accomplish. Sure everyone hated him, but they couldn't stop him so they'll have to put up with it. A little bit like the real world really.
I don't exactly seeing you providing any evidence to refute the OP's claims or support your own. Your statements are even more worthless and without merit than then OP's.
It's also quite possible that human civilization would have flourished under other weather conditions as well, although stable weather conditions would produce a more stable food supply through farming.
Of course we can look at the dark ages and see that even with good weather there are plenty of ways to damper advances in culture and civilization.
It's entirely possible that even if we were to horribly damage our environment beyond what most people image today that due to the technology that we have today and the advances that we'll make within the next few decades that the average human being will be significantly better off than they would be today.
It certainly doesn't help him, but it does benefit the people who sell him a new oven, new windows, and the new air conditioning. Perhaps their businesses expands and hires new employees to meet the growing demand for new ovens, windows, etc.
Of course this alternative is an economy created solely through legislation and is not guaranteed to be the most effective use of capital. It's also somewhat destructive in that the baker may be throwing out an otherwise perfectly good oven that he would not have replaced for several years.
On the whole I feel that this legislation would be destructive to our economy, but you do have to admit that the people selling that baker a new oven would do quite well for themselves.
Maybe things have changed a little bit now that people are more willing to accept buying add-on peripherals for their console now that Nintendo has made the idea more popular, but I don't think that this will help sell additional consoles for Sony or have any major content released for it.
Microsoft has much the same problem, even though I think that the technology is amazing. Their core audience probably couldn't care less about the device and generally prefer using console controls to play their games. Because it's an add-on, most companies will not target the device because it has no install base and few people will buy one because there are no killer apps for it. Notice the vicious circle here. I'm honestly surprised that the balance board for the Wii has sold even half as much as it has.
If Microsoft really wants to push this technology their next console should include this by default and there should be a stripped down version sold at a mass market price so that people outside of hardcore gamer group will buy the console. Sony really needs to do the same as well if it wants to cash in on the casual gaming crowd. However, what they've done now is too late as the casual gamer boat has already set sail. Of course, it may be another two years before either Microsoft or Sony can release a new console. Microsoft supposedly just started to break even recently and has a lot of losses to eat up whereas Sony might not even be at the break-even point from what I've heard.
Why the hell would Apple leak it when it can just as easily make the front page of Slashdot next week when they show off the new features at WWDC. More than likely this is mostly crap designed to drive up page hits for some goon's blog or third rate website. Apple has no real reason to release this information before they actually want to do so.
Hell, I could easily go grab some crap digital camera and take a picture with it that looks slightly better than a current generation iPhone and then watch as the traffic comes flying in my direction. Add a few other blurry shots of what looks like an iPhone and I've all but ensured the legion of fans and fanatics will turn my web server into pile of ash from all the traffic.
Slashdot probably only decided to link to the story for the same reason everyone else is doing it: It's going to get a large number of people to click on the link and drive up the stats for advertisement purposes.
It would be fairly trivial to get around this restriction. Just sell at $10 version of the Kindle app that gives you $10 store credit towards your first purchase. Of course people might balk at the $10 initial cost, so it may be more effective to sell it for $1, or whatever Apple has set as the minimum cost.
If you're going to be making a considerable amount of micro-transactions, the initial cost is probably worth the added convenience. Of course, Apple could always make exceptions as it may have done in the past.
They're not gaming PCs. The only one that comes close is the PS3 which could run Linux, but since it can't actually access the GPU it's not exactly going to be a gaming behemoth.
I know that consoles are a perfectly legitimate gaming platform, but posting about their cheap cost in article about PC gaming is like posting about the specs of a high end PC in a thread about console gaming.
If you're blowing through venture capital (i.e. not your own money.) the entire time, why not take on as many lawsuits as possible and ride the gravy train for as long as you can continue to do so? Hell, give yourself a nice bonus for being so brave as to challenge such a large and established corporation. After all, if you're successful, think of all the money that you'll be able to pull in with your new (and booming) business that can't be touched*.
I don't know if that's the case, but there are some good examples of where this has happened.
* Or so they would like to think. 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF presents a reasonable argument as to why they were screwed even if they won.
This would work up until someone gets the bright idea of letting their sixteen year old kid play online poker. If the kid wins, the father and son collect the winnings. If the kid loses, then obviously they can't lose because the person playing wasn't an adult. Illegal as hell, but who can really prove things one way or the other?
Here's my own wonderful idea: why not provide a free site where minors can gamble with money that isn't real. Instead they can hone their skills and use their funny money points towards some kind of booby prize. Of course what we don't tell them is that the site is really designed to monitor the amount of time spent playing and their behavior so we can tag the ones that are clearly addicted to gambling and get them the help that they need before they fuck up their own lives or drag anyone else along with them. Compulsive and obsessive gambling is every bit as serious of an illness as alcoholism and this would be a good way to identify the people who are susceptible to this behavior before it causes any real damage.
Of course, one could argue that we're just making our own monsters at that point. But this is precisely the reason why the government is most likely show a certain amount of keenness towards the idea.
I realize that you're being facetious, but you can get rid of the obnoxious flashing ads through a simple browser add-on, wouldn't it be better to get rid of the censorship?
What reason would these alleged criminal enterprises have for coming into the fold if all it brings is additional regulatory red tape and taxation for their business? The fact that they're offshore makes them somewhat difficult for the US to touch and as far as I know there really hasn't been much in the way of legal action brought against these websites.
Even if the gambling ban is repealed, why should these websites submit to some authority when it's clear from their current position that they obviously don't need to do so. Wouldn't it be more profitable to remain some kind of 'criminal enterprise' that the government can't do anything about, given that if they could you'd already be out of business?
Of course you wouldn't see all of the people who lost all of the money with which they could have paid tuition because they're no longer in college and out of site. It's similar to how Congress critters like to talk about taking millions of tax dollars to spend on some pet project which will create jobs or infrastructure. Of course they fail to see the jobs or infrastructure which will not be created due to the collection of those taxes or the fact that they cannot be appropriated towards some other project.
Assuming that in the best case scenario the online casino collects no fees for using their service and takes no percentage of the pot from a tournament, but is solely run through advertising revenue, then the game is zero sum for all of the players as a whole. No one player can win any more than the collective losses of all other players. Sure there are the winners who get to pay off their tuition, loans, etc. but there're also the losers who just lost their rent money, child support payment, etc.
There's no need for horse-drawn carriages either, given that cars are a quicker and more energy efficient means of conveyance, but there are always a few hapless romantics who like to see the world as it once was.
As long as there's a demand for something, no matter how silly it might seem, someone will supply it.
I would say less 'speed bump' and more 'toll booth'. These companies are less interested in protecting anyone, including the artists that they allegedly server, and more interested in extorting as much money out of everyone as they can for as long as possible. Given the extension of copyright laws (and the likely extension they'll see again.) over the years it's as though they've started erecting the toll booths on public roads as well.
My own personal belief is that a person should be free to say whatever they wish, but be perfectly willing to accept the consequences of that action. Go ahead and shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre and get in trouble for inciting a panic and possibly causing injury to some people. Go ahead and say what you want about a person, but if you slander them expect to be brought to trial for it.
Even if you say something that doesn't necessarily get you in trouble with the law, society as a whole can still shun you for being a dick. I think a person should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want to do so. Just expect to deal with any legal ramifications for causing damage to other people or being ostracized by your community.
If you try to keep people from speaking freely they'll just take it underground and let it bottle up. If they're saying it in public at least everyone can tell them that they're wrong or protest their message. They might say hurtful or untrue things, but it's better that they can be heard and refuted rather than whisper it behind closed doors where no one will be able to denounce their words.
If you're unsure of how to make a copy for yourself if you'd like to do such a thing, visit this site which explains how to download Youtube videos.
It's actually a little piece of javascript that you throw on your bookmark bar and click whenever you're on a Youtube video page and you want to download that video. It's damned handy.
Re:I'm not seeing the benefit for them to purchase
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 1
That would probably work if Apple had something like 50% of the market share. Otherwise you're just blowing tens of millions on a AAA game title that will only be able to move a few hundred thousand units because you simply don't have enough machines on which to run the games.
Apple can get a larger number of games for their system by just increasing their market share. They can't necessarily guarantee a significant increase in market share just from buying a gaming company. If they tried to make everything Mac exclusive it's likely that they'd end up with a bankrupt gaming company and not much market share to show for it.
Re:What do you get combining Apple + gaming compan
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't know if it's true any longer, but I recall that Apple had some obscene amount of cash on hand that they could use to buy out a lot of decently large companies.
In fact, This recent news article states that they have around $29 billion just sitting around. It's no wonder everyone predicts they're going to buy company X.
The only real question is whether or not they'll be able to find a company that would be a good fit for them. Twitter and EA don't really offer Apple anything that fits with their current business strategy. They want to sell expensive high-end Mac computers and iPhones. The iPod has saturated the market to the extent that they really don't need any acquisitions in that area.
It would make more sense for them to throw a lot of money at Autodesk so that they would release a version of AutoCAD for the Macintosh. Think of how many high end workstations they'd sell to engineers and architects and other CAD users who could be convinced to try the Apple experience.
You could argue that gamers are a high end market, and to some extent that's true, but they're the type of people who like to constantly upgrade a box to stay on the bleeding edge. Apple likes to sell you new boxes, but doesn't really like you to upgrade them incrementally with parts from Newegg from which they won't see a dime.
If Apple topped out at 20% market share, but it was the professional market that purchased their top of the line, high profit margin machines, why should they care if they'll never crawl above that. Let the other PC markers enjoy their race to the bottom price wars to fight over the remaining 80%.
Re:What do you get combining Apple + gaming compan
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
So exactly what have you done?
I see a post on Slashdot full of claims but no links to anything of actual substance. You almost sound like Steve Balmer claiming he's going to DESTROY GOOGLE. The fire and brimstone is there, for sure, but that's about it.
If you really want us to go along with your plan at least link to a website detailing what exactly it is you're doing. Your post is so vague that I'm not exactly sure what this 'stuff' I'm supposed to be doing entails. As far as I know, this wonderful Slashdot post is that first move you mentioned. I think you need a more defined cause before you try to rally people to it.
I'm not seeing the benefit for them to purchase EA
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It might be worth their while to buy a small stake in the company just to ensure that the blockbuster games get ported to Mac, but it wouldn't make much sense for them to buy the entire company. Although the gaming industry is getting bigger, I think it might be more beneficial for them to target the living room through something like their Apple TV. Otherwise they would need to release their own gaming console and even though they've got the money to burn, it's probably cost Microsoft some $8 billion just to get the point they're at now where they can start trying to make some of that back.
It would probably make more sense for them to negotiate some deals where content providers would allow Apple to rent TV shows to iTunes customers for a fraction of what they charge for a purchase and get Apple TVs into as many homes as possible. If they could work some kind of worldwide distribution as well they could easily target the huge market that Hulu leaves out due to regional restrictions.
Everyone seems to be spouting rumors about who Apple is going to acquire. I think someone saw how much coverage the Apple/Twitter buyout rumor got and decided that it'd be fun to garner a few additional hits to their blog or second rate news site. I think I'm going to go spin a rumor about Apple acquiring Adobe and pull in some ad revenue when other sites pick up the story and link to me. Of course, unlike all the other stories, this one is true. I have it on good authority from someone inside Apple and there's no reason I'd ever lie about that.
What is the root of the problem? I know it's not video games, music, or any other activity or media that they could honestly care to ban. As far as I can tell it's just that a certain small portion of the population aren't mentally stable and would actually bring a gun to a school, church, etc. and start unloading on people.
There's no real way to prevent it from happening short of a big brother government with the observational powers mentioned in 1984. Short of that, we just aren't able to tell who's just a little strange and who's going to blast his classmates. People will always like to say that they thought little Billy was a little off, but they've probably thought that about hundreds of other people who didn't go postal.
I'm sure we can identify some risk factors, but there's no way we can possible identify some root cause until we have a much better understanding of the human brain. There're plenty of mentally unbalanced people who don't go around shooting up the neighborhood. Until they actually do go over the edge, are we supposed to lock them up based on the assumption that they'll do something horrible? If that's the case we might as well lock up every woman based on the assumption that she's more than capable of engaging in acts of prostitution and selling her body.
As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap. Neither of these are particularly easy solutions (or even good) in my opinion. Perhaps someone else has a better solution of eliminating some root cause that I'm just not seeing or solving the problem in some way that's not a complete pain in the ass.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in North Dakota, the generally really flat place that is boring as hell to drive through as there's no scenery. Trust me when I say that a wind farm really adds a lot to the landscape around here. That and at certain parts of the day they can look downright amazing. Here's an image I found on Google image search to show you what I'm talking about. There are a few other really nice ones at well.
I think that if this were done in EVE he would need a significantly more powerful ship in order to destroy his opposition. The people he targeted were capable of fighting back and the article mentions occasionally people would attempt to group up to stop him, but that he would always manage to defeat anyone who fought back. Either he was playing with some incredibly broken character type that is great for PvP or he only picked on people considerably weaker than himself. Either way he had the ability to essentially do as he pleased within the confines of the game as no one was able to stop him.
I find it difficult to believe that no one could defeat him, even if people would gang up against him, but I have not played the game so I have no idea how easy or difficult this would be to accomplish. Sure everyone hated him, but they couldn't stop him so they'll have to put up with it. A little bit like the real world really.
I think that they're just compensating for something.
I don't exactly seeing you providing any evidence to refute the OP's claims or support your own. Your statements are even more worthless and without merit than then OP's.
In your own words, "fail!"
It's also quite possible that human civilization would have flourished under other weather conditions as well, although stable weather conditions would produce a more stable food supply through farming. Of course we can look at the dark ages and see that even with good weather there are plenty of ways to damper advances in culture and civilization.
It's entirely possible that even if we were to horribly damage our environment beyond what most people image today that due to the technology that we have today and the advances that we'll make within the next few decades that the average human being will be significantly better off than they would be today.
It certainly doesn't help him, but it does benefit the people who sell him a new oven, new windows, and the new air conditioning. Perhaps their businesses expands and hires new employees to meet the growing demand for new ovens, windows, etc.
Of course this alternative is an economy created solely through legislation and is not guaranteed to be the most effective use of capital. It's also somewhat destructive in that the baker may be throwing out an otherwise perfectly good oven that he would not have replaced for several years.
On the whole I feel that this legislation would be destructive to our economy, but you do have to admit that the people selling that baker a new oven would do quite well for themselves.
Maybe things have changed a little bit now that people are more willing to accept buying add-on peripherals for their console now that Nintendo has made the idea more popular, but I don't think that this will help sell additional consoles for Sony or have any major content released for it.
Microsoft has much the same problem, even though I think that the technology is amazing. Their core audience probably couldn't care less about the device and generally prefer using console controls to play their games. Because it's an add-on, most companies will not target the device because it has no install base and few people will buy one because there are no killer apps for it. Notice the vicious circle here. I'm honestly surprised that the balance board for the Wii has sold even half as much as it has.
If Microsoft really wants to push this technology their next console should include this by default and there should be a stripped down version sold at a mass market price so that people outside of hardcore gamer group will buy the console. Sony really needs to do the same as well if it wants to cash in on the casual gaming crowd. However, what they've done now is too late as the casual gamer boat has already set sail. Of course, it may be another two years before either Microsoft or Sony can release a new console. Microsoft supposedly just started to break even recently and has a lot of losses to eat up whereas Sony might not even be at the break-even point from what I've heard.
Why the hell would Apple leak it when it can just as easily make the front page of Slashdot next week when they show off the new features at WWDC. More than likely this is mostly crap designed to drive up page hits for some goon's blog or third rate website. Apple has no real reason to release this information before they actually want to do so.
Hell, I could easily go grab some crap digital camera and take a picture with it that looks slightly better than a current generation iPhone and then watch as the traffic comes flying in my direction. Add a few other blurry shots of what looks like an iPhone and I've all but ensured the legion of fans and fanatics will turn my web server into pile of ash from all the traffic.
Slashdot probably only decided to link to the story for the same reason everyone else is doing it: It's going to get a large number of people to click on the link and drive up the stats for advertisement purposes.
It would be fairly trivial to get around this restriction. Just sell at $10 version of the Kindle app that gives you $10 store credit towards your first purchase. Of course people might balk at the $10 initial cost, so it may be more effective to sell it for $1, or whatever Apple has set as the minimum cost.
If you're going to be making a considerable amount of micro-transactions, the initial cost is probably worth the added convenience. Of course, Apple could always make exceptions as it may have done in the past.
What's so special about it? It looks just like a regular perl program to me. /ducks
They're not gaming PCs. The only one that comes close is the PS3 which could run Linux, but since it can't actually access the GPU it's not exactly going to be a gaming behemoth.
I know that consoles are a perfectly legitimate gaming platform, but posting about their cheap cost in article about PC gaming is like posting about the specs of a high end PC in a thread about console gaming.
If you're blowing through venture capital (i.e. not your own money.) the entire time, why not take on as many lawsuits as possible and ride the gravy train for as long as you can continue to do so? Hell, give yourself a nice bonus for being so brave as to challenge such a large and established corporation. After all, if you're successful, think of all the money that you'll be able to pull in with your new (and booming) business that can't be touched*.
I don't know if that's the case, but there are some good examples of where this has happened.
* Or so they would like to think. 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF presents a reasonable argument as to why they were screwed even if they won.
This would work up until someone gets the bright idea of letting their sixteen year old kid play online poker. If the kid wins, the father and son collect the winnings. If the kid loses, then obviously they can't lose because the person playing wasn't an adult. Illegal as hell, but who can really prove things one way or the other?
Here's my own wonderful idea: why not provide a free site where minors can gamble with money that isn't real. Instead they can hone their skills and use their funny money points towards some kind of booby prize. Of course what we don't tell them is that the site is really designed to monitor the amount of time spent playing and their behavior so we can tag the ones that are clearly addicted to gambling and get them the help that they need before they fuck up their own lives or drag anyone else along with them. Compulsive and obsessive gambling is every bit as serious of an illness as alcoholism and this would be a good way to identify the people who are susceptible to this behavior before it causes any real damage.
Of course, one could argue that we're just making our own monsters at that point. But this is precisely the reason why the government is most likely show a certain amount of keenness towards the idea.
I realize that you're being facetious, but you can get rid of the obnoxious flashing ads through a simple browser add-on, wouldn't it be better to get rid of the censorship?
What reason would these alleged criminal enterprises have for coming into the fold if all it brings is additional regulatory red tape and taxation for their business? The fact that they're offshore makes them somewhat difficult for the US to touch and as far as I know there really hasn't been much in the way of legal action brought against these websites.
Even if the gambling ban is repealed, why should these websites submit to some authority when it's clear from their current position that they obviously don't need to do so. Wouldn't it be more profitable to remain some kind of 'criminal enterprise' that the government can't do anything about, given that if they could you'd already be out of business?
Of course you wouldn't see all of the people who lost all of the money with which they could have paid tuition because they're no longer in college and out of site. It's similar to how Congress critters like to talk about taking millions of tax dollars to spend on some pet project which will create jobs or infrastructure. Of course they fail to see the jobs or infrastructure which will not be created due to the collection of those taxes or the fact that they cannot be appropriated towards some other project.
Assuming that in the best case scenario the online casino collects no fees for using their service and takes no percentage of the pot from a tournament, but is solely run through advertising revenue, then the game is zero sum for all of the players as a whole. No one player can win any more than the collective losses of all other players. Sure there are the winners who get to pay off their tuition, loans, etc. but there're also the losers who just lost their rent money, child support payment, etc.
There's no need for horse-drawn carriages either, given that cars are a quicker and more energy efficient means of conveyance, but there are always a few hapless romantics who like to see the world as it once was.
As long as there's a demand for something, no matter how silly it might seem, someone will supply it.
I would say less 'speed bump' and more 'toll booth'. These companies are less interested in protecting anyone, including the artists that they allegedly server, and more interested in extorting as much money out of everyone as they can for as long as possible. Given the extension of copyright laws (and the likely extension they'll see again.) over the years it's as though they've started erecting the toll booths on public roads as well.
My own personal belief is that a person should be free to say whatever they wish, but be perfectly willing to accept the consequences of that action. Go ahead and shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre and get in trouble for inciting a panic and possibly causing injury to some people. Go ahead and say what you want about a person, but if you slander them expect to be brought to trial for it.
Even if you say something that doesn't necessarily get you in trouble with the law, society as a whole can still shun you for being a dick. I think a person should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want to do so. Just expect to deal with any legal ramifications for causing damage to other people or being ostracized by your community.
If you try to keep people from speaking freely they'll just take it underground and let it bottle up. If they're saying it in public at least everyone can tell them that they're wrong or protest their message. They might say hurtful or untrue things, but it's better that they can be heard and refuted rather than whisper it behind closed doors where no one will be able to denounce their words.
If you're unsure of how to make a copy for yourself if you'd like to do such a thing, visit this site which explains how to download Youtube videos.
It's actually a little piece of javascript that you throw on your bookmark bar and click whenever you're on a Youtube video page and you want to download that video. It's damned handy.
That would probably work if Apple had something like 50% of the market share. Otherwise you're just blowing tens of millions on a AAA game title that will only be able to move a few hundred thousand units because you simply don't have enough machines on which to run the games.
Apple can get a larger number of games for their system by just increasing their market share. They can't necessarily guarantee a significant increase in market share just from buying a gaming company. If they tried to make everything Mac exclusive it's likely that they'd end up with a bankrupt gaming company and not much market share to show for it.
I don't know if it's true any longer, but I recall that Apple had some obscene amount of cash on hand that they could use to buy out a lot of decently large companies.
In fact, This recent news article states that they have around $29 billion just sitting around. It's no wonder everyone predicts they're going to buy company X.
The only real question is whether or not they'll be able to find a company that would be a good fit for them. Twitter and EA don't really offer Apple anything that fits with their current business strategy. They want to sell expensive high-end Mac computers and iPhones. The iPod has saturated the market to the extent that they really don't need any acquisitions in that area.
It would make more sense for them to throw a lot of money at Autodesk so that they would release a version of AutoCAD for the Macintosh. Think of how many high end workstations they'd sell to engineers and architects and other CAD users who could be convinced to try the Apple experience.
You could argue that gamers are a high end market, and to some extent that's true, but they're the type of people who like to constantly upgrade a box to stay on the bleeding edge. Apple likes to sell you new boxes, but doesn't really like you to upgrade them incrementally with parts from Newegg from which they won't see a dime.
If Apple topped out at 20% market share, but it was the professional market that purchased their top of the line, high profit margin machines, why should they care if they'll never crawl above that. Let the other PC markers enjoy their race to the bottom price wars to fight over the remaining 80%.
So exactly what have you done?
I see a post on Slashdot full of claims but no links to anything of actual substance. You almost sound like Steve Balmer claiming he's going to DESTROY GOOGLE. The fire and brimstone is there, for sure, but that's about it.
If you really want us to go along with your plan at least link to a website detailing what exactly it is you're doing. Your post is so vague that I'm not exactly sure what this 'stuff' I'm supposed to be doing entails. As far as I know, this wonderful Slashdot post is that first move you mentioned. I think you need a more defined cause before you try to rally people to it.
It might be worth their while to buy a small stake in the company just to ensure that the blockbuster games get ported to Mac, but it wouldn't make much sense for them to buy the entire company. Although the gaming industry is getting bigger, I think it might be more beneficial for them to target the living room through something like their Apple TV. Otherwise they would need to release their own gaming console and even though they've got the money to burn, it's probably cost Microsoft some $8 billion just to get the point they're at now where they can start trying to make some of that back.
It would probably make more sense for them to negotiate some deals where content providers would allow Apple to rent TV shows to iTunes customers for a fraction of what they charge for a purchase and get Apple TVs into as many homes as possible. If they could work some kind of worldwide distribution as well they could easily target the huge market that Hulu leaves out due to regional restrictions.
Everyone seems to be spouting rumors about who Apple is going to acquire. I think someone saw how much coverage the Apple/Twitter buyout rumor got and decided that it'd be fun to garner a few additional hits to their blog or second rate news site. I think I'm going to go spin a rumor about Apple acquiring Adobe and pull in some ad revenue when other sites pick up the story and link to me. Of course, unlike all the other stories, this one is true. I have it on good authority from someone inside Apple and there's no reason I'd ever lie about that.
What is the root of the problem? I know it's not video games, music, or any other activity or media that they could honestly care to ban. As far as I can tell it's just that a certain small portion of the population aren't mentally stable and would actually bring a gun to a school, church, etc. and start unloading on people.
There's no real way to prevent it from happening short of a big brother government with the observational powers mentioned in 1984. Short of that, we just aren't able to tell who's just a little strange and who's going to blast his classmates. People will always like to say that they thought little Billy was a little off, but they've probably thought that about hundreds of other people who didn't go postal.
I'm sure we can identify some risk factors, but there's no way we can possible identify some root cause until we have a much better understanding of the human brain. There're plenty of mentally unbalanced people who don't go around shooting up the neighborhood. Until they actually do go over the edge, are we supposed to lock them up based on the assumption that they'll do something horrible? If that's the case we might as well lock up every woman based on the assumption that she's more than capable of engaging in acts of prostitution and selling her body.
As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap. Neither of these are particularly easy solutions (or even good) in my opinion. Perhaps someone else has a better solution of eliminating some root cause that I'm just not seeing or solving the problem in some way that's not a complete pain in the ass.