The way of the web, most media, will eventually decrease advertising as people are able to pick and choose what they want instead of being forced into packages.
I'm not so sure of that -- it's just more efficient (and therefore cheaper) to force customers into packages, even when trying to please as many as possible. Plus, you get additional revenue from forcing people to buy an expensive package just to get the small subset of content that they really want. This has held true for cable (even with competition from satellite), and I'm sure it will continue to hold true for internet media.
I fail to see what competitive advantage Vista will give businesses who upgrade to it immediatly
Any business that depends upon it customers having Vista. Like, say, media companies who want to take advantage of the DRM in Vista. Or, say, software developers who develop for Vista, who will be behind in taking advantage of the new market. Or, say, developers who make a living writing enhancements/extensions for other software.
Ah, crap. Missed the AC troll in between your post and my OP. Terribly sorry about that, now your post makes a lot more sense -- please ignore my previous response.
J
I wasn't trolling at all. I was just commenting on the absurdity of the logic used by MS to persuade the EU courts that any delay in release (due to compliance with anti-monopoly laws) will harm the EU economically. This is especially absurd because the only reason it could harm the EU economically is because of MS's monopoly status. Let's examine this in a little more detail:
Assumption 1 (FTA/S): Having to wait for Vista will harm EU businesses. This may be true for businesses that develop for Vista, since their market will be delayed even further. This may also be true for businesses that depend on newly implemented technology to be included in Vista (like the DRM).
Assumption 2 (mine): If there were real competition to MS, EU businesses would not be dependent on Vista for new tech deployment for them to take advantage of. For example, a competitive media player could also have the requisite DRM necessary to the media companies desire for profits based on restricting media access.
Assumption 3 (the EU courts): MS has abused its monopoly status to maintain that status and to limit competition in products other than OS.
It seems clear to me is that what MS is arguing is that since they have a monopoly, hurting them hurts the consumer of their product. It's my contention (and I'm not the only one) that this is a perfect example to show that monopolies are bad -- lack of an alternative means that some businesses will lose out should there be any interruption of supply by the monopoly. There are other reasons why monopolies are bad, IMO, but MS is using a downside of monopoly existence to justify not having to comply with measures intended to prevent abuse of a monopoly.
Your explanation of how they are violating the anti-monopoly laws is useful, but has nothing at all to do with my point. Are you just hopping onto an early post since those threads get more attention (regrettably)?
The disadvantage is to those companies developing for Vista, because the market for their products will be delayed; I don't think the letter-writers meant that all USERS of XP/Vista will be harmed.
"Delaying the introduction in Europe, [members of the European Parliament] said in a letter made public by Microsoft on Thursday, 'would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies.'"
Nice business ya got there... would be a shame if anything 'happened' to it...
Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?
that's what cynicism is: acceptance of what should not be acceptable. so don't get cynical and negative. that's common and lazy and useless.
While most of your post is spot on, I have to disagree with this statement. Cynicism doesn't imply a lazy tolerance of what is bad. Cynicism is the belief that people are motivated by selfish reasons, coupled with a willingness to observe this in life. Historically, cynics are resonsible for pointing out the truth, even when it is negative (see Diogenes).
Apathy is acceptance of what should not be acceptable. It's possible to be an apathetic cynic; is also possible to be a passionate cynic who takes action to right the wrongs seen.
As a cynic, my personal problem is that the amount of wrongs I see are overwhelming, and it's hard to maintain an active philosophy of striving against wrong when it's everywhere you look, and so much of it is beyond the ability of one person (or even thousands of people) to change.
I enjoy reading Schneier, just wish we could get the facts straight up. But, no one makes a name for themselves by reporting facts alone, so I guess we have to take what we can get.
I know it seems like semantics, but Schneier's piece is not an article. It's an editorial, an opinion piece -- even if it is based on some real event(s). We really should differentiate between the two, as I do prefer 'news for nerds', not 'opinions for nerds'. I've already got opinions o'plenty, and the comment section is where I like to see others' opinions.:)
If there was an actual plotline (in terms of exposition, hook, rising action, climax,falling action, and resolution) then one would be able to "Beat Wow" and Blizzard would lose the fortune they're making in monthly fees,and that wouldn't happen.
Story != literary plotline. MMOs like WoW are not short stories, they are not even novels. I think you need to redefine your assumption of what 'story' is in the context of MMOs.
I'd contend that a 'story' in an MMO consists of related events occurring outside the actions of the player, that in turn affect the play experience. It's nothing more than an excuse for changing the setting, which gives players something new. When done well, the players are intrigued by the story, enough so that they don't notice that it's a pretext for introducing new/different content. The point is to keep things fresh enough that people don't cancel their subscriptions.
The whole point of districted elections is to prevent a tyranny of the simple majority. Fudging districts to fix elections wrt the popular vote allows for that possibility.
The whole point of a representative Republic is to have elected representatives that reflect the views of the people who elected them.
Exactly, but WHO elected them is the problem. The reps shouldn't represent the population as a whole; they should reflect the population of their constituency. The Distric 25 gerrymander was struck down by SCOTUS for good reason, and it's indicative of the blatant use of redistricting for partisan cause.
Again, I'm not saying the Dems were any better when in power... but gerrymandering as a whole has got to stop. Let an independent commission do the redistricting -- several states have such systems in place (Oregon, I believe, plus one or two others).
FTA, in re: HIPAA and the more stringent privacy regulations it provides:
These laws affect fewer than a quarter of U.S. companies, and as a result, their reach has been limited. Ironically, the European Union's privacy regulations have probably had a much more significant influence on the data-protection policies of a much wider group of U.S. companies.
I faily to see the irony. Health care related businesses are a smaller subset of the economy than the subset of those who deal with European companies and clients. Is it ironic because Americans like to think that our government does a better job of protecting our rights? Or is it ironic because European regulations are more effective at making US companies responsible for how they handle their data than US regulations are?
It's not ironic, it's just yet another sign of a more global economy. The whole shrinking world analogy is becoming more and more apt, and it's refreshing to me to see that companies are responding to the regulations of other nations in order to avoid losing that market segment.
This does, of course, work both ways -- people are still upset with $TECHCOMPANY's compliance with the Great Firewall of China. But it's heartening that governments in Europe may provide the impetus for American companies to do things that benefit me, an American consumer -- since US legislators are not as likely to do anything that pisses off their corporate sponsors.
You mistakenly think that representation in the Texas legislature should be proportional to the views of the population as a whole. This is a really common fallacy, and not in line with how districted legislatures should work in theory. Not saying that the way it had been was perfect, but why even bother with districted elections if the districts are fudged to represent the voter breakdown across the whole state?
I don't know the solution to the problem of gerrymandering, since baseline districts have long ceased to exist. But it's a simple fact that districted elections do not, and IMO should not, always reflect the popular vote across all districts.
You can pretty much bet that any argument that begins with "Just because the Supreme Court ruled..." is going to be hollow and brain-dead.
Well, AC, I must have missed the decree that the SCOTUS and the Constitution are infallible. Because neither has ever been wrong before, right?
The problem now is that in order for the SCOTUS to rule differently, the laws must be changed, and that will never happen when doing so is harmful to the people in power.
It's an abuse of the election process to redistrict in order to increase a party's representation in legislature. It's disenfranchisement of some of the people.
The SCOTUS is not infallible, and is bound by a fallible document.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but please remember that the memory of the public is very short-spanned. You think anyone now cares about the old Democratic Machine in Chi-town or Tammany Hall in NY? Or the Ohio bosses?
Daley is more current, but the scope is a lot different than the attempts to rig a recent national election.
Republicans or Democrats, the party in power will always have players with few scruples that try to rig the election process. The answer? Always vote against the incumbent, no matter what their party affiliation. You'll be better off.
Agreed. Except for the 'better off' part. The only solution is to dissolve the two-party system and either institute parliamentary government or true multi-party elections. As I said in an earlier post (in slightly different words):
The corporatocracy has us by the balls, and the two-party system leaves us choosing only which teste we cling to.
because nobody has demonstrated anything about the election process being "messed" with by the Republican party.
Bullshit. The gerrymandering by the Republican party has been well-documented; just because the Supreme Court ruled that mid-decade redistricting in Texas was not unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't gerrymandering.
So, no, I did not mean 'allegedly.' I meant 'demonstrably.' There sure have been many idiots who deny it, though.
Well, in any bureaucratic organization where access to power can be used to ensure future access to power, you'll have this situation... it's human nature. As you say, neither side is innocent. A main problem is that there are only two sides, the election structure we currently have forces us to choose between the lesser of two evils -- there is no opportunity for wholesale regime change.
The corporatocracy has us by the balls, and the elction system has been fixed to ensure we can only choose which teste to cling to.
No, anything put out on the curb or in a public-accessible dumpster is free for the taking. If the dumpster is protected, or the trash cans are not on the curb, then their contents are considered private.
Depends on where you live. Here in Somerset County NJ, my garbage and recycling become the property of the municipality when I put them on the curb. It's illegal to tamper with them in any way by anyone other than the designated agent of the township. This may have stemmed from people stealing recyclables (there's profit to be had there), but it applies to anything discarded.
I'm not sure if this covers things put out at times other than recycling/garbage day. I know I'll get a ticket if I put things out a day early (like when I last took a vacation) -- so I'm guessing that the municipal possession only applies to waste put out with the authority of the town (like recycling/garbage day, or when I call to schedule a bulk pickup).
This is in NJ (who knew our garbage rules would be so strict?). IANAL, YMMV, NIMBY, etc.
I think you're still missing the point, or maybe I'm missing what you're saying. My point is that WoW created a market for MMOs in the US, which led to their success. Since the field is now competitive, no one will be able to match that market share unless they cause the same kind of growth in the MMO market, which can't happen (due to theoretical maximum of the number of consumers in the market -- population, computer/internet access). The only way the market will grow at any kind of rate similar to what was experienced under WoW will be if it retracts first.
The national "mainstream" (center-left) media will do their obligatory piece on it and let it die.
Still buying that piece of horse-crap? The news media is center-right. Yes, even ABC, NBC, etc.
Also, you need to rethink your definitions of left and right. Do you mean just regarding social issues? Or also fiscal issues? Because honestly, your post made almost no sense without a definition of terms.
/., on the whole, leans moderately left.
If that were so, we wouldn't see so many posts like yours getting modded up. It's a guaranteed upmod -- just spout some nonsense about some tangentially liberal/conservative dichotomous issue, and then say slashdot leans left.
Newsflash: the center has moved to the right, largely due to the media and the greater birth rate among conservatives. What you consider left-of-center used to be the center.
Stay inside your cubicles and be forwarned, the government hating trolls are at it again, and again, and again... and I'm certian there's more to come.
Well, good for you, Mr. Cubicle Farm Prairie-doggin' Dissent Hater.
There are a multitude of reasons why individuals are unhappy with the job their government does. The samples you link to include someone who is unhappy with unnecessary spending, smoeone who was unhappy with the sluggish response to 9/11, and someone who is skeptical of the utility (and the motive for creation) of the DHS.
All these are valid subjects for disagreement, and while the delivery of some of the points could have been a little better, political dissent is vital to the survival of democracy.
So before you dismiss them all as 'government haters', maybe you should actually think about the points they are bringing up. Witnessing what the US government has become has made me more than a little cynical, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Maybe if so many people weren't blindly accepting of what they are spoon-fed, we'd have a more responsible government.
Oh, and just to clarify -- I'm way to the left in comparison with the slashdot median, I'm fairly socialist. I'll agree that the libertarians (big-L and small-l) here on slashdot can be pretty vocal, and that it gets tiresome (to me). But discussion of the issues they present is always better than dismissing them out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a marketer's wet dream!
Ah, crap. Missed the AC troll in between your post and my OP. Terribly sorry about that, now your post makes a lot more sense -- please ignore my previous response. J
I wasn't trolling at all. I was just commenting on the absurdity of the logic used by MS to persuade the EU courts that any delay in release (due to compliance with anti-monopoly laws) will harm the EU economically. This is especially absurd because the only reason it could harm the EU economically is because of MS's monopoly status. Let's examine this in a little more detail:
Assumption 1 (FTA/S): Having to wait for Vista will harm EU businesses. This may be true for businesses that develop for Vista, since their market will be delayed even further. This may also be true for businesses that depend on newly implemented technology to be included in Vista (like the DRM).
Assumption 2 (mine): If there were real competition to MS, EU businesses would not be dependent on Vista for new tech deployment for them to take advantage of. For example, a competitive media player could also have the requisite DRM necessary to the media companies desire for profits based on restricting media access.
Assumption 3 (the EU courts): MS has abused its monopoly status to maintain that status and to limit competition in products other than OS.
It seems clear to me is that what MS is arguing is that since they have a monopoly, hurting them hurts the consumer of their product. It's my contention (and I'm not the only one) that this is a perfect example to show that monopolies are bad -- lack of an alternative means that some businesses will lose out should there be any interruption of supply by the monopoly. There are other reasons why monopolies are bad, IMO, but MS is using a downside of monopoly existence to justify not having to comply with measures intended to prevent abuse of a monopoly.
Your explanation of how they are violating the anti-monopoly laws is useful, but has nothing at all to do with my point. Are you just hopping onto an early post since those threads get more attention (regrettably)?
The disadvantage is to those companies developing for Vista, because the market for their products will be delayed; I don't think the letter-writers meant that all USERS of XP/Vista will be harmed.
Nice business ya got there... would be a shame if anything 'happened' to it...
Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?
Apathy is acceptance of what should not be acceptable. It's possible to be an apathetic cynic; is also possible to be a passionate cynic who takes action to right the wrongs seen.
As a cynic, my personal problem is that the amount of wrongs I see are overwhelming, and it's hard to maintain an active philosophy of striving against wrong when it's everywhere you look, and so much of it is beyond the ability of one person (or even thousands of people) to change.
No. But for some reason my panties are all in a bunch today.
Could be the audiot I'm going through...
I enjoy reading Schneier, just wish we could get the facts straight up. But, no one makes a name for themselves by reporting facts alone, so I guess we have to take what we can get.
I know it seems like semantics, but Schneier's piece is not an article. It's an editorial, an opinion piece -- even if it is based on some real event(s). We really should differentiate between the two, as I do prefer 'news for nerds', not 'opinions for nerds'. I've already got opinions o'plenty, and the comment section is where I like to see others' opinions. :)
Story != literary plotline. MMOs like WoW are not short stories, they are not even novels. I think you need to redefine your assumption of what 'story' is in the context of MMOs.
I'd contend that a 'story' in an MMO consists of related events occurring outside the actions of the player, that in turn affect the play experience. It's nothing more than an excuse for changing the setting, which gives players something new. When done well, the players are intrigued by the story, enough so that they don't notice that it's a pretext for introducing new/different content. The point is to keep things fresh enough that people don't cancel their subscriptions.
This didn't work in Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards. Please explain.
Exactly, but WHO elected them is the problem. The reps shouldn't represent the population as a whole; they should reflect the population of their constituency. The Distric 25 gerrymander was struck down by SCOTUS for good reason, and it's indicative of the blatant use of redistricting for partisan cause.
Again, I'm not saying the Dems were any better when in power... but gerrymandering as a whole has got to stop. Let an independent commission do the redistricting -- several states have such systems in place (Oregon, I believe, plus one or two others).
I faily to see the irony. Health care related businesses are a smaller subset of the economy than the subset of those who deal with European companies and clients. Is it ironic because Americans like to think that our government does a better job of protecting our rights? Or is it ironic because European regulations are more effective at making US companies responsible for how they handle their data than US regulations are?
It's not ironic, it's just yet another sign of a more global economy. The whole shrinking world analogy is becoming more and more apt, and it's refreshing to me to see that companies are responding to the regulations of other nations in order to avoid losing that market segment.
This does, of course, work both ways -- people are still upset with $TECHCOMPANY's compliance with the Great Firewall of China. But it's heartening that governments in Europe may provide the impetus for American companies to do things that benefit me, an American consumer -- since US legislators are not as likely to do anything that pisses off their corporate sponsors.
You mistakenly think that representation in the Texas legislature should be proportional to the views of the population as a whole. This is a really common fallacy, and not in line with how districted legislatures should work in theory. Not saying that the way it had been was perfect, but why even bother with districted elections if the districts are fudged to represent the voter breakdown across the whole state?
I don't know the solution to the problem of gerrymandering, since baseline districts have long ceased to exist. But it's a simple fact that districted elections do not, and IMO should not, always reflect the popular vote across all districts.
Well, AC, I must have missed the decree that the SCOTUS and the Constitution are infallible. Because neither has ever been wrong before, right?
The problem now is that in order for the SCOTUS to rule differently, the laws must be changed, and that will never happen when doing so is harmful to the people in power.
It's an abuse of the election process to redistrict in order to increase a party's representation in legislature. It's disenfranchisement of some of the people.
The SCOTUS is not infallible, and is bound by a fallible document.
Daley is more current, but the scope is a lot different than the attempts to rig a recent national election.
Agreed. Except for the 'better off' part. The only solution is to dissolve the two-party system and either institute parliamentary government or true multi-party elections. As I said in an earlier post (in slightly different words):
The corporatocracy has us by the balls, and the two-party system leaves us choosing only which teste we cling to.
So, no, I did not mean 'allegedly.' I meant 'demonstrably.' There sure have been many idiots who deny it, though.
Well, in any bureaucratic organization where access to power can be used to ensure future access to power, you'll have this situation... it's human nature. As you say, neither side is innocent. A main problem is that there are only two sides, the election structure we currently have forces us to choose between the lesser of two evils -- there is no opportunity for wholesale regime change.
The corporatocracy has us by the balls, and the elction system has been fixed to ensure we can only choose which teste to cling to.
I'm not sure if this covers things put out at times other than recycling/garbage day. I know I'll get a ticket if I put things out a day early (like when I last took a vacation) -- so I'm guessing that the municipal possession only applies to waste put out with the authority of the town (like recycling/garbage day, or when I call to schedule a bulk pickup).
This is in NJ (who knew our garbage rules would be so strict?). IANAL, YMMV, NIMBY, etc.
I think you're still missing the point, or maybe I'm missing what you're saying. My point is that WoW created a market for MMOs in the US, which led to their success. Since the field is now competitive, no one will be able to match that market share unless they cause the same kind of growth in the MMO market, which can't happen (due to theoretical maximum of the number of consumers in the market -- population, computer/internet access). The only way the market will grow at any kind of rate similar to what was experienced under WoW will be if it retracts first.
Still buying that piece of horse-crap? The news media is center-right. Yes, even ABC, NBC, etc.
Also, you need to rethink your definitions of left and right. Do you mean just regarding social issues? Or also fiscal issues? Because honestly, your post made almost no sense without a definition of terms.
If that were so, we wouldn't see so many posts like yours getting modded up. It's a guaranteed upmod -- just spout some nonsense about some tangentially liberal/conservative dichotomous issue, and then say slashdot leans left.
Newsflash: the center has moved to the right, largely due to the media and the greater birth rate among conservatives. What you consider left-of-center used to be the center.
There are a multitude of reasons why individuals are unhappy with the job their government does. The samples you link to include someone who is unhappy with unnecessary spending, smoeone who was unhappy with the sluggish response to 9/11, and someone who is skeptical of the utility (and the motive for creation) of the DHS.
All these are valid subjects for disagreement, and while the delivery of some of the points could have been a little better, political dissent is vital to the survival of democracy.
So before you dismiss them all as 'government haters', maybe you should actually think about the points they are bringing up. Witnessing what the US government has become has made me more than a little cynical, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Maybe if so many people weren't blindly accepting of what they are spoon-fed, we'd have a more responsible government.
Oh, and just to clarify -- I'm way to the left in comparison with the slashdot median, I'm fairly socialist. I'll agree that the libertarians (big-L and small-l) here on slashdot can be pretty vocal, and that it gets tiresome (to me). But discussion of the issues they present is always better than dismissing them out of hand.
Red