You can certainly cherry pick market indices and year ranges where they outperform any mainstream interest-bearing savings account, but if you hit any of the black swan periods you're going to suffer badly. [..] If you want to keep your money worth the same amount in real terms over the long run, are you better off just buying gold these days?
Now apply that same analysis to the history of gold prices.
until I can give my computer a dirty look or an obscene gesture to make it stop doing something I don't like
I really don't want my tools interpreting my emotions and acting upon them. Yes, it makes for good sci-fi stories, but what I want from my tools is precision and reliability.
The mouse is less natural, try to show an old person one.
I've never personally experienced this, but if a keyboard is "more natural" to an old person it's probably because they grew up with typewriters. Give an old person a keyboard with command line versus a mouse with a GUI and see which one they'll adopt to faster.
I seem to remember Microsoft making a claim around 2004 that they were stopping development on IE, that IE6 would be the last version with patches as needed (I don't have a source for that though).
I think you're mistaking an announcement that they were going to stop supporting the Mac. While internally IE was probably stopped, I don't think they would have ever been so overt as to make it an offical, public policy.
Absolutely right. What were once unchanging and inevitable positions have been eroded time and time again throughout history. The only way to lose for sure is to just give up.
"The charges allow copyright holders, who succeed with claims of infringement, to receive an amount of compensation per work (as opposed to compensation for losses, an account of profits or damages per infringing copy). Statutory damages can in some cases be significantly more than the actual damages suffered by the rightsholder or the profits of the infringer.
At least in the United States, the original rationale for statutory damages was that it would often be difficult to establish the number of copies that had been made by an underground pirate business and awards of statutory damages would save rightsholders from having to do so."
I don't know if the law was ever fair and reasonable, but it was surely a lot more fair and reasonable before the Internet and peer-to-peer sharing turned your average college student into a hardcore illegal distributor of copyrighted materials.
Yes, I refuse to write a book and try to post it on Slashdot.
Nobody asked you for a book, just some basic details. That you refuse to provide them, while at the same time advocating Linux and decrying popular Linux distros, speaks volumes. What's the point of Linux advocacy if it requires help from some self-proclaimed expert that can't justify his methods?
I'd love to get real here. When do you plan on starting?
This coming from the guy asking why somebody would want to install new software, glossing over hardware problems, and refusing to provide basic details about what distro they use, configuration, or who is responsible for keeping the system up to date.
And do you really claim that the average device doesn't have Windows support out of the box, while Linux support frequently lags behind? That people don't need to "consult a professional" before buying a device?
So to summarize, you still refuse to supply details about what you install or how you configure it, or who updates the software or keeps the system maintained.
As for Windows breaking on updates or changing their UI, XP had a very long and good run. While no update system is perfect, my experience between updating an XP system versus maintaining a Debian system is night and day. You say Ubuntu is no better, but refuse to offer concrete details of what is better.
They consult a qualified professional before they buy the hardware and get quality devices that work immediately when installed with no need to reconfigure anything, or they get help re-configuring things in the very rare case that it is required.
Umm, yeah, let's get real here. The average person with Windows buys a device and it works just fine out of the box because the device makers go out of their way to make sure that it does, and they don't need to "consult a qualified professional".
So, you think that I never go to these people's houses to help them with difficulties that they are having with non-Linux related issues, then?
I'm not sure what your point is. If you mean that they haven't re-installed Windows, that doesn't mean that are as happy as you make them out to be or aren't just being polite.
The first part is beyond the grasp of the people responding that it is difficult. I also don't try to help pigs sing.
That's a copout to avoid giving details that can be refuted. You specifically recommend Linux to people, then when confronted with Ubuntu horror stories say it has to be the right Linux and configured properly, but then refuse to provide those details so that others may follow them. I'm specifically asking you to provide details to bolster your claims.
As far as installing new software, what new software - exactly - do people need when a system is set up with everything most people would ever need already. Give me an example of new software you think the average person is suddenly going to need.
You've got to be kidding me. The software that people use most likely follows some kind of power law, with a long tail of applications that people find useful.
As an example, maybe they are into poker, and want some poker software installed that their poker buddies recommended. Or there's a game they want to play. Or there's some household organization app. The possibilities are endless. That you think the average person will never run across an occasion to install new software is ridiculous.
I don't talk about compatibility problems with hardware because hardware doesn't change. Are you suggesting that a properly configured system will suddenly morph one day and need a different driver?
First, to install the software the first time it needs to be compatibile with the hardware, and there are many cases like wireless or video drivers where the support tends to be spotty. Second, yes, people buy new hardware devices, replace broken hardware, or drivers that used to work will stop working on an update.
I mean, consider the relatively small difference between Windows 2000 and XP yet the rather huge shift of support behind XP. I'd say that had a lot to do with XP literally looking different.
While I agree that 3d interface-mania was generally a bad idea, this point is incorrect. Windows 2000 was part of the NT line and intended/marketed for business use. XP unified the consumer line with the NT line for both professional and consumer desktop use.
That's a nice binary view you have of the world. Too bad it isn't realistic. Some tasks are better suited to the mouse, some to the keyboard. There's also a wide spectrum of intelligence, and some people are smart about some things while dumb at others.
Vista did need better hardware but I don't see that as a problem or unexpected. Idiots that tried to put it on system that struggled with XP in the first place had a bad time.
You have Microsoft to blame for this one. Hardware vendors selling new computers at the time that weren't up to snuff for Vista (but ran fine on XP!) petitioned Microsoft to lower their requirements, and they did, even though their were internal warnings about confusing consumers and not meeting their expectations. This all came out during the class action lawsuit over the "Vista Capable" logo program.
Microsoft had finally given consumers a multi-user OS in XP and developers were insisting on defeating the benefits of multi-user, making limited user accounts especially painful.
Thus UAC. If your program was bringing up UAC for every stupid thing, then you were doing it wrong.
You make an interesting point, but in practice it was implemented very poorly, even when running Microsoft's tools. I ran into this recently when updating a Vista computer. There were constant nags from the updater asking permission for what I just gave it permission to do, making it extremely redundant. It was like talking to an idiot.
I highly recommend you have someone who knows what they are doing set up a good Linux distribution properly for you, and then we will suddenly be in agreement.
Of course, you never say what distro you use, and what you do to configure it, or talk about compatibility problems with hardware drivers, or who is responsible for keeping it up to date or installing new software.
Personally, I suspect most people are just blowing smoke up your ass because they don't want to hurt your feelings. I use Debian myself, but I would never recommend Linux to a non-geek.
He didn't use "sic erat scriptum", you did. He only used "sic", which according to online dictionaries is Latin for "so, thus". The first two dictionaries I referenced came up with slightly different definitions. The first one only applies to quotes, the second one is more general. I'd say his usage is acceptable:
[1]"Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally." [2]"intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original"
I can't think of any company that has blown a lead as huge as Microsoft's in as short a time
You're talking about a company that dominated the industry from the 80s into the 2000s, which they wrestled from IBM, and is still dominant on the desktop. Technology moves fast, and huge companies that seem insurmountable can lose their lead -- something that Gates was well aware and afraid of. Yet Microsoft is still massively profitable and a threat.
Consider this 2007 interview where Ballmer mocked the iPhone's prospects [engadget.com]. For him to do that means that he was ignoring competitive intelligence studies that he should have been taking seriously.
I can't blame Ballmer for his position. $500 for a phone was a ton of money, and it took a company like Apple to pull off the hype required to generate interest, and even when the hype was apparent it's still a gamble. As for your "competitive intelligence studies", I'd like to see a cite. Also, it's not like Microsoft wasn't investing in mobile. They just weren't gaining any traction.
Despite all that, Microsoft has made billions of dollars year after year, but somehow he's the worst CEO ever. Bizarre.
Yes, I am name calling, and haven't claimed otherwise. I am not making an argument, as they already have been made. This is just me expressing an opinion that people like you sicken me.
The arguments have already been made by others, yet you keep on making weak excuses as to the true nature of the situation. So rather than repeating the argument, I just say that people like you sicken me.
What's Apple's share again? At least 90%, you say?
No, you say. I just did a search and came up with a figure of 68%: "Apple shipped 11.8 million iPads during the quarter, down from 15.4 million units in the fourth quarter of 2011, and grew its worldwide share from 54.7% in 4Q11 to 68% in 1Q12."
Slashdot Mirror
You can certainly cherry pick market indices and year ranges where they outperform any mainstream interest-bearing savings account, but if you hit any of the black swan periods you're going to suffer badly. [..] If you want to keep your money worth the same amount in real terms over the long run, are you better off just buying gold these days?
Now apply that same analysis to the history of gold prices.
until I can give my computer a dirty look or an obscene gesture to make it stop doing something I don't like
I really don't want my tools interpreting my emotions and acting upon them. Yes, it makes for good sci-fi stories, but what I want from my tools is precision and reliability.
The mouse is less natural, try to show an old person one.
I've never personally experienced this, but if a keyboard is "more natural" to an old person it's probably because they grew up with typewriters. Give an old person a keyboard with command line versus a mouse with a GUI and see which one they'll adopt to faster.
I seem to remember Microsoft making a claim around 2004 that they were stopping development on IE, that IE6 would be the last version with patches as needed (I don't have a source for that though).
I think you're mistaking an announcement that they were going to stop supporting the Mac. While internally IE was probably stopped, I don't think they would have ever been so overt as to make it an offical, public policy.
Absolutely right. What were once unchanging and inevitable positions have been eroded time and time again throughout history. The only way to lose for sure is to just give up.
So how is it that 30 songs is worth over a half a million? And this is fair and reasonable? Some one please explain it to me..
It's statutory damages:
"The charges allow copyright holders, who succeed with claims of infringement, to receive an amount of compensation per work (as opposed to compensation for losses, an account of profits or damages per infringing copy). Statutory damages can in some cases be significantly more than the actual damages suffered by the rightsholder or the profits of the infringer.
At least in the United States, the original rationale for statutory damages was that it would often be difficult to establish the number of copies that had been made by an underground pirate business and awards of statutory damages would save rightsholders from having to do so."
I don't know if the law was ever fair and reasonable, but it was surely a lot more fair and reasonable before the Internet and peer-to-peer sharing turned your average college student into a hardcore illegal distributor of copyrighted materials.
Marketing and MS's own development process wise, sure.
That's the essential point. Windows 2000 wasn't going to be adopted by consumers if Microsoft didn't position it to them.
Yes, I refuse to write a book and try to post it on Slashdot.
Nobody asked you for a book, just some basic details. That you refuse to provide them, while at the same time advocating Linux and decrying popular Linux distros, speaks volumes. What's the point of Linux advocacy if it requires help from some self-proclaimed expert that can't justify his methods?
I'd love to get real here. When do you plan on starting?
This coming from the guy asking why somebody would want to install new software, glossing over hardware problems, and refusing to provide basic details about what distro they use, configuration, or who is responsible for keeping the system up to date.
And do you really claim that the average device doesn't have Windows support out of the box, while Linux support frequently lags behind? That people don't need to "consult a professional" before buying a device?
So to summarize, you still refuse to supply details about what you install or how you configure it, or who updates the software or keeps the system maintained.
As for Windows breaking on updates or changing their UI, XP had a very long and good run. While no update system is perfect, my experience between updating an XP system versus maintaining a Debian system is night and day. You say Ubuntu is no better, but refuse to offer concrete details of what is better.
They consult a qualified professional before they buy the hardware and get quality devices that work immediately when installed with no need to reconfigure anything, or they get help re-configuring things in the very rare case that it is required.
Umm, yeah, let's get real here. The average person with Windows buys a device and it works just fine out of the box because the device makers go out of their way to make sure that it does, and they don't need to "consult a qualified professional".
So, you think that I never go to these people's houses to help them with difficulties that they are having with non-Linux related issues, then?
I'm not sure what your point is. If you mean that they haven't re-installed Windows, that doesn't mean that are as happy as you make them out to be or aren't just being polite.
The first part is beyond the grasp of the people responding that it is difficult. I also don't try to help pigs sing.
That's a copout to avoid giving details that can be refuted. You specifically recommend Linux to people, then when confronted with Ubuntu horror stories say it has to be the right Linux and configured properly, but then refuse to provide those details so that others may follow them. I'm specifically asking you to provide details to bolster your claims.
As far as installing new software, what new software - exactly - do people need when a system is set up with everything most people would ever need already. Give me an example of new software you think the average person is suddenly going to need.
You've got to be kidding me. The software that people use most likely follows some kind of power law, with a long tail of applications that people find useful.
As an example, maybe they are into poker, and want some poker software installed that their poker buddies recommended. Or there's a game they want to play. Or there's some household organization app. The possibilities are endless. That you think the average person will never run across an occasion to install new software is ridiculous.
I don't talk about compatibility problems with hardware because hardware doesn't change. Are you suggesting that a properly configured system will suddenly morph one day and need a different driver?
First, to install the software the first time it needs to be compatibile with the hardware, and there are many cases like wireless or video drivers where the support tends to be spotty. Second, yes, people buy new hardware devices, replace broken hardware, or drivers that used to work will stop working on an update.
I mean, consider the relatively small difference between Windows 2000 and XP yet the rather huge shift of support behind XP. I'd say that had a lot to do with XP literally looking different.
While I agree that 3d interface-mania was generally a bad idea, this point is incorrect. Windows 2000 was part of the NT line and intended/marketed for business use. XP unified the consumer line with the NT line for both professional and consumer desktop use.
That's a nice binary view you have of the world. Too bad it isn't realistic. Some tasks are better suited to the mouse, some to the keyboard. There's also a wide spectrum of intelligence, and some people are smart about some things while dumb at others.
Vista did need better hardware but I don't see that as a problem or unexpected. Idiots that tried to put it on system that struggled with XP in the first place had a bad time.
You have Microsoft to blame for this one. Hardware vendors selling new computers at the time that weren't up to snuff for Vista (but ran fine on XP!) petitioned Microsoft to lower their requirements, and they did, even though their were internal warnings about confusing consumers and not meeting their expectations. This all came out during the class action lawsuit over the "Vista Capable" logo program.
Microsoft had finally given consumers a multi-user OS in XP and developers were insisting on defeating the benefits of multi-user, making limited user accounts especially painful.
Thus UAC. If your program was bringing up UAC for every stupid thing, then you were doing it wrong.
You make an interesting point, but in practice it was implemented very poorly, even when running Microsoft's tools. I ran into this recently when updating a Vista computer. There were constant nags from the updater asking permission for what I just gave it permission to do, making it extremely redundant. It was like talking to an idiot.
I highly recommend you have someone who knows what they are doing set up a good Linux distribution properly for you, and then we will suddenly be in agreement.
Of course, you never say what distro you use, and what you do to configure it, or talk about compatibility problems with hardware drivers, or who is responsible for keeping it up to date or installing new software.
Personally, I suspect most people are just blowing smoke up your ass because they don't want to hurt your feelings. I use Debian myself, but I would never recommend Linux to a non-geek.
He didn't use "sic erat scriptum", you did. He only used "sic", which according to online dictionaries is Latin for "so, thus". The first two dictionaries I referenced came up with slightly different definitions. The first one only applies to quotes, the second one is more general. I'd say his usage is acceptable:
[1] "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."
[2] "intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original"
They've got so much revenue that they created a for-profit company to handle it all.
I can't think of any company that has blown a lead as huge as Microsoft's in as short a time
You're talking about a company that dominated the industry from the 80s into the 2000s, which they wrestled from IBM, and is still dominant on the desktop. Technology moves fast, and huge companies that seem insurmountable can lose their lead -- something that Gates was well aware and afraid of. Yet Microsoft is still massively profitable and a threat.
MSFT is profitable but not diverse. it has two core products, Windows and Office that account for the majority of it's profits.
The same could be said for Google, but it's only one core product. The fact is that it's hard to win once, let alone everywhere.
Consider this 2007 interview where Ballmer mocked the iPhone's prospects [engadget.com]. For him to do that means that he was ignoring competitive intelligence studies that he should have been taking seriously.
I can't blame Ballmer for his position. $500 for a phone was a ton of money, and it took a company like Apple to pull off the hype required to generate interest, and even when the hype was apparent it's still a gamble. As for your "competitive intelligence studies", I'd like to see a cite. Also, it's not like Microsoft wasn't investing in mobile. They just weren't gaining any traction.
Despite all that, Microsoft has made billions of dollars year after year, but somehow he's the worst CEO ever. Bizarre.
It is not merely the difference of opinion that sickens me. There are plenty of people that I disagree with and respect.
Yes, I am name calling, and haven't claimed otherwise. I am not making an argument, as they already have been made. This is just me expressing an opinion that people like you sicken me.
The arguments have already been made by others, yet you keep on making weak excuses as to the true nature of the situation. So rather than repeating the argument, I just say that people like you sicken me.
What's Apple's share again? At least 90%, you say?
No, you say. I just did a search and came up with a figure of 68%: "Apple shipped 11.8 million iPads during the quarter, down from 15.4 million units in the fourth quarter of 2011, and grew its worldwide share from 54.7% in 4Q11 to 68% in 1Q12."
People like you are sickening.