Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption? Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality.
How exactly does limiting the quality of the video translate into providing consumers with additional functionality?
I would challenge the idea that the internet includes almost everyone. Maybe if "almost everyone" includes only people under 60. I spend a lot of time going to nursing homes and none of them are using the internet. They sit in their rooms waiting on someone to visit (perhaps the lack of local interest is taking a toll?) And a lot of people who are aware of the internet and use it are only using it for e-mail and to check the weather, not exactly part of the community.
moving to a single supplier is part of the FIA's (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) attempts to cut costs
I'm admittedly a die hard free-market kinda guy so maybe I'm blinded but how in the world is this going to save anyone any money? There's no mention in the article of what happens when Microsoft decides to raise the price 50%. But I guess that would never happen.
But Lamassoure argues that with billions of emails and texts sent around the world, it's a novel and simple way to raise funds from new technology.
My idealism tells me there must have been a time when the gov't concentrated on coming up with ways to help people and that the need to raise funds was an unfortunate side effect. Now it would seem that the gov't concentrates on ways to raise funds, hopefully with the side effect of helping people. Am I the only one who thinks this is backwards?
People being double charged for state taxes is a larger problem then just telecommuters. Many people who live close to a state line and work in another state end up double paying. Sometimes there are forms which can be used to avoid this but they are not widely publicised.
Believe me that MS has been sticking this in front of users and doing usability studies.
I'd almost be willing to go along with you on this except they put copy and paste at the top of the "most used items" ribbon. Even regular users use the keyboard shortcuts for these. As such, I'm more willing to believe it was redesigned just to make it different than the open source equivalents (and hence, harder to switch).
I think the idea, which admittedly is not very clear, is that other browsers are annoying. Firefox, on the other hand, silently gets the job done. Who hasn't experienced a time when they just wished a program would shut up? This ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPS18_XzoaE&search= firefoxflicks perhaps shows that idea a little more clearly.
I showed all the movies to my non-technical roomate and this was the ad he wanted to see a couple more times. Later I heard him making the "wheee" sound. It's very addicting.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly does limiting the quality of the video translate into providing consumers with additional functionality?
I would challenge the idea that the internet includes almost everyone. Maybe if "almost everyone" includes only people under 60. I spend a lot of time going to nursing homes and none of them are using the internet. They sit in their rooms waiting on someone to visit (perhaps the lack of local interest is taking a toll?) And a lot of people who are aware of the internet and use it are only using it for e-mail and to check the weather, not exactly part of the community.
Any concrete reasons? I learned on BASIC as did many others and I have no problems programming in a variety of languages now.
People being double charged for state taxes is a larger problem then just telecommuters. Many people who live close to a state line and work in another state end up double paying. Sometimes there are forms which can be used to avoid this but they are not widely publicised.
Believe me that MS has been sticking this in front of users and doing usability studies.
I'd almost be willing to go along with you on this except they put copy and paste at the top of the "most used items" ribbon. Even regular users use the keyboard shortcuts for these. As such, I'm more willing to believe it was redesigned just to make it different than the open source equivalents (and hence, harder to switch).
I think the idea, which admittedly is not very clear, is that other browsers are annoying. Firefox, on the other hand, silently gets the job done. Who hasn't experienced a time when they just wished a program would shut up? This ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPS18_XzoaE&search= firefoxflicks perhaps shows that idea a little more clearly.
I showed all the movies to my non-technical roomate and this was the ad he wanted to see a couple more times. Later I heard him making the "wheee" sound. It's very addicting.