From a convicted monopoly standpoint, I don't think microsoft can do this at all. The best short term strategy for Dell is to take MS back to court. But this doesn't really give them the bargaining power that I feel the strategy in my post gives them.
Because of the number of applications solely for Windows, I don't see joe consumer moving away from Windows until linux can run the binaries. In reality what people do is say "Office is $400, but I can get it from work for free". A lot of people will get the no windows dells and pirate the OS but the activation stuff is making this harder and businesses will still order full licenses for everything.
I'm not even saying here that once Wine is 99% compatible, linux will take over. Just that Dell, etc will have more bargaining position. However, I do feel that at that 99% point, more businesses will move over to linux for cost reduction (both outlay and TCO). People at home will then switch to remain compatable.
It's a question of money on both ends. They make money on their customers being in the drug culture, but without the testing, they pay more for the various insurances involved in employing someone. I'm not saying it's right, but it is part of the enforced consent that stems from the "War on Drugs".
I feel this is two different situations. The reason I'm waiting for the November release is because the theatrical release and the 2-disc version is not the original. The original was cut by 30 minutes so that theaters could fit more showings in per day. The one on the 4-disc version is the original.
To me the 2-disc version has little value (the extras aren't worth a whole lot to me), since I've a) seen that version of the movie already and b) it isn't the orginal.
The problem is that even if they did for an olipoly to combat microsoft's monopoly, they would lose. The fact is that 99% of the PC customers will want a microsoft OS. If Dell, HPaq, etc all say "we are going to sell these OSless systems whether you like it or not", Microsoft can still say "ok, you have to pay full price for windows" and then the customers of the PC makers will wonder why all the prices jumped $190 (I'm figuring $200 for XP-$10 for the OEM) for the same system they were going to buy a week ago.
Going this way will cause strong pain for the PC makers, although would actually be better for the customers (they get to transfer their windows license to newer computers and can avoid the $200 next time) in the longish run.
Personally, what I think the PC makers should do is invest in Wine development, either via codeweavers or more directly. When wine can reliably do 99%[*] of the programs out there, they'll have more of a barganing position. I'm not saying they should dump windows for linux (although if the compatibility is that high I don't see why not), but they need the real ability to threaten
*: 99% actually probably being better than windows itself does, IME.
As a purchaser of movies, I've ntoiced the same thing. I think it comes down to total hours of enjoyment over running time. A music album is often listened to over ten times. I've watched few of my movies more than once (and many of them 0 times, but that's just because me and my wife have a compulsive movie purchasing habit).
This is why I buy soundtracks. For example, I bought the Reailty Bites soundtrack for that song.
However, I agree with you that this doesn't work for everything. I just recently put together an 80s collection that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. By the end I'd either be buying the singles (if I could find them) or 80s collection CDs that overlap all the previous CDs except by one or two songs.
Would being able to build a collection like this at 50c a song prevented me from using the networks? Probably not. It would have still cost me $200, way more than I'd want to spend on this collection. $50 for the lot, and I'd propably go for it, but that would be 12.5c a song. I don't think labels will go for that, even for old material they have long made their profits on.
I've never understood why people can't work with the signed Java types. I've done a lot of complicated bit related code and I've found that, because of the >>> (unsigned bitshift) operator, there's no difference in using a signed type where I would normally use an unsigned one.
Can you give me some examples that are more difficult when you only have signed types?
Normally, you would put exceptions to that clause in your license. Since it is your code, you can license it however.
If you don't put exceptions in, then it means that the people who modify your code will have to modify the calls to the closed source within the app so that it only calls open source stuff. They wouldn't be allowed to redistribute until they did that.
readers don't like to be forcibly diverted from what they are doing
And television watchers don't like having commercials interrupt the program they are watching. The fact is that there has to be a balance between what the readers want and what they have to endure to get the content at the price they get it at. Either they have to pay more, or they have to get the ads.
Really what AOL should have done is made a higher price where no popups would occur. Customers who really hated them would pay the higher price. The others will feel like their getting something for free because the popups are easy to dismiss.
To say Postgres does replication isn't fully true. There are projects fro PostgreSQL replication but nothing that is should presently be used in production.
I agree. I work on the other side of the fence, at a consulting services firm. We basically feel anything can be done, all it takes is time and all it costs is money. If a customer doesn't contract a certain amount of flexibility, we aren't going to spend their money (time and materials) on it because we can only assume they don't want us to. Some flexibilty costs more in a system. There will always be lost productivity because the system isn't that much better, and in the long run that lost productivity will outclass the cost of the improvements. But sometimes the money isn't there.
The problem is that the restrictions don't harm the Saddam one iota. It doesn't hurt the people in the government nor the people in the military. What it does is hurt the people at the bottom, the civilians that are so poor they can afford food. It's nice and all that we have finally allowed them to import medical goods, but without exports, how are they going to pay for it.
It's this economic warfare that directly attacks those not in the government nor in the military that justifies flying planes into economically related civilian targets.
Other people have mentioned \dt , but I wanted to say you should try out DB visualizer. It's like TOAD without the wizards, but works for any JDBC database (even cloudscape). Very cool tool and best of all, free (as in beer, maybe as in speech too)
If the plan is to make it scalable to other DBMSs, then using MySQL is a good choice, since the other DBMSs will likely support a superset of mySQL and the rest requires only a small amount of change. Plus there is the fact that SQL is a standard, and it is easier to find people with SQL experience than find people with the willingness and to learn a proprietary system.
That being said, these systems have their uses (I have a half baked one of my own I wrote a few years ago), and can't be discounted fully. They just aren't a clear winner over MySQL.
Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life. Teach a man to run a fishery and then introduce something to his stock that cuts him off from his customers, and he'll end up in bankruptcy court.
As if the world economic slowdown wasn't bad enough
Sony has it's hands in a lot of things, some virtual, but a lot brick and mortar. It has a market capitalization of 40.974B
Microsoft has it's hand in relatively few things, but has a near monopoly in two virtual markets, one which it has been repeatedly convicted of exerting anticonsumer powers, and has little brick and mortar. It has a market capitalization of 247.8B
This guy has a shitty disposition, but he partly right. The truth is that no one in our society has to be homeless. There are many programs that make this the case. Where the guy take an odd turn is feeling like the homeless that choose that life (whether it's because their mental disorder doesn't let them see how they are living or they truly do know what life they lead) are bad people because of their choice. I say let them choose that life and I'll choose mine. People who say that these people are getting a "free ride" should try the ride to see how free it is. If they really feel they aren't getting anything more than a nonworking person through their work life, then logically they should choose not to work.
A broken leg and pneumonia are immediately life threatening and only have to be treated once. Surely you can't think that is in they are in the same class as a nondirectly life threatening, chronic medical problems such as schizophrenia and manic depression.
However, I do agree that it makes sense to try to treat these problems so that the people with them can become self sufficient. In Ontario this is the case. It doesn't really help the problem because schizophrenics rarely actually want to get better and lapse unless they have close friends or family pushing them (and if that's the case they don't require assistance). But it is humane to offer help.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't. I'm on a laptop.
From a convicted monopoly standpoint, I don't think microsoft can do this at all. The best short term strategy for Dell is to take MS back to court. But this doesn't really give them the bargaining power that I feel the strategy in my post gives them.
Because of the number of applications solely for Windows, I don't see joe consumer moving away from Windows until linux can run the binaries. In reality what people do is say "Office is $400, but I can get it from work for free". A lot of people will get the no windows dells and pirate the OS but the activation stuff is making this harder and businesses will still order full licenses for everything.
I'm not even saying here that once Wine is 99% compatible, linux will take over. Just that Dell, etc will have more bargaining position. However, I do feel that at that 99% point, more businesses will move over to linux for cost reduction (both outlay and TCO). People at home will then switch to remain compatable.
It's a question of money on both ends. They make money on their customers being in the drug culture, but without the testing, they pay more for the various insurances involved in employing someone. I'm not saying it's right, but it is part of the enforced consent that stems from the "War on Drugs".
I feel this is two different situations. The reason I'm waiting for the November release is because the theatrical release and the 2-disc version is not the original. The original was cut by 30 minutes so that theaters could fit more showings in per day. The one on the 4-disc version is the original.
To me the 2-disc version has little value (the extras aren't worth a whole lot to me), since I've a) seen that version of the movie already and b) it isn't the orginal.
The problem is that even if they did for an olipoly to combat microsoft's monopoly, they would lose. The fact is that 99% of the PC customers will want a microsoft OS. If Dell, HPaq, etc all say "we are going to sell these OSless systems whether you like it or not", Microsoft can still say "ok, you have to pay full price for windows" and then the customers of the PC makers will wonder why all the prices jumped $190 (I'm figuring $200 for XP-$10 for the OEM) for the same system they were going to buy a week ago.
Going this way will cause strong pain for the PC makers, although would actually be better for the customers (they get to transfer their windows license to newer computers and can avoid the $200 next time) in the longish run.
Personally, what I think the PC makers should do is invest in Wine development, either via codeweavers or more directly. When wine can reliably do 99%[*] of the programs out there, they'll have more of a barganing position. I'm not saying they should dump windows for linux (although if the compatibility is that high I don't see why not), but they need the real ability to threaten
*: 99% actually probably being better than windows itself does, IME.
As a purchaser of movies, I've ntoiced the same thing. I think it comes down to total hours of enjoyment over running time. A music album is often listened to over ten times. I've watched few of my movies more than once (and many of them 0 times, but that's just because me and my wife have a compulsive movie purchasing habit).
This is why I buy soundtracks. For example, I bought the Reailty Bites soundtrack for that song.
However, I agree with you that this doesn't work for everything. I just recently put together an 80s collection that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. By the end I'd either be buying the singles (if I could find them) or 80s collection CDs that overlap all the previous CDs except by one or two songs.
Would being able to build a collection like this at 50c a song prevented me from using the networks? Probably not. It would have still cost me $200, way more than I'd want to spend on this collection. $50 for the lot, and I'd propably go for it, but that would be 12.5c a song. I don't think labels will go for that, even for old material they have long made their profits on.
I've never understood why people can't work with the signed Java types. I've done a lot of complicated bit related code and I've found that, because of the >>> (unsigned bitshift) operator, there's no difference in using a signed type where I would normally use an unsigned one.
Can you give me some examples that are more difficult when you only have signed types?
Normally, you would put exceptions to that clause in your license. Since it is your code, you can license it however.
If you don't put exceptions in, then it means that the people who modify your code will have to modify the calls to the closed source within the app so that it only calls open source stuff. They wouldn't be allowed to redistribute until they did that.
readers don't like to be forcibly diverted from what they are doing
/. editors should understand.
And television watchers don't like having commercials interrupt the program they are watching. The fact is that there has to be a balance between what the readers want and what they have to endure to get the content at the price they get it at. Either they have to pay more, or they have to get the ads.
Really what AOL should have done is made a higher price where no popups would occur. Customers who really hated them would pay the higher price. The others will feel like their getting something for free because the popups are easy to dismiss.
This is something
To say Postgres does replication isn't fully true. There are projects fro PostgreSQL replication but nothing that is should presently be used in production.
I agree. I work on the other side of the fence, at a consulting services firm. We basically feel anything can be done, all it takes is time and all it costs is money. If a customer doesn't contract a certain amount of flexibility, we aren't going to spend their money (time and materials) on it because we can only assume they don't want us to. Some flexibilty costs more in a system. There will always be lost productivity because the system isn't that much better, and in the long run that lost productivity will outclass the cost of the improvements. But sometimes the money isn't there.
Or you could just sue the attorny general for enforcing an unconstitutional law. This is similar to what was done with "under God" in the pledge of alligience.
Maybe the U.S. Computer Security advisors advocating hackers to act like SnoSoft
quick correction, it's a maximum of 3 terms with a maximum of 2 consectutive terms.
The problem is that the restrictions don't harm the Saddam one iota. It doesn't hurt the people in the government nor the people in the military. What it does is hurt the people at the bottom, the civilians that are so poor they can afford food. It's nice and all that we have finally allowed them to import medical goods, but without exports, how are they going to pay for it.
It's this economic warfare that directly attacks those not in the government nor in the military that justifies flying planes into economically related civilian targets.
Just remember that everything you put in the contracts, ultimately, ends up costing you money.
Other people have mentioned \dt , but I wanted to say you should try out DB visualizer. It's like TOAD without the wizards, but works for any JDBC database (even cloudscape). Very cool tool and best of all, free (as in beer, maybe as in speech too)
If the plan is to make it scalable to other DBMSs, then using MySQL is a good choice, since the other DBMSs will likely support a superset of mySQL and the rest requires only a small amount of change. Plus there is the fact that SQL is a standard, and it is easier to find people with SQL experience than find people with the willingness and to learn a proprietary system.
That being said, these systems have their uses (I have a half baked one of my own I wrote a few years ago), and can't be discounted fully. They just aren't a clear winner over MySQL.
Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life. Teach a man to run a fishery and then introduce something to his stock that cuts him off from his customers, and he'll end up in bankruptcy court.
As if the world economic slowdown wasn't bad enough
Yeah, I heard that one too
Sony has it's hands in a lot of things, some virtual, but a lot brick and mortar. It has a market capitalization of 40.974B
Microsoft has it's hand in relatively few things, but has a near monopoly in two virtual markets, one which it has been repeatedly convicted of exerting anticonsumer powers, and has little brick and mortar. It has a market capitalization of 247.8B
We're talking apples and apple seeds.
This guy has a shitty disposition, but he partly right. The truth is that no one in our society has to be homeless. There are many programs that make this the case. Where the guy take an odd turn is feeling like the homeless that choose that life (whether it's because their mental disorder doesn't let them see how they are living or they truly do know what life they lead) are bad people because of their choice. I say let them choose that life and I'll choose mine. People who say that these people are getting a "free ride" should try the ride to see how free it is. If they really feel they aren't getting anything more than a nonworking person through their work life, then logically they should choose not to work.
A broken leg and pneumonia are immediately life threatening and only have to be treated once. Surely you can't think that is in they are in the same class as a nondirectly life threatening, chronic medical problems such as schizophrenia and manic depression.
However, I do agree that it makes sense to try to treat these problems so that the people with them can become self sufficient. In Ontario this is the case. It doesn't really help the problem because schizophrenics rarely actually want to get better and lapse unless they have close friends or family pushing them (and if that's the case they don't require assistance). But it is humane to offer help.