Why should anyone have to pay $5/mo for Gold, just to gain access to a streaming service you are already paying for. It's not like Microsoft is adding any value here.
You do realize that the Live Gold service provides more than just Netflix and streaming media? The new things MS adds to the Live service is just bonus on top of an otherwise really good gaming service that you are paying $5/month for.
And on the PC, trying to seek to another location, even one which is included by the buffer, forces a rebuffer. Anyone notice that the common factor in both these pieces of shit is Microsoft?
I also noticed that the other common factor is Netflix. In fact, I also noticed that Netflix wrote both applications, and would presumably be responsible for any bugs and patches. But I applaud your efforts to drag Microsoft into an unrelated issue.
Am I missing the irony pointed out a the end of the summary? An ex-employee donates some of his personal money to a cause he believes in, while Facebook (a company with a public image to maintain) decides not to take pro-cannabis ads. The two really don't have anything to do with each other, except both being about marijuana.
yet, you're sitting there blaming the Republicans. Partisan much?
I am not blaming Republicans. I simply stated that both the summary and the article indicated that it was the Republican leader who didn't want to work on the bill, but the title implied that the Democrats dropped it. I was merely asking why. Jump to conclusions much?
Personally, I am very middle of the road and I don't have a "must be the GOP" bias. GOP does some things right and some things wrong, as do the Dems. But thank you for the additional information about the issue as it does help explain why the bill didn't move forward.
What's up with the title of this post? "Politics: House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality" sure make it sound like the poster is trying to imply that Democrats were at fault for this bill failing. But the summary and TFA indicate that it was Republicans who blocked efforts to move this bill forward.
I have trouble acknowledging a world where ANYBODY GIVES A FUCK about this "issue".
Perhaps RTFA would help....
"Ever since television caught on in the 1950s, the Federal Communication Commission has been getting complaints about blaring commercials"
Granted, that quote only tells you that yes, people do give a fuck about this issue. If you want better data, a quick 30 second internet search returns several links to
According to your logic, it would be ok for a site to serve up kiddie porn because nobody should dictate what the server returns when someone connects a browser to it.
If something is illegal, then it is illegal regardless of whether it is on a computer server or in a brick and mortar store.
5 Cameras actually. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee692114(Surface.10).aspx
It isn't the consipracy theory you make it out to be. A lot of public MS sites are designed and built by external design agencies, and not all of those agencies have Silverlight dev experience. A lot of MS teams will contract out to a design agency and not put a restriction on the technologies used on the website as long as that agency produces good work at a good price.
Until they can get the cost to be lower than the TCO of a cheap server, UPS, and business cable line though, I can't see making the jump for small businesses.
Remember that TCO isn't only hardware (server, UPS, cable). You also have to factor in software licenses, physical building, physical building security, network security, HVAC costs, etc. And these are just the easy to calculate costs.
You also have to think about other costs such as procurement (someone has to order the hardware from Dell, receive it at the shipping dock, unbox it, install the server OS on it, handle warranty repairs, etc), network administration, management overhead, load balancing, etc.
And then what about the 'costs' in terms of business opportunity lost when your service is not able to quickly scale to customer demand. There is a time lag between realizing you need more capacity to actually getting that capacity online.
Also what about the costs of having to build your datacenter scale to the max usage? If your site experiences heavy usage 9-5 M-F, but very little usage during evenings and weekends, then you still have to build your datacenter to that peak usage. With cloud computing you can scale it up and down daily depending on your needs.
Looking at the cost of moving a service to the "cloud" is a lot more than just looking at how much a server costs. It won't make sense for all businesses and scenarios, but the more you research it the more it seems to make sense. And noting your use of the term "small businesses", cloud computing really can pay off for a lot of scenarios. Small businesses usually don't have the budget to properly implement all of the functionality that cloud computing offers (security, network management, redundancy, fault domains, load balancing, scalability, etc) so, while a small business can get a cheap server up and running, it may not actually be cheaper in the long run.
The OP was talking about support lifecycles and how XP has a pretty good support lifecycle compared to a lot of Linux distributions. Can you explain what that has to do with your argument about hundreds of apps coming with a Linux distro?
Win7 sales will taper off. There's a lot of hype about it. That will settle and people will buy it as infrequently as they buy their new computers.
Yes, of course Win7 sales will taper off, just like almost every other product in the world - sales will taper off after the initial launch. But what does that have to do with Win7 sales breaking all previous sales records and being on pace to become a huge revenue and profit generator over the lifetime of the product?
Much of what has been said in defense of Win7 is deserved but for the average person buying a product to fix something that isn't broken is stupid.
From the first half of your post it is clear that you don't like Windows or Microsoft, but to say that it is stupid for the average person to purchase Windows 7 is just being letting your preconceived notions get in the way of critical thinking. You do realize there are a lot of new and useful features in Windows 7 right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
And, unfortunately if you remember back to when Vista was released it too was being touted as record breaking, but when you actually got a hold of the numbers clearly that wasn't the case. Microsoft had also done quite a few things to manipulate the market and force consumers into making a choice they didn't want. I'm sure some of that is occurring here.
Right now the only numbers you have regarding sales is what Microsoft provides and there is no way on heaven or earth they should be trusted. Wait for a year or so to go by and look at the official numbers from disinterested third parties.
A quick 2 minute Google search turned up sales and market share figures from the NPD Group, Amazon, DSGi, and NetApplications. All indicating that, yes, Windows 7 is beating all previous OS sales records. I know you have a bias against Microsoft and Windows, but there is no need to come up with conspiracy theories when the evidence is very easy to find.
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.
