While I don't necessarily disagree, what about the other side of the argument? Without the bundling, do the less popular channels like those listed above ever become available for consumption?
Yea, because that way you totally don't waste the food......
Oh. You mean like sorting by sender and then date? If you use quoting properly in your emails it works just as well, and is just as easy, and has the added benefits that your conversation threads are still at your disposal when you are offline for whatever reason.
Actually, I don't believe it's like that at all.
GMail will group threads together that don't necessarily have to come from the same person. I can have several people reply to the same email and they're all grouped together into a single "conversation." If I sort by sender, as you suggest, I'm not going to get the behavior described.
In Outlook 2010, the setting to group the emails this way is called "Show as Conversations" under the 'View' tab. I don't use any other email software, so I can't say whether or not it's available elsewhere.
Why can't you run multiple services on one machine and have a secondary? The examples given in the topic were NTP and monitoring. I don't see a need virtualizing those services, or many of the others that have been discussed in this thread. It's standard procedure in any reasonable infrastructure where I've worked to run these sorts of services on a single, bare metal machine. (I currently part of a team managing ~40k linux servers, for example)
Help me understand why would you go through the hassle of virtualizing all of these services into separate VMs and creating extra layers of administration in this particular case.
(The wording in the post I originally responded to, in my opinion, did not indicate that you had any secondary service active, but rather just backed up to some other server.)
I can only hope you're joking.
You're saying to have one box with all of your services on multiple VMs, right? If you have any sort of service interrupting event on that one machine, all of your services go down. That sounds awesome.
That is not all. Facebook also makes a tidy sum from their Facebook "credits" by taking a 30% cut from app transactions on their platform.
Out of curiosity, what is the difference in the amount of money paid to Google for the software you want help with versus what has been paid to Microsoft?
I don't like the realities of the situation either, but that's just how it is right now. Luckily I don't have to worry about that for quite some time.
Besides, if he's been an IT guy for 20 years, he's got at least $50K in the bank.
In what world are you living in?
Stop being ridiculous. The argument of whether or not he needs a house is moot as he already has a house. If he walks away from it, we'll assume he can't pay for it, and now he's in financial ruin. His credit turns to garbage, so all sorts of things are more expensive now, and the real kicker is he has no money for his kids' tuition. (assuming he did in the first place)
Sure, you can get by on the regular day-to-day parenting stuff on minimal means. You can't, however, pay for a decent education and provide for your children while they're in school without significant amounts of money, either cash or credit. How do you propose he deals with his kids future, assuming they're less than 10 years away from college given the submitter's age.
Link to Original Source
Why would the parent company sell when it knows it's close to being winning the case and possibly being awarded $1.6B while still retaining the rights to the name? Apple will have to both pay them for the rights moving forward, as well as pay whatever the court judgement awards. There's no way I'd sell to Apple for less than $2B. They're in a very strong position if the Chinese courts decide in their favor.
If they're doing all the porting, then I'd guess the payouts to the studios would be even less. Do you have more insight as to how the payment model works for the studios who develop the games and have them included in the bundles?