Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Oh boy (Score 1) 285

The purpose of the vice president is to be the shoe in on the next round of elections if the presidency goes even reasonably well. If you think chairing the senate only allows you to break ties you are sorely mistaken. You'd be amazed what being the lord of procedure allows.

It's hard for anyone within the party to beat out an 8 year running VP for the nomination and hard for the other party to beat them for the presidency. All else being equal the only thing more challenging is beating the actual sitting president.

Comment Re:"Google works better with Chrome" (Score 1) 370

They might have stopped that particular scheme with OEMs but it hasn't hurt them much. They've only lost 6% of their marketshare which is the combined marketshare of Linux/MacOS.

Comment Re:The price hike is minimal... (Score 1) 450

I'm a little surprised they aren't in a position to play hardball in some of these cases.

Probably complacency. If they feel that they are the only viable streaming service, they will feel no urgency to play hardball; after all, where are the customers going to go?

You and I know the answer, but Netflix' management obviously doesn't, vide the PR bullshit they spout on this news.

Comment Re:"Google works better with Chrome" (Score 1) 370

Chromebooks, iPads, Android devices... these are mobile devices and are a completely different market. There is a reason many people have a phone, tablet, laptop, and a desktop. Since laptops and desktops differ only in hardware flexibility and performance and can almost do the same things these days they are becoming comparable. Mobile devices on the other hand do not run with full desktop capabilities and interface. Most people have both a desktop device (laptop/desktop) and a mobile device (tablet/phone).

As for Linux distributions and Macs, certainly, they are viable in many ways but MacOS only has 4.9% of the market and linux 2%. Ultimately yes, it does come down to market share. It also comes down to the fact that for almost the entire market changing operating system after purchase is not a viable option for their technical skill level and learning a new operating system is not a small undertaking.

Imagine a world in which Oxford has control of the English language and makes sweeping changes, say causing every word of English to be heard by the NSA. In this world switching would mean losing all knowledge of English. Your argument is akin to suggesting they no longer have control of the market because people have morse code, french, and german as viable choices. Morse code is a different sort of communication mechanism. One could switch to French (4% of speakers) or German (2%) but then you couldn't communicate with the 90% that are using English and if publishers don't choose to print their books in your language which only 2-4% of people understand you can't read them, the same for movies, music, software interfaces, road signs, and of course you are stuck with this choice if your place of employment opts for any of those things that are English only.

The simple reality is that so long as Microsoft has a monopoly, people making a product or service that integrates with a computer or software can target that platform and reach 90+% of the market. When it costs just as much to target each other platform many can and do choose not to target the other 6%. You can make something web-based and possibly hit 100% and the mobile market as well but that requires a browser to access and Microsoft is shoving their browser down everyone's throat.

If they succeed suddenly they have the power they used to have with IE, the power to introduce new and incompatible features and make all other browsers look inferior simply because they have different features than what people are used to. Suddenly web content starts to have the same problem it used to have when MS had a browser monopoly a bunch of MS browser only targeted content. It would roll back advancements in open technology to the terrible state they were in during the 90's. In many workplaces people are still locked in to inferior IE only content due to mentalities and carry over solutions from those dark times. Nobody wants that... except Microsoft.

Comment Re:"Google works better with Chrome" (Score 3, Insightful) 370

Google and Facebook are pretty sleazy but they don't have a monopoly. Idiots buy into their shit eyes wide open.

Microsoft does have a monopoly and is actively trying to use it to dupe people into adopting their new products.

Google and Facebook have set up a stand that says in big bold blinking letters. "Free stonecones with ass raping!" When questioned they say that everyone has to be ass raped in order to make free snow cones possible. But that isn't the point, the point is, you could simply choose to buy a snow cone at any of the other snow cone stands.

Microsoft is setting up a booth in the doorway of the only grocery store in town with a sign saying "Free health checkup! You'll live longer using our quick and fun service." You then have to solve a rubiks cube to indicate you don't want the service and just want to go in the store, anything else, including putting the cube down results in a 6'5 greasy convict grabbing you and ass raping you.

See the difference?

Comment Re:"Google works better with Chrome" (Score 4, Insightful) 370

Google doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop... hasn't been convicted of illegally using that monopoly to give a market advantage vs competitors including their browser. That would be apples to apples if Microsoft were advertising Edge on bing.

Yet again, Microsoft is up to their old tricks. Sleezily shoving windows 10 down the throats of users and now slimy tricks to get people to install their new browser.

Comment Own "dang" tractors? (Score 1) 635

What is this some sort of group prejudice being encouraged in a Slashdot headline? I'm sorry if I'm mistaken but has the ring of looking down on someone to me. Perhaps the tongue in cheek remark of someone from the city who thinks farmers are uneducated woodchucks.

It's been more than 15 years since I lived there but I grew up in the county seat of a county primarily based in agriculture. It is pretty typical for a farmer to have a masters or higher and rare for them to have no degree. Most farms these days are multi-million dollar a year operations with highly educated staff required to operate them. Forget your images of Green Acres. Your hot shot city executive doesn't just lack the grit, he likely isn't intelligent enough and certainly isn't well enough educated to be a farmer. Depending on which portions of agriculture you specialize in, it's best thought of as either an engineering or science field and solidly in the realm of STEM. More than that, not only is there a great deal of school required but farmers are typically multi-generation and have as much or more hands on experience when they start school as many STEM workers have toward the end of their career.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin