<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Atomic Energy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.atomicinc.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on a Turbulent Age</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:19:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Reverse Psychology? How DRM may increase piracy! by Sam Aparicio</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2011/10/20/reverse-psychology-how-drm-may-increase-piracy/comment-page-1/#comment-6715</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Aparicio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=430#comment-6715</guid>
		<description>Avi, great post.

I think a lot of people pirate content because it&#039;s a much more convenient way to consume it. 

http://blog.aparicio.org/2010/02/19/discovering-the-motives-behind-piracy-can-lead-to-innovation/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Avi, great post.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people pirate content because it&#8217;s a much more convenient way to consume it. </p>
<p><a href="http://blog.aparicio.org/2010/02/19/discovering-the-motives-behind-piracy-can-lead-to-innovation/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.aparicio.org/2010/02/19/discovering-the-motives-behind-piracy-can-lead-to-innovation/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? by microsoft &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Skype: The Numbers Behind Microsoft&#039;s Acquisition</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2011/05/10/now-microsoft-is-buying-skype/comment-page-1/#comment-6563</link>
		<dc:creator>microsoft &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Skype: The Numbers Behind Microsoft&#039;s Acquisition</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 05:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=320#comment-6563</guid>
		<description>[...] is what Microsoft paid per user for Skype, according to Atomic Inc. When eBay bought Skype behind in 2005, they paid $45.60 per user. So Skype&#8217;s cost went up, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is what Microsoft paid per user for Skype, according to Atomic Inc. When eBay bought Skype behind in 2005, they paid $45.60 per user. So Skype&#8217;s cost went up, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? by Iran gets another nuclear fuel batch from Russia: report (Reuters) &#124; FEED NEWS</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2011/05/10/now-microsoft-is-buying-skype/comment-page-1/#comment-6560</link>
		<dc:creator>Iran gets another nuclear fuel batch from Russia: report (Reuters) &#124; FEED NEWS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 18:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=320#comment-6560</guid>
		<description>[...] Atomic Energy » Blog Archive » Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Atomic Energy » Blog Archive » Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? by 14 And 50: These Two Numbers Explain Why Microsoft Dropped $8.5 Billion On Skype (MSFT) &#124; JZK Retail</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2011/05/10/now-microsoft-is-buying-skype/comment-page-1/#comment-6558</link>
		<dc:creator>14 And 50: These Two Numbers Explain Why Microsoft Dropped $8.5 Billion On Skype (MSFT) &#124; JZK Retail</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 12:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=320#comment-6558</guid>
		<description>[...] &#119;&#104;&#097;&#116; Microsoft paid per user &#102;&#111;&#114; Skype. &#066;&#121; contrast, Atomic Inc points out, &#119;&#104;&#101;&#110; eBay &#098;&#111;&#117;&#103;&#104;&#116; Skype back &#105;&#110; 2005, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#119;&#104;&#097;&#116; Microsoft paid per user &#102;&#111;&#114; Skype. &#066;&#121; contrast, Atomic Inc points out, &#119;&#104;&#101;&#110; eBay &#098;&#111;&#117;&#103;&#104;&#116; Skype back &#105;&#110; 2005, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? by 14.17 And 50: These Two Numbers Explain Why Microsoft Dropped $8 Billion On Skype &#171; AndFed.com &#8211; Breaking News &#124; Latest News &#124; Current News</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2011/05/10/now-microsoft-is-buying-skype/comment-page-1/#comment-6557</link>
		<dc:creator>14.17 And 50: These Two Numbers Explain Why Microsoft Dropped $8 Billion On Skype &#171; AndFed.com &#8211; Breaking News &#124; Latest News &#124; Current News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 09:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=320#comment-6557</guid>
		<description>[...] is what Microsoft paid per user for Skype. By contrast, Atomic Inc points out, when eBay bought Skype back in 2005, they paid $45.6 per user. So Skype&#8217;s price went up, but [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is what Microsoft paid per user for Skype. By contrast, Atomic Inc points out, when eBay bought Skype back in 2005, they paid $45.6 per user. So Skype&#8217;s price went up, but [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Now Microsoft is Buying Skype? by Newspaper → The newspaper</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2011/05/10/now-microsoft-is-buying-skype/comment-page-1/#comment-6556</link>
		<dc:creator>Newspaper → The newspaper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 08:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=320#comment-6556</guid>
		<description>[...] 14.7 is what Microsoft paid per user for Skype. By contrast, Atomic Inc points out, when eBay bought Skype back in 2005, they paid $ 45.6 per user. So Skype&#8217;s price went up, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 14.7 is what Microsoft paid per user for Skype. By contrast, Atomic Inc points out, when eBay bought Skype back in 2005, they paid $ 45.6 per user. So Skype&#8217;s price went up, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The future of networks by avi</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-networks/comment-page-1/#comment-6512</link>
		<dc:creator>avi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=293#comment-6512</guid>
		<description>@ysh,

There are actually two distinct markets here: enterprises, and low-latency locations. Sometimes the two meet (certain parts of Wall Street), sometimes they are distinct. I think the argument still holds water for enterprises, and might even for low latency. The low latency space is primarily solved in hardware, not necessarily software. But perhaps this niche will continue to remain the domain of high-margin providers. Even here, though, I am not convinced.

Avi</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ysh,</p>
<p>There are actually two distinct markets here: enterprises, and low-latency locations. Sometimes the two meet (certain parts of Wall Street), sometimes they are distinct. I think the argument still holds water for enterprises, and might even for low latency. The low latency space is primarily solved in hardware, not necessarily software. But perhaps this niche will continue to remain the domain of high-margin providers. Even here, though, I am not convinced.</p>
<p>Avi</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The future of networks by ysh</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-networks/comment-page-1/#comment-6511</link>
		<dc:creator>ysh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:12:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=293#comment-6511</guid>
		<description>I agree with respect to typical businesses or home users.  However, I don&#039;t think open source firewalls will ever scale up to large enterprises (think wall street banks), nor will they ever meet the low-latency requirements of hedge funds and their data providers.  

I see Cisco and its competitors improving for all 5 issues noted above.    

Cutting edge companies in the low-latency space will always choose the best combination of functionality and price that allows them to do business, and will worry about support models and SLA&#039;s later.  For example, I&#039;ve seen companies use Juniper firewalls and Blade Network low latency RackSwitches.  No Cisco devices in the low latency path.  Too expensive and don&#039;t perform as well.

And for the large banks, its a similar theory to the old \buy blue\ of 20 years ago.  Risk-averse IT managers can&#039;t go wrong with a known quantity that will be suable if something really goes wrong.  No senior manager will bet a multi-billion dollar firm on a startup.  Perhaps a niche application, but not the core.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with respect to typical businesses or home users.  However, I don&#8217;t think open source firewalls will ever scale up to large enterprises (think wall street banks), nor will they ever meet the low-latency requirements of hedge funds and their data providers.  </p>
<p>I see Cisco and its competitors improving for all 5 issues noted above.    </p>
<p>Cutting edge companies in the low-latency space will always choose the best combination of functionality and price that allows them to do business, and will worry about support models and SLA&#8217;s later.  For example, I&#8217;ve seen companies use Juniper firewalls and Blade Network low latency RackSwitches.  No Cisco devices in the low latency path.  Too expensive and don&#8217;t perform as well.</p>
<p>And for the large banks, its a similar theory to the old \buy blue\ of 20 years ago.  Risk-averse IT managers can&#8217;t go wrong with a known quantity that will be suable if something really goes wrong.  No senior manager will bet a multi-billion dollar firm on a startup.  Perhaps a niche application, but not the core.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Social Media as a business loser? by Atomic Energy » Blog Archive » Social Media as a business loser? &#124; Israel Today</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2010/01/24/social-media-as-a-business-loser/comment-page-1/#comment-6458</link>
		<dc:creator>Atomic Energy » Blog Archive » Social Media as a business loser? &#124; Israel Today</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=253#comment-6458</guid>
		<description>[...] View original post here: Atomic Energy » Blog Archive » Social Media as a business loser? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] View original post here: Atomic Energy » Blog Archive » Social Media as a business loser? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Information Security is still hot by Computer, Electronic, and Freeware</title>
		<link>http://blog.atomicinc.com/2010/01/20/information-security-is-still-hot/comment-page-1/#comment-6457</link>
		<dc:creator>Computer, Electronic, and Freeware</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.atomicinc.com/?p=251#comment-6457</guid>
		<description>[...] Information Security is still hot [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Information Security is still hot [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

