Slashdot Mirror

Automation certainly does- to some extent- take away jobs. However, while this is a problem in capitalism, it's NOT a problem in communism- because if your basic needs are taken care of you don't necessarily NEED a steady job to survive.

Sure you do -- because by your own admission, those who do not work are physically-harmed.

Again, why work if you can expect some other sucker to work for you? What's the difference between working and not working -- unless there is a carrot or a stick? Under capitalism, there is a carrot: higher wages. Under communism, there is a stick: punishment, as you suggested.

Which one is less-coercive? Which one is more-free? The answer is above.

And thus we end up loosing freedom.

Only if the people -- the public, the community, whatever you call it -- *wants* to lose freedom. However, it is not forced upon them; it occurs of their own free will.

You picked a couple of bad examples for your side here- not only is there very little competition left among auto manufacturers, they even share factories these days. An Escort rolling off the line one car- a Turcel rolling off the line the next car- same car, different sticker.

How ignorant are you? Ford does not produce Tercels; Toyota does not produce Escorts (or Focii, the new model to come out from Ford 5 years ago).

They may share some parts, but they are by no means the same car. Toyota and Ford have no business alignment.

Mazda and Ford do, however. The Focus Ford builds uses a Mazda engine, and, IIRC, Mazda transmission. However, the chassis is still all-Ford, and it handles like it's on rails due to Ford's European arm, Mondeo, doing the chassis and suspension design.

But Mazda is still a separate corporate entity, with models they produce which Ford does not - even though Ford owns a substantial share of Mazda (and Volvo, and Aston Martin, and Jaguar, and Lincoln). Just as GM owns Cadillac, Chevy, Pontiac, and several other domestic carmakers, along with Saab (Swedish). But at the end of the day, those companies still operate as relatively-independent business units.

But to compare Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda -- they are are all *very* distinct companies (each with business units hanging off of them, as I mentioned above), with little sharing between them. GM and Toyota teamed up for the Chevy Nova/Toyota Corolla back in the late 1980s, then teamed up again on the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix in the last couple years. But that really is about the extent of their cooperation. GM's Suburban and Tahoes have no parts shared with any of Toyota's SUVs.

Not that I can tell- they all offer the same high rates and are owned by the same people.

Visa, MC, and Discover -- owned by the same people?

Now I *KNOW* you are talking out of your ass, because I have personal, direct knowledge of the credit card industry. Thanks for playing along with my experiment; you served quite well.

Discover is owned by Morgan Stanley Dean-Witter, a major investment banking firm. Discover was formerly owned by Sears Roebuck (which, if you notice, is doing so badly now that it is merging with KMart). Discover is the only consumer credit card company which also acts as its own bank. Other card companies offer their cards through 3rd-party banks, such as MBNA.

American Express, Visa, and MC are likewise separate, competing corporate entities. Visa is based in CA, MC is based in IL; I'm not sure where AMEX is based. Visa and MC are owned by the individual banks which issue their cards. It's a more-decentralized system than Discover has.

Clearly, they are separate entities. (large entities, yes, but still separate)

No- what that proves is that the Japanese bought out the American companies and are running the American fact

Halo1, i see you are still spreading FUD and demonstrating how little you really understand about this. first of all, "everything under the sun" has NOTHING to do with software patents. that was the language that was used in Diamond v. Charkrabarty to affirm the patentability of micro-organisms.

I was not referring to any particular court case. I merely meant that the proponents of software patents are generally proponents of unlimited patentability (except sometimes for business methods, keeping in mind that "technical" business methods such as one-click shopping have to be remain patentable). Unlimited = anything under the Sun.

FWIW, you might to write this 'one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America"' also an email noting that he doesn't know anything about it (see the paragraph that starts with "This change").

but it would make your side look bad to recognize that patents on software is a actually a far bigger economic issue than the narrow interests of "software" companies. you think this is YOUR debate and you ignore everyone else. big mistake, amigo.

Absolutely not, it is a fact that the software patents debate is much wider than just software development or the ICT sector. Software is used everywhere nowadays, it's a so-called "enabling" technology. In fact, most software patents are owned not by software companies, but by traditional manufacturing and electronics companies.

The reason is simple: those companies have always protected their innovations using patents. Currently, they are moving more and more stuff to the software field because it's easier and cheaper (otherwise they would keep using their old ways). But they want to keep using the ways of old to protect their innovations. It's plain innertia.

It's making a television that becomes more and more like writing software, and not writing software becomes more and more like making a television. Unless there are extremely good reasons, it does not make sense to change the whole IPR system of the software world simply because those companies cannot adapt to this fact.

bingo! give the man a prize. this is the problem Halo1, because you people are acting like a bunch of tree-hugging dimwits, the professional patent community is IGNORING you when actually your side has some perfectly valid points that should be heard and should be considered

but no, it's much more fun to scream and yell and call people names. it's not only childish, it's counterproductive to your "cause."

I don't call people names. You do. Axel Horns does. Simon Gentry does. Alex Pfeiffer does. You anecdotical evidence is as weak/powerful as mine.

why do you think that axel horns and many others dismiss you as a "bunch of communists?"

Because they can't cope with the fact that they aren't the only ones that have anything to say in this debate. They don't even want to consider any form of systematic limitation of patentable subject matter. They try to paint us as communists, open source hippies, anti-globalists, anarchists, family-terrorising psycho's (honestly, in front of MEPs no less!) and who knows what else, because ... I don't know why. Because they ran out of sane arguments?

software IS different, but it is not so bloody different that it should not be patented at all however some special considerations have to be made.

And how exactly did you want to fit that in the TRIPs agreement?

that being said, i take a deep breath and try very hard to separate the message from the messenger because it is my job to be rational.

I never attacked you personally. I simply pointed out how "rational" Axel Horns is from time to time in his blog. If you want to see rational ar

Oh, don't think you're original in calling Slashdot an "echo chamber"!. Give credit where it's due: Forbes.com

Near the bottom of the page where it says:

"Who runs this noisy echo chamber? Slashdot.org is owned by VA Software (nasdaq: LNUX - news - people ), a Linux vendor"

After scanning through the comments on today's duplicate post I still don't see any mention anywhere of the problems we experienced with the Nintendo DS, probably because most people who have one don't know anyone else who also has a DS to try the wireless network games and functions with.

I'm wondering if the problems that we encountered on a few Nintendo DS units were anomalies or if the problem was addressed with updated firmware. Please comment below if you are experiencing any of the same issues we saw, or new ones.

The details below are crossposted from the original, in the spirit of dual-screen/dual-posting goodness.

A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.

We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.

We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.

AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.

After scanning through the comments on today's duplicate post I still don't see any mention anywhere of the problems we experienced with the Nintendo DS, probably because most people who have one don't know anyone else who also has a DS to try the wireless network games and functions with.

I'm wondering if the problems that we encountered on a few Nintendo DS units were anomalies or if the problem was addressed with updated firmware. Please comment below if you are experiencing any of the same issues we saw, or new ones.

The details below are crossposted from the original, in the spirit of dual-screen/dual-posting goodness.

A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.

We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.

We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.

AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.

If you raised wages, EA would have to use less programmers to get a given job done, produce inferior work or have to charge higher prices

Bullshit on a stick, newbie. EA had an operating profit of over $500M USD last year, and spent several hundred million dollars on marketing alone. You want to argue that globalization should fuck workers here? I think it should make life better for workers everywhere.

EA's financial status as of last year.

Sales $2.82 bil
Profits $.50 bil
Assets $3.34 bil
Market Value $13.28 bil
Employees 4,000

CEO Probst's compensation package

$1.45M in cash this year, $145M in stock options granted over his career. Stock options may look free, but they damn well aren't-- the difference comes out of the company's profits same as any other compensation.

So, EA games has 3,300 programmers. Hire another 1,650 at $60,000 a pop, and the wages cost you $100M a year. Adjust to ~$150M a year for benefits, and you're still taking up less than one third of EA's operating profits from last year.

Productivity goes up, and it costs you less than the money spent compensating the CEO in the last 10 years.

We can also compare it to EA Games' marketing budget, estimated at >$100M in the last quarter. Cut your marketing budget by 30%, and you can hire enough programmers for them to have normal lives and increase production.

If you raised wages, EA would have to use less programmers to get a given job done, produce inferior work or have to charge higher prices

Bullshit on a stick, newbie. EA had an operating profit of over $500M USD last year, and spent several hundred million dollars on marketing alone. You want to argue that globalization should fuck workers here? I think it should make life better for workers everywhere.

EA's financial status as of last year.

Sales $2.82 bil
Profits $.50 bil
Assets $3.34 bil
Market Value $13.28 bil
Employees 4,000

CEO Probst's compensation package

$1.45M in cash this year, $145M in stock options granted over his career. Stock options may look free, but they damn well aren't-- the difference comes out of the company's profits same as any other compensation.

So, EA games has 3,300 programmers. Hire another 1,650 at $60,000 a pop, and the wages cost you $100M a year. Adjust to ~$150M a year for benefits, and you're still taking up less than one third of EA's operating profits from last year.

Productivity goes up, and it costs you less than the money spent compensating the CEO in the last 10 years.

We can also compare it to EA Games' marketing budget, estimated at >$100M in the last quarter. Cut your marketing budget by 30%, and you can hire enough programmers for them to have normal lives and increase production.

A month ago, after spending a couple of hours with the hardware and games, we published our Nintendo DS hands-on review / preview that includes discussion of some problems that we haven't seen anyone else mention even once.

We previewed and played Nintendo DS games Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt, Super Mario 64 DS, Spider-Man 2 DS and the onboard PictoChat instant messaging software.

We've been testing out the production models of the Nintendo DS for about a week now. When we've put the DS through a few weeks of use we'll let you know how how it rates.

AP reporter Matt Slagle has his review of the device as well, and he loves it (the headline is Nintendo DS a Sleek Powerhouse, also at USA Today), although we are a little more reserved until we see how it holds up, if the problems are persistent, and until we see some more applications that support and take advantage of the platform, and live up to the hardware's potential.

• Original Slashdot story here
• Forbes Story
• BBC Story

Well if they did, you would think they would have tied up the loose ends with Apple Records before launching it.

Monday Forbes reports Intel told software companies they should license a multi-core chip as one processor. Also on Monday, Intel compared their new Itanium to the "best published RISC" machine. Their graph indicates a 64-processor Itanium is about the same SpecIntRate as a 64-processor RISC machine. Now the funny part is for the RISC result they used the 32 chip Power5 SpecIntRate as 64-processors. So 64 Itanium-2 chips are really about the same as 32 Power-5 chips. So while Intel advocates per-chip licensing, they use per-core benchmarking. It is also interesting to note that this new Itanium-2 SpecIntBase of 1590 is just a bit faster than a 2 Ghz Pentium-M and much slower than a 2.6 Ghz Athlon-64-FX.

I did a stint in customer service. Tough job. It's impossible to please both the customers and the company you work for.

That having been said, the cell phone industry in the US has a lot to answer for. The fact of the matter is that everyone has been hit with at least 1 100 dollar phone bill in their lives, if not routinely. And while getting hit with that once a year means the company makes 8 dollars more per month for that subscriber, the customer suddenly feels like they're owed.

What other industry forces you to estimate the amount of something you are going to use, pay for services that may or may not be rendered, and make you pay through the nose if you guess low? This isn't a business relationship, this is The Price is Right. Do you think you will or will not roam? Will you be making any long distance calls? Do you think you will roam off our network in your home calling area? Planning on recieving any text messages? Are you sure you're only going to use 300 minutes with the holidays coming up? *DING!* The player guessed wrong. The phone company wins!

I got hit with a 100 dollar bill one month because I switched to "unlimited nationwide coverage" at a 15 dollar a month premium, traveled out to California, and mysteriously dropped off of AT&T's network. If I had paid an additional additional 10 dollars that month I would have had "unlimited nationwide coverage with off-network roaming" and recieved the same service from the same people for 90% less. They charged me 10 times the amount for the same service. That's 90 bucks they owe me. My girlfriend has to ask people to call her house long distance, because while her cellular phone company's landline long distance is only about 15 cents per minute (a high total these days, I might add), cellphone long distance is 60 cents per minute no matter which way the call is going. So if I pay 15 cents to get a call to the switching station of her cell phone company, and she pays a monthly fee to get it from the switch to her cell phone, she still has to pay a stupidly high fee for the priviledge of receiving the call.

If cell phone service were like power, you would pay X cents per minute. Maybe there would be variables like X cents per minute local, or X cents per minute off-prime, but they would be linear variables. None of this exploding-bill-for-the-same-service BS.

I buy a gallon of milk. It costs me 2 dollars. I buy another gallon of milk. It costs me 2 more dollars. I buy 400 minutes of talk time. It costs me 40 dollars. I buy another 400 minutes of talk time. It costs me 240 more dollars. Where else would we put up with this?

If the cellular companies didn't try to screw their users, maybe their users wouldn't try to get everything they can out of them.

Again, I know that isn't you. But you have to realize that the system you work for is not working for its users. BTW, cry not a tear for Verizon Wireless, it's making a healthy 10% return on capital. I'm convinced wireless companies could be making a lot more than that with a simple, fair pay-as-you-go non-prepaid no expiring minutes bullshit.

From the article: "If I could get EA CEO Larry Probst on the phone, there are a few things I would ask him. "What's your salary?" would be merely a point of curiosity."

That's easy, $672,759 (salary)+ $781,000 (in bonuses) for the fiscal year (FY) ending in March 2004.
That's not includeing the $149.7 million in stock options.

Lawrence F Probst, III has been listed in Forbes' America's Most Powerful People.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personi nfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPerson Id=216632

Don't know if it happened for apartments for individuals; but my company paid part of it's office space lease in stock. Also notible is Carl Berg of Berg Properties who made is $1 billion by "letting" companies like Sun and Alza pay part of their rent in stock instead of cash when they were starting up.

Unlikly to narrow significantly. Halo is a niche game. It's a console FPS, the people who bought Golden eye, many of them bought a Xbox and Halo. Now Halo2 isn't a significant move from Halo or even Golden eye. It's a incremental impovement oevr those last two. So how will it narrow the gap? the gap is huge, not a difference of 10-20%, It's 24 million units vs 8 million units. as of 2003. according to forbes.
forbes

The gap got even bigger. The xbox is a niche machine. They carry games a few people like a lot, but most of us would rather have the choice of playing a japanese rpg or a more western game with champions of norath and thats reflected in hwo the xbox sold. It will not catch up in this generation. Halo is a good FPS, but it's hardly worth even 10% of the hype it gets. IT's not a great game. It's a good game. It's like golden eye but with less modes of play and better graphics. I has it's place next to far cry and Unreal. Good but not great.

As for the American vs Jap games. I like Biowares games just as much as I like Square games. A good game is a good game regaurdless of who made it.

At least THIS jackass is doing something about it. I make 14 bucks an hour, i'm single, and live in an appartment. As of now, I'm investing my spare income on IRAs and my 401k. Also, I plan on investing into some mutual funds from Mairs and Power. Which BTW was given good reviews from.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0915/162cha rt.html/

Now rather then bitch and complain about how much the rich are better off then I am, I'm at least trying to pull myself to a better standard of living with a secure future in mind. Obviously there will always be "The Rich" and "The Poor" in society. But setting a course for a better future does NOT happen over night just as becomming "Rich" does not happen over night...unless you win the lotto.

I don't think anyone has to say that, do you? It's pretty obvious. Look at who just won the election. Look at his environmental record over the last four years. Look at what the markets say.

Everyone seems to forget that the US has three governing bodies, each with their own piece of the political power pie.

You seem to forget that all three are now under the control of a single party, which is itself under the control of the polluters. Basically, the current US government couldn't give any less of a fuck about the environment. They might give it some lip service, but in any decision where money is on the line, you can pretty much predict what side they will support.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/04/22/cz_jc_0422feat.ht ml

http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.h tml

Google. It's a tool for finding info on the web. I suggest you learn how to use it.

What about the second wealthiest person in America? What about the members of Responsible Wealth? What about Gordon Moore, who in addition to founding Intel, has been giving away huge sums of money for decades? What about these 50 philanthropists?

As for politicians, having worked in Washington, D.C., I can tell you that the vast majority of the elected and appointed people I met had very little interest in padding their fortunes. Politics is in general a much more difficult means of obtaining wealth than going into business. Sure, there are people who rotate between business and politics, taking advantage of the linkage. But there are plenty of hardworking politicians at the state and national level who really do want to do some good. You may not agree with their political leanings, their methods, or their effectiveness, but to paint them all as greedy bastards, while satisfying, is quite an exaggeration.

Seriously though most electric cars you have seen to date cater to people who only have 110V jacks to charge their cars with. A proper infrastructure could provide the raw power necessary so small dicked individuals will feel comfortable with their projected extension of their minuscule organ.

I don't know what you mean by "Wall Street", but most brokerage houses, banks and even the actual NYSE never used Windows for anything except desktops. The business has always been run on big iron IBM OS/390 and Sun boxes.

You are wrong, but even if you were right, investment firms won't have any patience for companies wasting money on Windoze, desktops included. My point was that they had moved away from that themselves and I find an abundance of information to back up my vague memories. Given the wrongness and insult of your reply, it's easy to see why it was posted AC.

My memory was of a stampede away from Windoze on the desktop after the early M$ dissasters, Melissa and Iloveyou arround 2000, 2001. The worms might have helped. I can't put my fingers on those articles now but I do find these, which offer much more. The time frame is correct, 2001, but the speed of adoption is faster and wider than I remember. Read and enjoy:

• A 2002 report of part of the stampede I remeber.
• Merril Lynch Complete top down implementation by one of those companies.
• NYSE replacing "dumb" x terminals with Linux for all the reasons M$ uses to sell their stuff.
• Some people from big companies who should know.
• The most informative article of all. Tracing the roots of the migration and it's totality, including taking desktops from Microsoft.

I've worked here (in NY) for the better part of the past six years as a consultant and I've never come across a major financial institution using Linux except for web and file servers. The desktop is still Microsoft's and the business is still IBM's and Sun's.

From the above, I'd say you are out of the loop. Microsoft is not on the desktop anymore. Sun may still be around, but people think it's expensive and IBM is doing well because they reduced costs with free software. Who do you service, hot dog vendors or dopes like Bankone?

The topic of disccusion was responsiblity and accountability for "security". I identified the biggest security headache out there, it's ramifications and why no company employing fall guys is going to get away with it for long. The bankers know, from first hand experience, what the problem is and what the solution is. They are not going to fall for blame shifting and excuse making when they look at IT budgets bloated with Windoze induced costs. The bottom line is what's inspected.

The funny thing is, they didn't have to change the hair or skin tone much to make this mask...

http://images.forbes.com/media/halloween/gates.jpg

No, but you sure can blame Bush for the failed coup in Venezuela on April 11th, 2002. The motive seems to have been the same as the one in Iran.

Whats even more interesting is this:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/200 4/10/26/generalprimemedia_2004_10_26_eng-primemedi a_eng-primemedia_113013_9170893455375305453.html?p artner=yahoo&referrer=

Looks like Verizon also wants to put cable TV over the same fiber. When will Verizon be able then to offer cable TV as well ?

Ditto for "does the school support handheld computers" -- what does this mean? They sell them in the university bookstore; if the survey means "does the university provide tech support for handheld computers," I have to wonder who expects minimum-wage university-helpdesk drones to be able to answer a hardware-specific question better than minimum-wage hardware-manufacturer-tech-support drones. At least the manufacturer's drones have access to training materials.

They also got "does the school stream audio or video of any courses" dead wrong; we have about half a building outfitted for broadcast-enabled classrooms, and I ended up skipping about half of the lectures for my programming language foundations class because it was easier to watch the webcast later.

It's called research, people. Try it sometime.

Quite a lot of the No's for Carnegie Mellon should be Yes also. I think this list is basically crap.

Forbes listing for the University of Michigan has a couple of incorrect items.

We do have a wireless network on 'some portions' of campus (and it's growing).

We have provided space for web pages for quite some time. In fact, we just upgraded the standard amount of space available to 1GB per person.

Their methodology is weak. Users don't care about technology, they care about how easy and seamless it is to use.

I checked on the University of Minnesota (my school) and several items were incorrect.

Despite what Forbes.com says, there is a wireless network (has been for like 4 years), the school provides web pages, the school does stream courses, network access is available in dormitory lounges (because there's a wireless network), the school has multimedia equipment for students to use, it provides courses in "emerging technologies" (what the fuck?), and it streams it's radio station (radiok.org).

The only thing it doesn't do is require you to have a computer. Who the hell put this list together anyway?

I believe there were some mistakes in the MIT data.

I believe the whole thing is a load of crap. After getting tons of 404s from the links in the article, I managed to find the info on WPI. According to Forbes, WPI doesn't offer online classes, doesn't have a computer ethics policy, doesn't provide multimedia equipment, doesn't stream its radio station...

Five minutes at their web site reveals information that Forbes couldn't find. And people get paid to do this? I'm in the wrong racket...

Their data is quite bad. They claim that Texas A&M University-College Station and University of California-Santa Barbara do not have campus networks. I kid you not.

• Is there a campuswide network?: yes
• Is there a wireless network?: yes
• Can students access e-mail away from school?: yes
• Does the school provide Web pages?: yes
• Does the school offer classes online?:
• Can students register online?: yes
• Can students do other administrative functions online?: yes
• Are students required to own a computer?: No, thats what labs are for!
• :Can students get discounted computers? yes
• Does the school support handheld computers? yes
• Does the school stream audio or video of any courses?: yes
• Is network access available in dorm rooms?: yes
• Is network access available in dormitory lounges?: yes
• Is a computer ethics policy in place for the school?: yes
• :Do students have access to Usenet newsgroups?: yes
• Does tuition include a computer?: No, thats what labs are for!
• Does the school provide multimedia equipment?: yes
• Does the school offer courses in emerging technologies?: yes
• Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations?: yes

http://forbes.com/finance/lists/8/2004/LIR.jhtml?p assListId=8&passYear=2004&passListType=Misc&unique Id=950143&datatype=Misc

there is a wireless network and it covers most of the school http://is.depaul.edu/communication/network/wireles s_access.asp

the school gives every student some webspace http://students.depaul.edu/students/ab.html

cti(one of the schools) streams both audio and video of all classes https://dlweb.cti.depaul.edu/login/login.asp

our radio is only streamed http://radio.depaul.edu/

Some mistakes in the data for my school, too. Univ of California, Davis is reported as having no wireless network, but I'm on it right now!

North Carolina State University

It says the school does not supply web pages. This is bull crap since I've had a website on the school server for over a year. Plus it explains right here on state's own server HOW to set up your web page.

Create your own homepage

Heck, every freshman undergrad is required to take a computer class where they make their own website.

Now down to the bottom, it says the school does not provide multimedia equipment. Again, completely false. Look at this site again on ncsu.edu

Multimedia Reserve

This is why I hate school rankings like these. They are usually very misleading and often contain false information.

my school has a few incorrect ones.
there *is* a wireless network. the school provides multimedia equipment upon request (And they have a fair bit of it to spare).

I kind of doubt the validity of their rating system, or at least it's accuracy. Clemson University, my Alma Mater, wasn't ranked well to my surprise.

Checking into their system a little more, I found a 'Checklist' of things that the school supposedly did and didn't have, and found it to be at least inaccruate if not wrong. I worked there as a Student IT Tech, and know that some of the things listed as "No" on the checklist were, in fact, in place at the University.

There are other comments above that similar mistakes were made for MIT. It doesn't seem like a whole lot of care went into making that list.

Of course, it would be nice if we knew more details of the questions asked. For instance, does a wireless network have to be campus-wide for it to count? What kind of multimedia equipment are they talking about and what do they mean by "provide"?

i'm not surprised my school's not on the top 25, but there were a few things wrong with how it was reported...

here's the page

1) the school DOES provide web pages.
2) the rest of the X's don't really make a school better. you can have stuff available even if it's not done through the internet. campus television (which is available throughout the state as well as satellite everywhere else) can be accessed ANYWHERE - needing a computer would be dumb. Why would being required to own a computer be good when there are thousands of computers on campus? if tuition included a computer, tuition would cost more. computers can be rented for like $15 a month. as for multimedia equipment... i don't see why that's on there... you get equipment if you're in a class that requires its use.

PSU offers webmail, online course registration, online classes, free web space w/ http access and limited CGI, network access in dorm rooms, and I think there are areas with wireless scattered around the campus.

But that doesn't mean the sorority girls aren't slutty, or make up for the fact it's a football school first and a teaching school second.

This study makes no sense. My school, the University of Oregon, offers free web hosting, discounted computers, support for handheld computers, multimedia equipment to borrow, and courses in emerging technologies. Why is all the information at Forbes.com wrong?

I'm not saying the UO is high tech, or that they should have been rated higher. I just wonder if they screwed up the data from other schools, too.

Yeah. Take a look at my alma mater, Columbia. The stats are just plain wrong: there's a campuswide wireless network, many classes are offered online and some in streaming video, the school provides webspace (though admittedly it's still up to you to design your site), and both WKCR and WBAR are streamed online. So why are these all red X's in Forbes' table?

Oh, here's the MIT page. I think with those two "No" answers corrected, MIT should be #3 on the list.

Anyone with the skill to implement half the stuff Rensselaer has would avoid that place like the plague.

Unless they want slutty sorority girls to drunkenly fawn over them.

In which case they're too busy to implement a WAN.

The article doesn't have enough data for all the schools. For instance Penn State, my alma mater, is pretty much in the dark ages according to Forbes. Penn State meets all of the questions, so they should all be yes. And the computer to student ratio is about 1/3 (one computer for every three students).

So I really question this article.

Sadly, the business world is full of idiot-greed-mongers just like Darl. I'm sure he is a cult hero at Forbes. So I would suggest that there are probably many such 'business leaders' who either do believe him or would believe him if they knew anything about the on-going litigation.

I'm not going to name any names, but there is at least one Fortune-500 company that has a "no F/OSS unless absolutely neccessary" policy that is a direct result of SCO's rhetoric.

Forbes also has an article about this.

LCDs were losing money, but the company was profitable because they were showing speculative stock market and real estate gains as if they were the company's profits from operations. But it was bogus, a sleight of hand. Sharp didn't make money at all. Ouch. If that's true, the entire Japanese electronics business was, well, a profitless pit. Turns out it was worse than that.

Interesting... this just goes to confirm this story:

LCD makers sell panels below production prices
But makers hope stock mountain crumbling

WHILE MAKERS of panels for LCD monitors and TVs are hoping that distributors and resellers have demolished inventory mountains over the last few weeks, giant manufacturer LG Philips is now selling units for less than it costs to make them, it has emerged.

--snip--

And this one...

LCD oversupply causes price tumble Martin Lynch, 08.30.04, 11:10 AM ET

Demand for LCD panels fell off in the second quarter of this year, leading to an uncharacteristic oversupply scenario, which is expected to continue throughout Q3. But market watcher iSuppli has predicted that demand will rise again by the end of the year.

The analyst found that although there was an increase in large LCD panel unit shipments of 17 per cent over Q1, it still fell short of expectations. This spurred a 6.4 per cent oversupply of panels and led to a series of price reductions as vendors and VARs scrambled to clear stock.

The situation is likely to continue throughout this quarter with the expected opening of eight new fabrication plants. Supply might slow in Q4 but the researcher has claimed the market will be flooded in 2005.

In its quarterly Global LCD Supply/ Demand Forecast, iSuppli said: "We believe the current panel price decreases will boost end-user demand for LCD panels by the holiday season at the end of this year.

"This, accompanied by the cuts in supply that some suppliers have announced, will result in a situation of slight undersupply in Q4 2004, before the industry settles into a period of oversupply throughout 2005."

Mike Farrah, senior business manager for audiovisual and displays at Ingram Micro, said: "We went from constraint in Q1 to oversupply in Q2. All the vendors have had quite a lot of stock and the only way to get rid of it is to cut the price.

"Prices on 17in panels have fallen by 15 to 20 per cent. In Q1, a 17in panel cost dealers ?250; now they can pick one up for ?170.

"On 15in and 17in panels prices will be fairly steady over the next few weeks. The main drop will be seen on 19in and 21in panels. Manufacturers are much more efficient at producing these sizes now."

Panel prices on LCD TVs fell sharply during Q2 but iSuppli maintained that consumer prices are still not low enough to boost demand significantly.

I actually think that a major drop in the price of oil & subsequent uptick in the stock market is a possible "October Surprise". Why would they do this?

o Oil is at the 20-year high, ~$50/barrel.
o Prince Bandar bin Sultan has already said (though long enough ago that people have forgotten) he'll step up production to cut prices for the election.
o Even a small drop in oil prices will cause the stock markets to rise.

It's a question of timing, I guess, when to drop prices so that everyone gets a nice gas-pump price reduction, but I'm waiting for it to happen.

Imagine if prices went back down to ~$40/barrel: stock market up, gas prices down & still ~$10/barrel up from a year ago. <sarcasm>Everyone wins!</sarcasm>

The patent office's dubious practices don't cost us anything now. They're actually profitable. It's just the long term consequences for innnovation that worrying.
-sd