Slashdot Mirror

Dr. Pepper/7-Up is owned by Cadbury Schweppes plc (in the UK), "the world's #3 soft-drink producer" It's common to see bottling contracted out to local bottlers who may carry the name of another company. Bottling is a seperate entity from the big 3. DP/7-UP DP Bottling Cadbury Schweppes

Dr. Pepper/7-Up is owned by Cadbury Schweppes plc (in the UK), "the world's #3 soft-drink producer" It's common to see bottling contracted out to local bottlers who may carry the name of another company. Bottling is a seperate entity from the big 3. DP/7-UP DP Bottling Cadbury Schweppes

Google - Searching 3,307,998,701 web pages:

Google Search: Altavista
First site returned:
Hmm..... returns the 'competitor' - commies?
Or worse - liberals!
;~0

Altavista searching worldwide: Google
First site returned:

Serves business first - you're right - very American.

The technology was called "flourescent multi-layer disc" (FMD), and it was developed by Constellation 3-D. They claimed capacities between 20 and 140 gigabytes, and that they were licensing the technology to third parties. What became of it? nothing. C3D filed for bankruptcy in December 2002 (hoovers doesn't mention what kind of bankruptcy; check the c3d capsule out here).

My opinion: to end users, there's no such thing as a breakthrough, only incremental improvement.

Roey

Here

Here

Here

and here.

First two things to learn in journalism school: Behind every newsworthy event, find out who benefits and follow the money. That's where you'll find the REAL story.

When was the last big downturn, what happened back then and what changed because of it?

Were you asleep during the dotcom bust? You missed that?

When was the last big downturn, what happened back then and what changed because of it?

Were you asleep during the dotcom bust? You missed that?

sPh

People have talked about the chilling effect of calling the FBI to kick in the doors of some kids. Perhaps Slashdot can show companies how this chilling effect can backfire. Here are the useful names and numbers to return their favor:

From their webpage:
We look forward to hearing from you!

Or by phone: 419-724-9800

Or visit in person
5566 Southwyck Blvd
Monday through Saturday from 8am until 7pm.
Sunday, 12 noon until 5pm

And don't forget to make sure to bite the hands that feeds them, here is the parent company's info. Block Communications Incorporated has these happy numbers listed:
Phone: 419-724-6000
Fax: 419-724-6080
Or from their earning press release . We can find these info tidbits:
Jodi Miehls
Treasurer of Block Communications
419-724-6257
jmiehls@toledoblade.com

Actually, this isn't just a standard for wireless phones - at least, that isn't my reading of the wireless aliance's mission statement, which isn't terribly substance heavy.

My reading is that this is a standards-development-drive for wireless devices in general. The CNN article acts like this would only impact "web enabled" cell phones; but I don't see why that would be. Considering that Walt Disney is involved in the group - a mysterious choice since Walt Disney is not, according to my recollection or the simple research I just did, involved in the cell phone industry in even the most peripheral way - I strongly suspect that the group is going to develop standards related to one of the areas in which Disney does business.

This might be TV or Radio - ABC owns 10 and 55 stations, respectively. Something about spectrum? More likely, Disney is involved because of some percieved impact on wireless "content distribution," and this alliance may very well come up with some standard for DRM they want all portable IP-employing devices to adhere to.

Great job, Google!

Google made $65,000,000 last year (And that's sales not profit). Scientology offered $12,000,000 just to settle one case. Google is really no match for Scientology.

Maybe the should have taken the risk and fight this battle but what about other, even smaller companies, what about individuals ? It's really the law that makes a problem, isn't it ?

According to this ,sony owns 40 % of Loews theater. I think they could spring for digi theaters.

Hoover'sHoover's has half a million paying subscribers, with subscriptions that start at $400 a year and go up.

LexisNexishas thousands of subcribers, with entry-level subscriptions starting at $6000 a year.

Salon has 25,000 paying subscribers at $30-odd a year.

Not to mention the Wall Street Journal and Consumer Reports, both with subscriber bases over half a million.

People WILL, and DO pay for compelling content. But you have to have something worth paying for.

This Hoover's capsule says TBS is a subsidiary of AOL/TW - I think Time Warner bought it outright. Generally, "Inc." is used for private companies (Although Sun Microsystems, Inc. is a notable exception) and "Corp." is used for public companies. Although Turner did manage the division under Time Warner, This article at Forbes says he lost control with the merger with AOL.

the article is available on the Hoovernews website

ZeroKnowledge's product, although very sophisticated, suffers from a number of drawbacks that make it difficult to use for most people in common situations. It is clearly not a one click solution to privacy that is accessible for everyone, anywhere, for free, without downloads. Online privacy problems affect everyone, yet most publicized solutions are only partial or specialized and consequently impractical and frustrating for the average Internet user. These users then resign themselves to surrendering their online privacy as a technical cost of using the Internet. The result is a flawed Internet community, and governments threatening to regulate the Internet with overtones of censorship.

First, let's address some issues I raised in my original post.

(1) ZeroKnowledge's product, Freedom, costs: $49.95 USD

(2) It is unnecessarily slow, bouncing packets between three 2nd tier ISPs.

(3) It is easy to block at firewalls since it requires fixed ports 5110 through 51113 to be open ( the second to last line on this page describes this incompatibility ).

(4) It only runs on Win95/98.

(5) It does not work with AOL, CompuServe2000, and some free ISPs. Even if you think "AOL sucks" as one commentator said, Internet privacy is a global issue and by protecting the 24M AOL users we protect ourselves by making it more difficult for eavesdroppers in general.

(6) It does not work with popular software such as McAfee's Personal Firewall, FrontPage webserver, Netware Client32. If you are using Nyms, it also does not work with Outlook, Napster, or PCAnywhere. This is documented on the ZeroKnowledge website under the main support page as #3 among the Top 10 Known Issues and detailed in Issue #57: Applications not supported by Freedom.

(7) ZeroKnowlege has difficulty with cookies. Their support page lists two known, unresolved problems dealing with client-side cookies in Issue #222: Websites say I don't have cookies enabled and Issue #223: Some websites won't let me log in.

(8) Most users are simply not going to be willing to (or, in managed networks, permitted to) install Freedom. The office is where users have access to a new computer, fast Internet connections, and a nice laser printer. In the increasingly long workday, many people are forced to attend to personal matters from their workplace. Individuals need private access to the Internet at work just as they need private access to the telephone to conduct their lives.

(9) ZeroKnowledge users must register personal and credit card information. The less information out there about you the more secure and private you'll be online.

I respect and admire ZeroKnowlege for the challenges they took on in addressing Internet privacy issues. However, their product is very specialized in its architecture and designed to solve a particular subset of privacy problems. The ZK folks have been big supporters, educators, and sponsors of privacy, and we owe them our gratitude. Finally, the depth of their technical product speaks directly to their skill set and ingenuity.

I'm posting to inform people about our web-based solution to the privacy problem, a solution that addresses all the issues outlined above and that aims to serve a broader audience. Our approach has many distinct technical challenges just like the download model. We do not claim to have the complete solution, but we feel we are the closest to a practical solution that works for the majority of Internet users. Ultimately the veracity of these claims will be borne out by users: try out SafeWeb and compare it to Freedom. Decide for yourself. Again, if you have constructive feedback in how we can build a better privacy technology we are eager to hear your suggestions. Email us at webmaster@safeweb.com.

Jon Chun
President
SafeWeb

Sure, here's a couple:

http://www.mexico-info.com/leadstor ies/slim.htm

http://www.hoovers.com/ uk/co/capsule/5/0,3042,56815,00.html

Here is a listing of pending federal suits involving Microsoft. 18 pages, 352 cases. This is pretty typical for corporations -- I think what is interesting are the number of cases filed by Microsoft. Browsing through the cases, Microsoft primarily files copyright infringement suits. Just thought this was interesting info to post considering that many responses here exclaim that Microsoft is sued too much. What goes around comes around. Not just $$$ for attorneys, but it keeps the attorneys at Microsoft employed. If they could just figure out how to operate windows and the damn VCR...

Hmmm... that's up 260% in less than 2 months... OK, so it's down from the 12/9/99 open of $300, but most investors I know wouldn't be too disappointed in +260% in 53 days. (I'd be happy. I wanted in, but E*TRADE wouldn't do it, so I'm just an outsider looking in.)

The rest isn't really a direct response to Animats' posting, but it's been building up in me as I've been reading all the other posts about the imminent demise of the editorial integrity of /.

Sigh. Why do some people assume that what's good for a business is bad for the (your name here) community? Why is anyone w/ a mortgage and the corresponding paycheck a "suit"? Why is someone who is successful instantly distrusted? I suppose Gates & Co. had a lot to do with this, but I'd like to think he's more the exception than the rule.

I program computers. I get paid for it. If I didn't, I'd be waiting tables or fixing cars or washing dishes (and getting paid for that).

You don't have to turn your bullshit detectors completely off, but a little trust and hope ain't always a bad thing.

--

FYI: It appears that Capital West is underwriting LinuxOne's IPO.

Here's some info:
http://www.hoovers.com/co/ capsule/6/0,2163,61366,00.html

Look at . It looks like this is a ploy to rev up their earnings and find some growth since they are all fresh out of new ideas. It's what you'd expect from a firm that has become a dinosaur which survives off of legacy technologies. This is proof they are a has-been and a bottom feeder. Say, what was that os that lived in old Sperry iron anyway?

If my memory serves, they were burning about $ 25 million a year in cash

Financials

Looks like somewhere around $17M. So they've got two years.