Slashdot Mirror
Domain: nytimes.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to nytimes.com.
Comments · 17,660
-
Re:Stereotypes
As reported in this Slashdot story, the interview is here (free reg, etc.)
The relevant question and response were:
We've been getting hit with a lot of viruses and worms lately. What's your idea for ending the attacks?
When you have people who hook up these machines that weren't designed for the Internet, and they don't even want to know about all the intricacies of network security, what can you expect? We get what we have now: a system that can be brought down by a teenager with too much time on his hands. Should we blame the teenager? Sure, we can point the finger at him and say, ''Bad boy!'' and slap him for it. Will that actually fix anything? No. The next geeky kid frustrated about not getting a date on Saturday night will come along and do the same thing without really understanding the consequences. So either we should make it a law that all geeks have dates -- I'd have supported such a law when I was a teenager -- or the blame is really on the companies who sell and install the systems that are quite that fragile.
-
Re:2/1
IANAMA (I am not a market anaylist) but stock buyers these days usually aren't stupid. We don't have day traders like we use to back in the boom days. My guess is that regular buyers dumped their stock after the initial run when they announced the law suit. Now that it is clear that they will lose, I believe the stock price is kept artificially high buy shorts who are betting that the stock price will fall.
On Oct 15 you can see a lot of traffic resulting in the price moving higher. Why would anybody buy an obviously overpriced volitle stock? At such a time when it is blatenty clear that the lawsuit is pure FUD and the future of the company is moot and their market cap will collapse? The only reason is a LOT of people are betting it will indeed collapse. -
Re:Green party
The problem is, when the votes were actually recounted, it was discovered that Gore was already over the top.
In what alternate universe did that happen? The final recounts revealed that Bush did indeed win. Nobody is going to accuse the NY Times of being Bushies but here is a better evaluation of the whole Myth and talks about Judicial Watch's involvement. -
How I knew this couldn't be true
I didn't even need to click. I've been doing the math to figure how big a deal this iTunes thing is (not big, at least not yet).
Here are the numbers. The U.S. record industry sold $12.6 billion worldwide in various formats (almost all CDs) in 2002. This is off a bit from the peak $14.6 billion in 1999. It's important to keep in mind that, even at those levels, we're talking about nine weeks revenue for IBM.
Assuming the Windows side of iTunes Music Store continues to sell at the initial rate of 1 million songs/$1 million revenue in the first 3.5 days, that's only about $104 million per year. The Mac side sold $13 million in tunes in the first six months, so we'll put that side at $26 million per year.
That's $130 million per year for all iTMS. Even if the store doubles its sales, and then the other stores collectively match its sales, you'd be talking about total online sales of $520 million per year, still a drop in the bucket.
The growth will need to get exponential before there is any comparison with offline music sales. I'm not saying it won't happen, but that's what we're talking about, and that's how I instantly new the hed on the posting was wrong. -
Let's get realistic
I love Google, but realistically speaking, it sounds as if investors are setting themselves up for another Dot com bust. There is no way on the planet Google is worth 1 billion US dollars. Sure they provide an excellent service, but to think that it's worth anything more than a couple of million is a farce.Google has around US$700-million in annual revenues, and it makes about US$100-million a year in profits. Google is growing better than 20% every 12 months. source
They (Google) should have taken what Moneybags was offering while the going was getting hot. Now it seems like they want to be a slight be greedy, which in this economy with it's uncertainty due to political factors, Israel, (fake)War on tError, etal, it's likely they're going to luck out. Heck even Warren Buffett is taking his money elsewhere, and anyone in the economics field knows he knows how to make money.
-
Re:I haven't tried it yet, either
Now, the fact that the U.S. president has no mental capacity to understand this, and believes the electorate is at least as stupid as he is, do not change the underlying truth.
Here's the result of this President's stupidity: Economy Grew at 7.2% Rate in 3rd Quarter, Fastest Since 1984
Peace be with you,
-jimbo -
A much more in-depth story...
...is in Monday's New York Times.
Although it concentrates more on the free-speech issues of Diebold's cease-and-desist campaign, it is far more informative than the deeply flawed CNN piece.
-
Yet another article
Here's a link to the page, no login required:
LINK!
Sig & Below -
Re:YAD - Yet Another Duplicate
rsidd wrote:
Same NYT article, different spin this time. Perhaps it takes slashdotters that long to read the article. Or have the good folks at the SMH read it and interpret it for them.Perhaps. By the same token, perhaps the moderators should bother reading the article before erroneously modding comments down as offtopic or instead of following the first mod like lemmings.
Then again, there was no Google link to the article referred in both today's and Friday's posts, so I suppose it's too much to ask for them to bother moderating knowledgeably. Even if you hover above the NYT link, you can plainly see that both are pointing to the same article.
No, this is not a troll. Just stating what should be obvious to all.
-
Re:YAD - Yet Another Duplicate
Yes, it is a duplicate. The links above refer to the same story. For details you can read my previous post about this, the relevant portion of which I have appended here for convenience.Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
I shall quote from the original NYT article referred to in the post above (same as Friday's), emphasis added.
QEDAccording to company executives and others briefed on the discussions, Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google within the last two months to discuss options, including the possibility of a takeover.
While the overture appears to have gained little traction - Google indicated that it preferred the initial offering route, the executives said - it demonstrates the enormous importance that Google represents as both a competitive threat to Microsoft and as Silicon Valley's latest hope for a new financial boom.
Google recently started wheedling down a long list of investment banks it approached earlier this month about underwriting the offering, which could be worth from $15 billion to $25 billion, the executives said.
-
Re:YAD - Yet Another Duplicate
Yes, it is a duplicate. The links above refer to the same story. For details you can read my previous post about this, the relevant portion of which I have appended here for convenience.Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
I shall quote from the original NYT article referred to in the post above (same as Friday's), emphasis added.
QEDAccording to company executives and others briefed on the discussions, Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google within the last two months to discuss options, including the possibility of a takeover.
While the overture appears to have gained little traction - Google indicated that it preferred the initial offering route, the executives said - it demonstrates the enormous importance that Google represents as both a competitive threat to Microsoft and as Silicon Valley's latest hope for a new financial boom.
Google recently started wheedling down a long list of investment banks it approached earlier this month about underwriting the offering, which could be worth from $15 billion to $25 billion, the executives said.
-
Re:YAD - Yet Another Duplicate
Yes, it is a duplicate. The links above refer to the same story. For details you can read my previous post about this, the relevant portion of which I have appended here for convenience.Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
I shall quote from the original NYT article referred to in the post above (same as Friday's), emphasis added.
QEDAccording to company executives and others briefed on the discussions, Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google within the last two months to discuss options, including the possibility of a takeover.
While the overture appears to have gained little traction - Google indicated that it preferred the initial offering route, the executives said - it demonstrates the enormous importance that Google represents as both a competitive threat to Microsoft and as Silicon Valley's latest hope for a new financial boom.
Google recently started wheedling down a long list of investment banks it approached earlier this month about underwriting the offering, which could be worth from $15 billion to $25 billion, the executives said.
-
no subscription link
-
Karma Whoring... Google link
-
Awesome pix of the radiation flares
The NY Times has a story ( no registration required) showing some incredible stills and videos of the solar flares. They are composites of ground telescopes and of the returns from the Helios satellite. Very cool.
-
Be careful for what you wish for
Because it just may happen
I personally have trust in Google for right now. As long as they don't violate that trust, I'll use them. If they do, I'll seek other alternatives. Google got its audience through word of mouth. They can also lose it through word of mouth. -
Grossly misleading headline
Sorry, but the headline and description are totally misleading. I don't care which submission was posted on this story, but at least get it right. A merger would have meant that Microsoft effectively controlled the Internet, at least until someone came along with a better technology. Here's the post that I originally submitted:Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
-
Grossly misleading headline
Sorry, but the headline and description are totally misleading. I don't care which submission was posted on this story, but at least get it right. A merger would have meant that Microsoft effectively controlled the Internet, at least until someone came along with a better technology. Here's the post that I originally submitted:Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
-
Grossly misleading headline
Sorry, but the headline and description are totally misleading. I don't care which submission was posted on this story, but at least get it right. A merger would have meant that Microsoft effectively controlled the Internet, at least until someone came along with a better technology. Here's the post that I originally submitted:Microsoft and Google: Partners or Rivals?
The New York Times Technology reports that Microsoft and Google were in partnership/takeover discussions during the last two months, in part due to the competitive threat that Google poses to Microsoft. 'Microsoft - desperate to capture a slice of the popular and ad-generating search business - approached Google.' Ultimately Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided to go the initial public offering (IPO) route. How different might things be if Google had agreed to be acquired by Microsoft? Looks like we'll never know. This also puts some of the search industry frenzy and acquisition activities into a different context. Fittingly, here's a Google link to the article.
-
Registration free link
-
MICROSOFT BUYS GOOGLE
-
Here's an article about U.S. Gov. corruption.
One thing you may not realize, since you are Canadian, is the depth of corruption of the U.S. government. The oil companies and the weapons makers and those who benefit financially from violence give money to government officials, and the government officials help the corrupters make more money. U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican, has been talking about this for years. Here's just one New York Times article about the corruption: Bush Got $500,000 From Companies That Got Contracts, Study Finds. -
Re:My take
It's clearly being used beyond is "intended" purpose, i.e., to track down terrorists. As this article describes it has been used in hundreds of non-terror cases already.
And if you think that every one it has been used on was guilty, look up bridges in the want ads. -
Re:Rant: Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy. Deal with it.> You know, throwing around the word "hate" is not particularly constructive.
You know, actually being full of hate isn't very constructive either. I'm gonna pull another one of those horrible Western values you seem to... well, actively dislike (since you're somehow above "hate") and ask you this:
What's not to hate about rape?
Yes, instead of asking why do they hate us, why not ask why they rape us? Oh, right, it's her fault if an "Australian pig" (or Norwegian whore, or French harlot, or your wife, or your sister, or your daughter) doesn't want to get "fucked Leb style", she should just put on a fuckin' burkha with the rest of the cattle, shouldn't she?
To which I say - fuck that.
-
What *DOES* Michael Powell Want?
Yup, you guessed it. Michael Powell wants Gator^H^H^H^H^HClaria.
-
Very, very few Americans understand the facts.
By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent that has ever existed in the world.
The writer of this is an American who is very concerned about his government's participation in violence. In his opinion, a person doesn't really love his or her country unless he or she is willing to look at and understand areas where the country needs improvement. The same principle applies elsewhere. A man doesn't really love his wife if he turns his back when she is having serious, difficult-to-understand problems. And, a person doesn't really love himself or herself unless he or she tries to understand and resolve his or her own inner conflict.
Strictly speaking, it is the U.S. government that is responsible for the violence, not the people of the United States. Very, very few Americans understand the facts presented here. There are many Americans who support violence, and who angrily reject these facts, but even those probably would not want their money being spent on violence if they fully understood the financial and social impact on their lives.
The U.S. government has directly killed about 3,000,000 people since the beginning of the Vietnam war. Most of those, an estimated more than 2,000,000, were in Vietnam, a very poor country that did not threaten the United States.
Historians say that the number of people indirectly killed by the U.S. government is at least another 3,000,000, for a total of 6,000,000. For example, U.S. bombing of Cambodia left that country destabilized, and the forces of violence controlled Cambodia for years after the U.S. bombing.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google search engine or see the links below.- Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
- Bosnia, 1994, 1995
- Cambodia, 1969-70
- China, 1945-46
- Congo (now Zaire), 1964
- Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
- El Salvador, 1980s
- Grenada, 1983
- Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
- Indonesia, 1958
- Iran, 1987
- Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
- Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
- Kuwait, 1991
- Laos, 1964-73
- Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
- Libya, 1986
- Nicaragua, 1980s
- Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
- Peru, 1965
- Somalia, 1993
- Sudan 1998. There are doubts
-
Poor layout; missing invention link
For some unknown reason, they decided to list them as if they were other, related articles in the paper (as other posters have noted). Bizarre. Hey, the dates on all of those articles is the same!
Something to watch out for: the Scott Adams invention (the most coherent one of the lot!) is only linked to from the first page. They dropped that link from each of the other invention pages. -
Fairly boring stuff...
I must say that some of the suggestions are far from being interesting enough to warrant a page in the NYT
A hand-held relational database containing the personal information of you and your loved ones?
A surefire way to tell if a tennis ball was in or out?
A combination of laptop and cell-phone that works in both Europe and US?
The only really interesting piece, is in my opinion that of William Gibson. The rest seems very much like something a person would come up with after being given only 15 seconds to think of a novel new idea. -
Fairly boring stuff...
I must say that some of the suggestions are far from being interesting enough to warrant a page in the NYT
A hand-held relational database containing the personal information of you and your loved ones?
A surefire way to tell if a tennis ball was in or out?
A combination of laptop and cell-phone that works in both Europe and US?
The only really interesting piece, is in my opinion that of William Gibson. The rest seems very much like something a person would come up with after being given only 15 seconds to think of a novel new idea. -
Fairly boring stuff...
I must say that some of the suggestions are far from being interesting enough to warrant a page in the NYT
A hand-held relational database containing the personal information of you and your loved ones?
A surefire way to tell if a tennis ball was in or out?
A combination of laptop and cell-phone that works in both Europe and US?
The only really interesting piece, is in my opinion that of William Gibson. The rest seems very much like something a person would come up with after being given only 15 seconds to think of a novel new idea. -
Re:I have an invention I'd like to see
How about an invention to prevent clueless submitters from submitting reg required articles without also posting a way around the reg?
I rather liked the fact that slashdot linked to the google version too.
I do however much prefer the YOURMAMA partner. -
Re:I'm very afraid.
ain't quite 100% yet...
And regular speech is?
FYI it's at 97%, give or take a couple. Good enough for TellMe to increase ATT's 800 automation rates from 15% to 70%. Good enough to automate cop cars. It's been a long time coming, and noisy environments are still a challenge, but it's fo real, now.
(Shamelss plug: the really good stuff is running on the engine from Nuance.)
-
MIT Music links from the rejected post machine
In case anyone else wants to read some of the other coverage....
MIT Develops Legal Music-Sharing Via Cable TV
MIT students have developed a music on demand file-sharing system that uses the analog campus cable TV system to bypass the Internet and digital distribution (Google link). This takes advantage of the relatively less-restrictive licensing that the recording industry makes available to radio stations and others for analog transmission. The system, called the Libraries Access to Music Project and dubbed miTunes, is backed by MIT, funded by Microsoft iCampus and will give campus access to 3,500 CDs. More at USA Today, Boston.com and AP / Detroit News.
-
MIT Music links from the rejected post machine
In case anyone else wants to read some of the other coverage....
MIT Develops Legal Music-Sharing Via Cable TV
MIT students have developed a music on demand file-sharing system that uses the analog campus cable TV system to bypass the Internet and digital distribution (Google link). This takes advantage of the relatively less-restrictive licensing that the recording industry makes available to radio stations and others for analog transmission. The system, called the Libraries Access to Music Project and dubbed miTunes, is backed by MIT, funded by Microsoft iCampus and will give campus access to 3,500 CDs. More at USA Today, Boston.com and AP / Detroit News.
-
Obligatory link
Here's the registration-required link, shamefully omitted from the original post. (For all you anti-privacy zealots)
-
No need to register
-
Why cant the /. Ed's use NYTIMES Partners Links?
All you have to do is type the headline into Google News.
Feel free to use this registration-free link -
Post-election recounts are not the pointThe SC showed that they cared nothing about ensuring that Florida voters were enfranchised when the stopped the recounts. They made a decision to ignore states rights, ignore the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, ignore the statutory obligation of the State of Florida to continue with the vote recount and declare, without clear evidence supporting their case, that W was the winner and that recounting would cast doubt on their selection.
Post-election recounts by the media aren't the issue. The SC made the decision without that knowledge.
As for the actual media recount, as the NY Times admits, their standard for counting disputed ballots would not necessarily have been the legally accepted one. They were playing by their own ear. And since their final recount came out very shortly after 9/11/01, many (myself included) tend to doubt it's inferences.
-
Post-election recounts are not the pointThe SC showed that they cared nothing about ensuring that Florida voters were enfranchised when the stopped the recounts. They made a decision to ignore states rights, ignore the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, ignore the statutory obligation of the State of Florida to continue with the vote recount and declare, without clear evidence supporting their case, that W was the winner and that recounting would cast doubt on their selection.
Post-election recounts by the media aren't the issue. The SC made the decision without that knowledge.
As for the actual media recount, as the NY Times admits, their standard for counting disputed ballots would not necessarily have been the legally accepted one. They were playing by their own ear. And since their final recount came out very shortly after 9/11/01, many (myself included) tend to doubt it's inferences.
-
Watch the VP too
His former company (the one that still pays him millions a year) is actualy selling us gasoline at a 63 cent a gallon markup in Iraq. That's $1.59/gallon, more than most of us pay over here with tax!
-
Re:Google
Organ trading requirement restored. (Check the partner link. Yes it works.)
-
Google
Google link, no organ trading required.
-
Google Link, Registration Generator
Google link for NYT Story and of course the NYT Random Login Generator
-
Flash ad free, nonregistered link
-
Misleading New York Times headline!The headline for the NYT article is "Low-Cost Supercomputer Made With 1,100 PC's".
I know if you think about it, that Macs are PCs too, but I think Joe Public hears "PC", and they think Wintel.
-
Important items of noteIt's worth noting a few important things:
First, from a an Oct 22 New York Times story:
Officials at the school said that they were still finalizing their results and that the final speed number might be significantly higher.
This will likely be the case.
Second, they're only 0.224 Tflops away from the only Intel-based cluster above it. So saying "all the Intel machines" in the story is kind of inaccurate, as if there are all kinds of Intel-based clusters that will still be faster; there is only one Intel-based cluster above it, and with only preliminary numbers for the Virgina Tech cluster at that.
Third, this figure is with around 2112 processors, not the full 2200 processors. With all 1100 nodes, even with no efficiency gain, it will be number 3, as-is.
Finally, this is the a cluster of several firsts:
First major cluster with PowerPC 970
First major cluster with Apple hardware
First major cluster with Infiniband
First major cluster with Mac OS X (Yes, it is running Mac OS X 10.2.7, NOT Linux or Panther [yet])
Linux on Intel has been at this for years. This cluster was assembled in 3 months. There is no reason for the Virginia Tech cluster to remain at ~40% efficiency. It is more than reasonable to expect higher than 50%.
It's still destined for number 3, and its performance will likely even climb for the next Top 500 list as the cluster is optimized. The final results will not be officially announced until a session on November 18 at Supercomputing 2003. -
500 Channels and nothing on...
Mr. Springsteen was right.
And as the attached piece points out, the fall season is proving to be a bust. So who cares? Why would you want to tape/copy/record any of this tripe. Kelly Ripa will not be the saviour of TV, period. I can honestly say I haven't watched a single show end to end this entire season. And I don't feel deprived. If more people would do this and let the ratings drop into the toilet, maybe the suits would get the message. Nah....... -
Re:Just say no.
pfft, like it's going to take a broadcast flag to make that happen
-
Media silence
I find it remarkable how silent the mainstream media is on this issue. When even the New York Times fail to mention any of the controversy over Diebold in a recent article on voting machines you know this is going to be an uphill battle.
However, if these machines are already in use, the next step would surely be legal action? Someone with the right to vote in an election should demand the right to cast their vote by means where there is proof their vote will be counted. -
Mandatory Google Link
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/education/21BOO
K a rtner=GOOGLE
There's your google link.
You're welcome.