Slashdot Mirror

Er what? I think you misread what the CEO was saying (assuming the article you don't cite mentions it). Netflix was saying that third-party content providers were not essential to its success. At the end of the day, Netflix has the subscriber base and the cash rolling in to negotiate with whomever they want. It doesn't matter if they go direct or via some third-party route.

At the end of the day, it's in the studios' or brokers' best interest to receive large slabs of money because content providers can double dip as much as they want. First the air it on TV (money), host it on their sites (more money), make it available to iTunes and other pay-per-view services (the dollars continue to flow), then sign up as many streaming services as those companies can afford (ooooh, they're getting richer) before releasing to DVD and syndication.

Direct or indirect - Netflix doesn't care because someone will agree to those handsome checks.

with Tron, grafting a younger looking Jeff Bridges face unto another actor.

So why not for porn? You could have anyone you want in your porn movie.... and make it look even more realistic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_en_ot/us_tron_digitally_young_3

The AP is also reporting that China is creating a Confucius Peace Prize to be given out the day before the Nobel Prize.

Not in the Vatican.

The Swiss Government has confiscated $37K in his Swiss Bank account.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_re_us/wikileaks

"Swiss bank freezes Julian Assange's account". A real Swiss Bank never
does such things. I don't know about Postfinance, but for Swiss banks
there's only one exception in such matters, and that is when the
'client' has made remarks or moves which has endangered the Zionist
Community, just as happened with Bobby Fischer in Rekyavik. After
arriving in Iceland in 2006, the UBS Bank of Switzerland confiscated all of
Fischer's savings. UBS for the first time showed its real face, instead
of the polished face of independent banking.

UBS and the Icelandic government collude to plunder all of Bobby's savings account at UBS
http://crashrecovery.org/home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/index.html

There's a huge difference between a democracy and a republic!

One is representative, the other is not. No troll there, just a correction of the misinformation in the original post.

And yes, the US Constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority, as I said. Here are some links so that you can familiarize yourself:

Where is majority rule and minority rights incorporated into the US constitution?
Minority Rights
How does the US constitution protect minority from majority?

You think that when an intelligence agency recruits plants, that "longtime activists" aren't EXACTLY who they try to recruit first? Ernest Withers was a "longtime activist" in the civil rights movement too.

You should note that Wikileaks redacts their releases and gets advice from more mainstream sources on what to redact. If that's as fringe as crashing planes into buildings, I really don't want to hear your opinions on any news source. Most of these docs are innocuous in any case. "Tell us about President so-and-so" is what most of them end up being.

Well it seems they are doing a poor job of redaction and/or not getting advice from reputable mainstream sources, for example the release of sites supply critical medicines. Was that really necessary?

The Associated Press reports:

In the message, marked "secret," Clinton asked U.S. diplomatic posts to help update a list of sites around the world "which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States."
The list was considered so confidential, the posts were advised to come up with it on their own: "Posts are not/not being asked to consult with host governments in respect to this request," Clinton wrote.
The locations cited in the diplomatic cable from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton range from undersea communications lines to suppliers of food, medicine and manufacturing materials.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wikileaks_secret_sites

This sentence no verb.

A group of dictionary-writers were arguing about what to put into the next dictionary. With the recent creation of new verbs, by celebrities, like the verb "refudiate", the linguists were in a deep dilemma. Do they recognize made-up words? Do they banish such words from the dictionary, which is supposed to represent proper English? So they broke into groups to come up with recommendations.

After lunch, a spokesman from each group stood up, and made a recommendation. Here's what happened next:

First Spokesman: "Our group recommends that we sentence such verbs to a 5-year banishment from the official publication."
Second Spokesman: "And our group sentences no new verbs to banishment."
Question from the audience: "Which recommends no sentencing?"
Second Spokesman, pointing to his group: "This sentence no verb."

sentence: –verb (used with object) to pronounce sentence upon; condemn to punishment.

During the sketch, a message from President Obama (Fred Armisen) gives way to a staticky screen, which then reveals a greasy version of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (played by Bill Hader).

"Hi America, I have taken over your airwaves," he says in an Australian accent. "The leaks did not inspire a revolution as I had hoped, so tonight I present a new WikiLeaks, where the leaks are even more embarrassing and the details are even more sordid."
The screen flashes the title, "WikiLeaks: TMZ."

Ha! Cue Dennis Hopper.

What's your point? Yeah, Paypal sucks because they do evil things that I don't like, boo hoo. And they can get away with it all, because they're not treated like banks, waaahhhhhh. Ah now I see, your assumption that a company sucks goes exactly hand in hand with people refusing to their services, thanks for your insight.
Yes, because everybody loves banks and they would never do anything bad. Well I got news for you: Banks suck. Most knowledgeble off-line users will have been refusing to use them for years. Hmm I wonder what Assange's next leak could be about?

The fact that this guy discovered 1x1 pixels in email and mis-attributes them to "bugs", is so technically incompetent I would think I am reading the technology section of AOL.

It certainly is something to discuss here, but the suggestion that it is a "New Norm" is absurd.

What makes you think the guy was wrong?? They've admitted to using them. What other 1x1 graphics do you expect? A period would typically take four, not that it makes much sense to use a graphic for a period.
What possible legitimate use are you expecting?

The privacy statement with AT&T/Yahoo (web) mail says they use them, but they call them "web beacons".

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/privacy/communicate/privacy-02.html
http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/webbeacons/

Note that any offers to opt-out are worthless as that depends on cookies.

NoScript has a bug filter, but the default setting is off and it looks like even then it may only work on untrusted sites. I'd think it ought to block those by default and everywhere?
Someone should look at the source and confirm exactly what it can do.
Not loading anything from other domains should help.

It is old technology, and it isn't just web pages. Even MS Office docs can have net elements present that are loaded upon opening. Those would convey when a doc is opened, and an IP.

The fact that this guy discovered 1x1 pixels in email and mis-attributes them to "bugs", is so technically incompetent I would think I am reading the technology section of AOL.

It certainly is something to discuss here, but the suggestion that it is a "New Norm" is absurd.

What makes you think the guy was wrong?? They've admitted to using them. What other 1x1 graphics do you expect? A period would typically take four, not that it makes much sense to use a graphic for a period.
What possible legitimate use are you expecting?

The privacy statement with AT&T/Yahoo (web) mail says they use them, but they call them "web beacons".

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/privacy/communicate/privacy-02.html
http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/webbeacons/

Note that any offers to opt-out are worthless as that depends on cookies.

NoScript has a bug filter, but the default setting is off and it looks like even then it may only work on untrusted sites. I'd think it ought to block those by default and everywhere?
Someone should look at the source and confirm exactly what it can do.
Not loading anything from other domains should help.

It is old technology, and it isn't just web pages. Even MS Office docs can have net elements present that are loaded upon opening. Those would convey when a doc is opened, and an IP.

http://search.yahoo.com/

Since nobody is apparently willing or able to be helpful here I'll go myself. If you're trying to play this on Debian with Iceweasel and you, like me, are being sabotaged by the NASA website's extra-dumb client detection scripts this may work for you as well.

1) Download the asx file:
$ wget http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx

2) Find the playlist file link inside the text file then wget it:
$ wget http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1369080&segment=149773

3) Play the resulting file directly with vlc:
$ vlc makeplaylist.dll\?id\=1369080

This worked for me. I hope it helps someone else, but really NASA should fix their shit.

Amazon has stopped hosting wikileaks http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101201/wr_nm/us_wikileaks_amazon

• Low broadband: 150kbit/s
• Mid broadband: 300kbit/s
• High broadband: 500kbit/s
• Full speed: 1200kbit/s

• Low broadband: 150kbit/s
• Mid broadband: 300kbit/s
• High broadband: 500kbit/s
• Full speed: 1200kbit/s

• Low broadband: 150kbit/s
• Mid broadband: 300kbit/s
• High broadband: 500kbit/s
• Full speed: 1200kbit/s

• Low broadband: 150kbit/s
• Mid broadband: 300kbit/s
• High broadband: 500kbit/s
• Full speed: 1200kbit/s

This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures.

Are you sure that's all? In the California governor's race alone Meg Whitman spent more than $140 million of her own money in the campaign. All together she spent more than $160 million. Her opponent Jerry Brown's spending topped $50 million. Now according to those who claim money buys political offices she should have won, spending 3 tymes as much as he did, but he won.

On Anthony Kennedy's decision on the Citizens United case:

It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.

It was naive of him. However if a law were proposed that addressed full disclosure, and only that, then it may pass USSC scrutiny. Now if that was his thinking I don't know how the government's lawyers overlooked that thinking. A quick google returns results saying that corporations do not have to disclose them. The first two results, Why Don’t Corporations Have To Disclose Their Campaign Contributions Like Unions? and again Why don't corporations have to disclose their campaign contributions like unions? answer the question.

Falcon

Its interesting that there never seem to be any internal Russian or Chinese revelations.

Actually, it seems there are some Russian secrets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11208_moscowsbidtoblowupwikileaksrussiansplaybydifferentrules

So... an American jury finds in favor of an American company in an American court, and orders a foreign company to pay a huge sum after almost no deliberation at all.

SAP abandoned - in August - any pretense of contesting Oracle's claims of copyright infringement. SAP Proposes Not to Contest Oracle's Copyright Claims

That implies as well that SAP had accepted the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal court.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- On the losing end of a $1.3 billion jury verdict for stealing a rival's intellectual property, SAP AG is facing the difficult decision about whether to double down -- by appealing -- or folding.
Either route is going to cost the German company dearly, and will have implications for how other technology companies approach copyrights.
A jury in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Tuesday found that SAP's behavior in plundering software and documents from archenemy Oracle Corp.'s secured websites was so egregious that it awarded Oracle nearly all of the damages it was seeking.
If SAP appeals, it will have to endure several more years of disastrous publicity, a jackpot for Oracle.
"I'm not sure what the grounds for an appeal are -- I'm not sure what the argument would be," said Patrick Walravens, an analyst with JMP Securities. "It's not like this was a trial that was done in a quick and dirty manner. It was three years and hundreds of millions in legal fees -- things were pretty well vetted."
The judge in the case still has to formally affirm the jury's verdict, and could reduce the award. An order could come sometime in the next week.
Many analysts suspect that SAP will stand down and try and figure out a way to pay one of the biggest software piracy penalties on record. Doing so would put the $10 million acquisition of the tiny, now-shuttered company called TomorrowNow that landed SAP in this mess that much farther in the rearview mirror. SAP at a crossroads after losing $1.3B verdict

Ignoring your annoying, hard-to-read, all-lowercase style of writing...

Your beloved government edited its oil drilling safety report to make it appear as if a six-month drilling ban had been peer-reviewed by experts, and it ignored scientists and misrepresented data throughout the ordeal.

The difference between corruption in government and corruption in the free market, however, is that BP actually gets punished. They lose money, reputation, face increased scrutiny, and so on. What happens to the government? Nothing. Nothing at all. And they've already gotten their guaranteed paychecks through your taxes, so what's their incentive to change? So, given a choice between a self-regulating free market that can be punished by law and an powerful government that's above the law, I'll choose the former any day.

You're right, state tax is an example which isn't enforced... right now... but they can arbitrarily arrest anyone for supposed tax evasion when they would want to. Unenforced laws become a problem for you when you become a problem for them.

But other taxes are enforced, and more for the small guys. When you personally or a small company tries to evade tax by moving income overseas the IRS will hunt you down. Only large companies can pull shit like that. Remember the recent article about top US companies. A large portion of them pay less tax than any of us, some even 0%. How much tax does Amazon pay? You can calculate it yourself here. Tell me, is it more than you pay in taxes? And is Amazon an underdog good guy here fighting for our rights? Of course not!

Bill G.'s stock went from $0.08 in 1986 (split adjusted) to $25. That's a return of about 27% a year for the last 24 years.

It is optional for the airlines, and some are considering no longer employing the TSA because of the recent controversy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_go_ot/us_airport_security_private_screeners
So don't let the airlines off the hook. There are three groups at blame here, the gov't for the TSA, the airlines for electing to employ them, and the public for letting it happen(and arguably requesting it in the first place, and arguably requiring the airlines to employ the TSA). If any one of those three were to stop the chain would fail. I hope that we are seeing the last link in that chain to fail, but given how hard it to to change "The Public's" opinion about something I suspect it's only cracks and not a break.

I guess you've fallen behind on Taliban press releases and activities.

Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province's embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

I don't know why anyone would expect anything else given their sensibilities and tendencies toward killing the innocent. And don't forget, the hand of the Taliban is reaching beyond their borders.

Free speech is causing harm!

Just like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or releasing the names and addresses of informants against Mafia hit men, or the names and locations of informants against Al Qaeda & Taliban cut-throats & beheaders like Wikileaks is doing.

Dead informants mean fewer people to pass on information on scum like Shahzad, who tried to bomb Times Square with a bomb like this.

Calling himself a Muslim soldier, Shahzad pleaded guilty in June to 10 terrorism and weapons counts. He said the Pakistan Taliban provided him with more than $15,000 and five days of explosives training late last year and early this year, months after he became a U.S. citizen.

Would even a Wembley stadium type attack convince even most people many on Slashdot that terrorism is a serious problem? I wonder.

Bin Laden's demand to the United States (The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.) is that we all convert to his brand Islam, change our governments to observe Sharia, or he and his minions will continue to try to kill us. Their ultimate goal is to conquer the world for Islam, not simply get the US out of anywhere, destroy Israel, or anything else. Al Qaeda believes it is justified in killing 4,000,000 Americans in pursuit of its goal. As it is, Al Qaeda's world wide body count must be easily in the tens of thousands by now.

Meanwhile, planning continues for the next Al Qaeda assault in Europe, following up on the successful mass attacks in London and Madrid, various assassinations, and the failed attacks in Germany, France, and other places. (Hopefully there is a well placed informant or two that will survive the Wikileaks releases.)

I wonder how many on Slashdot are members of the Internet Jihad, or are otherwise radicalized and trying to influence opinion?

“I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the Muslims will win, God willing, and rule the whole world, and establish the greatest empire once again!!!” reads another Internet posting from Mr. Abdulmutallab.

This is not the secular, political language of resistance against foreign occupation. It is the language of apocalyptic salvation. It has nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or the Palestinians, although countless young Muslims identify passionately with stories of perceived injustice. Radical Islam claims that martyrdom is the ultimate act of faith – the highest duty of a believer, next to the worship of Allah itself.

“

The point here is, that the factory producing these chips would still have to handle the problematic material. Recently, a factory in Hungary demonstrated why this is a bad idea: Hungary: Toxic red sludge has reached the Danube.

As if the devil's playing with it: Cambodia festival stampede leaves almost 350 dead

If having all those corporations in the country tax-free is so good, then WHY is Ireland going bankrupt?

Because they are not related. The country is going bankrupt because the government gave guarantees to a large commercial bank and a number of commercial/consumer banks that had lended heavily to support a ridiculous property bubble. They didn't do proper due dilligence on the guarantees, were lied to by the bankers about the size of the hole they were in and now the tax payer is now faced with a debt so large that the 'real' economy can't possibly generate enough revenue to repay.

There's a decent explanation here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-the-Irish-Crisis-is-Going-usnews-4028366968.html?x=0

Hm. I'm an American, and that sounds eerily familiar.

If having all those corporations in the country tax-free is so good, then WHY is Ireland going bankrupt?

Because they are not related. The country is going bankrupt because the government gave guarantees to a large commercial bank and a number of commercial/consumer banks that had lended heavily to support a ridiculous property bubble. They didn't do proper due dilligence on the guarantees, were lied to by the bankers about the size of the hole they were in and now the tax payer is now faced with a debt so large that the 'real' economy can't possibly generate enough revenue to repay.

There's a decent explanation here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-the-Irish-Crisis-is-Going-usnews-4028366968.html?x=0

My recollection is that MS hired a group of developers from Digital Equipment led by Dave Cutler to develop NT. A google search turned up this answer that part of XP was developed in Israel but says nothing about NT.

It sounds like this would be rendered largely moot by DOT plans to disable cell phones in cars.

And their 10-Q definitely indicates that they're not losing money. http://biz.yahoo.com/e/101028/msft10-q.html

The stock price is a meaningless indicator unless you are using it indirectly with their P/E ratio.

um... I'll admit they've not been doing as well as they used to, but their stock would seem to indicate that they are not losing money. Individual divisions might be (they did get in the news yesterday for playing games with sales figures in one division--but not in a way that the money didn't come from somewhere in the company), but as a whole, their P/E is better than Apple's (even if they do have a lower market cap).

By my count, it was $1.3 billion in early November. That's about 10% of his net worth of $13.1 billion. Bill Gates has been regularly selling off his stock for about two years now. He at least has the excuse that he needs to fund his foundation, and he doesn't work there any more anyway.

By my count, it was $1.3 billion in early November. That's about 10% of his net worth of $13.1 billion. Bill Gates has been regularly selling off his stock for about two years now. He at least has the excuse that he needs to fund his foundation, and he doesn't work there any more anyway.

One interesting point that stuck with me was that the Python evangelist sitting on that panel suggested learning JavaScript, by pointing out that it runs on something like a billion devices. It can even run on the back-end, using node.js -- watch near half-way through to see how it can even provide the same interactivity whether JavaScript is enabled or not, by converting client-side interactivity to server-side POSTs.

I didn't say anything partisan. What I said was merely a correction of an actual partisan twat. Attacking Republicans on the facts when a Republican spews BS is not partisan, unless "the truth" is a party.

In that spirit, here's the truth about the BS you just spewed about the Democrats: Obama and the Democrats reduced the deficit by 9% from Bush's devastation, while reducing taxes on 95% of Americans during the recession Bush caused, even as they rescued the economy from that devastating recession. Republicans are the ones who gutted health insurance reform at every turn, yet Obama and Democrats still managed to make a bigger HCR law than has passed our lobbyist-swamped government since Medicare was passed (by Democrats, over the same Republican blockades). The requirement to buy health insurance is toothless, and cannot be enforced, so is merely a way to get Americans who live according to the system to pay what's necessary to support the system, unless they commit the equivalent of jaywalking. Meanwhile Obama has wound down Iraq and its horrendous losses of lives and money on schedule.

Though indeed Democrats have their lying corporatists, too - they just don't control a lockstep party. Democratic corruption is sustainable, while Republican corruption has over and over nearly destroyed this country, until Democrats managed to pull it back into sustainable corruption. Nobody's got an alternative US politics that's not corrupt, but Democrats have an alternative US politics that's sustainable. I'll take sustainable over suicidal, which means I'll take Democrats over Republicans.

What's really false is the false equivalence you just did your part to perpetuate.

I swear no loyalty to any party. I'm not even a member of any party, though I'm very politically active, and have voted every chance I've had since I was old enough in the 1980s. I am loyal to America, the one I live in and that is described in the Constitution and even the rhetoric of some of our worst politicians: Republicans who hide their crimes behind tinny nationalism. I am loyal to the truth.

The truth is that Republicans are intolerably corrupt, including their voters, while Democrats are sustainably corrupt. So when some Republican starts claiming that the truth about Republicans is "bias", I will debunk that. And when someone says Democrats are just as bad, I will debunk that. The truth is slightly more complex than "Republicans = bad / Democrats = good", which is why I don't say that. But it's not so complex that saying "Democrats = Republicans" is true.

It'd be a start if the blame was even being spread fairly. This US obsession with blaming BP entirely largely started by Obama as he needed to deflect political attention away from his own incompetence, but BP was only one of a few companies who deserve blame. BP was certainly the majority stakeholder, but whilst BP has from the start accepted it's fair share of the blame - it never once said it'd pay anything less than the full costs of cleanup and compensation. You can't even claim that BP were the ones raking the profits from the well and hence the ones that deserve to pay because other companies including the US oil company Anadarko, and Japanese company Mitsui also had a share in the well but to date have dodged all responsibility, and then there's the fact that companies like Transocean and Halliburton still profited from the well by being contracted to play the part they did in the first place.

I'm amazed that so little criticism is being pushed towards Halliburton, when it seems they were in fact guilty of at least some degree of negligence - even the US panel investigating the spill is beginning to accept that now-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11648354

It's incredible that Americans seem to feel the need for a foreign bogeyman in incidents like this, that despite Halliburton's record in it's dealings regarding the Iraq war all blame is deflected away from it, and companies like Anadarko, Mitsui, and Transocean.

Sure BP fucked up, sure they were getting the biggest slice of profits, but at least they're the one company out of all those involved who has from the start been willing to pay for the fuckup, even though it seems pretty now that BP might actually have been the company that least screwed up compared to it's partner Transocean, and compared ot Halliburton:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s-spill-panel-examines-causes-of-bp-oil-spill-reuters_molt-7a2344c54e1b.html;_ylt=Atte73PsYsywCFWErVA85UrBXGwF;_ylu=X3oDMTE2MTRia2tlBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDdXNzcGlsbHBhbmVs?x=0

It's sad that the one company that takes responsibility and offers to pay full costs from the outset gets demonised, whilst those others who are responsible keep getting given a free ride by the press and public and are still to this day refusing to accept blame, or pay their share of the costs despite the mounting evidence that they were in fact more responsible for fucking up than BP themselves.

This is exactly why used book stores are legal.

First Sale doctrine is why used book stores are legal. This US 9th Circuit of Appeals ruling is why First Sale doctrine doesn't necessarily apply to software. In other words, within the US 9th Circuit, there is no such thing as legal used software resale, if the EULA of that software prohibits it.

Steam's legal footing looks pretty good to me. IANAL, but neither are you, and at least I was aware of recent case law movement on this issue. Why you weren't is puzzling, considering that it's been covered pretty extensively and recently here.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/free%20market

"An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property."

Did you know those burglars back in 1950 or what? Things have changed since then...

Yahoo actually has a pretty strong balance sheet. It's a well run company. They do a lot more than just portals, they have a nice strong tech arm. They sold off Zimbra for $500M to VMware. They have a strong base in Asia which is the fastest growing internet market. They are #2 in search and they have some other hot properties like Flickr.

And as far as new stuff, have you seen YQL? Very cool stuff.

However, they aren't trading at 30x earnings like Google and Apple because they aren't part of the "smartphone bubble" and they don't have a bunch of dumb money investing in them. The smart guys are going short on Apple after Christmas.

Anyway, Yahoo's going to be around for a long time. Yes, they should have taken Microsoft's $50B when they had the chance but they will probably get another chance before this bubble pops.

Hey, could you come redo our stadium? We're thinking of moving away from natural grass.

Yahoo actually has a pretty strong balance sheet. It's a well run company. They do a lot more than just portals, they have a nice strong tech arm. They sold off Zimbra for $500M to VMware. They have a strong base in Asia which is the fastest growing internet market. They are #2 in search and they have some other hot properties like Flickr.

And as far as new stuff, have you seen YQL? Very cool stuff.

However, they aren't trading at 30x earnings like Google and Apple because they aren't part of the "smartphone bubble" and they don't have a bunch of dumb money investing in them. The smart guys are going short on Apple after Christmas.

Anyway, Yahoo's going to be around for a long time. Yes, they should have taken Microsoft's $50B when they had the chance but they will probably get another chance before this bubble pops.

Yes, they have something else up their sleeve. Did anybody notice Apple's "enterprise services agreement" with Unisys? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-Unisys-Agree-to-Enterprise-Services-Deal-Report-788654/ Did anybody notice the 54% drop in Unisys's profits, along with a drop in server sales? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unisys-3Q-profit-sinks-54-pct-apf-3818156357.html?x=0&.v=1 So, Unisys is an enterprise computing company looking for a way to save its server business. Apple is consumer electronics company with enterprise ambitions, enterprise software, but no enterprise distribution network. Apple just announced it is dropping its server hardware line, a little over a week after announcing the deal with Unisys. I know it is fashionable to dismiss Apple's enterprise computing ambitions. I was at an Apple Developer's seminar a couple years ago where they were showing off the new version (then) of MacOS X Server. The entire focus of that seminar was on how Apple was adding features to MacOS X Server (and even licensing things from Microsoft) to make OS X Server more suitable for the enterprise. I predict Unisys will start offering MacOS X Server on Unisys server hardware soon. Apple may even end up buying Unisys.

IBM is substantially bigger.

Now there are many ways for measuring the size of a business but one widely-accepted method is market cap.

As of 11:57 AM EDT or so:

Apple's market cap: 291.57B

IBM's market cap: 182.11B

By at least one common measuring method you can see that it is Apple which is substantially bigger than IBM.

IBM is substantially bigger.

Now there are many ways for measuring the size of a business but one widely-accepted method is market cap.

As of 11:57 AM EDT or so:

Apple's market cap: 291.57B

IBM's market cap: 182.11B

By at least one common measuring method you can see that it is Apple which is substantially bigger than IBM.