Judge Wants Ellison, Page To Settle Differences

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Wants Ellison, Page To Settle Differences

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday September 8, 2011 @11:07AM from the taking-care-of-things-personally dept.

itwbennett writes "Apparently, Oracle's president, Safra Catz, and Google's head of mobile, Andy Rubin, aren't senior enough to attend a court mediation session. Judge William Alsup, who is overseeing the dispute between the two companies, wants the Larrys to go head to head instead. Oracle agreed with part of Alsup's recommendation, saying in a Wednesday evening filing that, 'Oracle believes the prospects for a successful mediation will be far greater if Google's executive-level representative is a superior to Mr. Rubin, who is the architect of Google's Android strategy — the strategy that gives rise to this case.' Oracle also noted that Rubin has represented Google in past, failed mediations."

61 of 83 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh, Lordy. by hey! · 2011-09-08 11:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Does the judge even know who Larry Ellison *is*? A normal person's first reaction would be to throttle the man for the good of humanity.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Re:Oh, Lordy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 12:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Does the judge even know who Larry Ellison *is*? A normal person's first reaction would be to throttle the man for the good of humanity.
  I would assume he does. I mean, his name is right in the company... I mean, that's what ORACLE stands for, right? One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison?
2. Re:Oh, Lordy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 12:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A normal person's first reaction would be to throttle the man for the good of humanity.
  I think that's the plan.
3. Re:Oh, Lordy. by ppanon · 2011-09-09 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Could be a problem if Ellison gets to choose weapons and choose fighter jets.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
4. Re:Oh, Lordy. by nurb432 · 2011-09-11 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps hes stacking the deck in Google's favor?
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
I've got a solution.... by bennomatic · 2011-09-08 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Kill all IP laws, but force any company over 500 employees to split into two completely independent entities, neither of which has an employee base greater than 300. Then tax anyone who is earning anything--dividends, stocks, profit sharing or W2 income--from more than one organization at 90% for everything outside of their primary income.

That'll encourage competition.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
1. Re:I've got a solution.... by lastx33 · 2011-09-08 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Surely concerns with larger projects which could not be split could be nationalised instead?
  
  --
  "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
2. Re:I've got a solution.... by andymadigan · 2011-09-08 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Tax anyone with more than 1 job? So the millions of poor who work 2 or 3 jobs to put food on the table get taxed at 90%?
  
  --
  The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
3. Re:I've got a solution.... by nedlohs · 2011-09-08 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  How do you split a company with 2000 employees into two companies each of wihch have at most 300 employees?
  Sack 1400 people at random?
  And wow, way to push those who are currently working two jobs to make ends meet into complete poverty. Great way to encourage people to save for the future, tax 90% of their interest earnings. And anyone who is a little risk averse and wants to start up their own local business but in case it doesn't work wants to do so part time while keeping a normal job to pay the bills - screw them how dare they try do anything but work for some rich guy's existing business better take 90% of their earnings to make sure they fail.
4. Re:I've got a solution.... by Narnie · 2011-09-08 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's a recursive solution. Did you have problems with you intro to CS class?
  
  --
  greed@All_Evils:~#
5. Re:I've got a solution.... by Sloppy · 2011-09-08 12:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  His idea is stupid, but it's not a freedom issue if you replace "company" with "corporation." There are no ethical barriers to imposing conditions in exchange for the miraculous perk of limited liability; there are only performance issues.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
6. Re:I've got a solution.... by elfprince13 · 2011-09-08 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're joking, right?
7. Re:I've got a solution.... by nedlohs · 2011-09-08 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't. Maye you should try reading it first? Or repeat that CS intro class again and maybe pay attention this time?
  You could easily write numerous recursive algorithms to give the end result of splitting all large ompanies into smaller companies with 300 or less employeed, but what was described is not one of them.
8. Re:I've got a solution.... by dudpixel · 2011-09-08 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  How?
  Why pass a law that means companies will try not to hire people? The way the world is going, they are already trying to replace people with machines, so your proposal would just accelerate that goal.
  You have to remember that it isn't wrong for a company to be successful.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
9. Re:I've got a solution.... by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-09-08 16:16 · Score: 2
  
  Boeing makes planes*, it takes hundreds of people to build a plane. How do you split that up?
  I suspect in much the same way that they make them right now. In pieces. Some companies make landing gear, some companies make navigation systems, some companies design the planes, some companies do final assembly, etc.
10. Re:I've got a solution.... by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-09-08 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  Success is one thing. The trouble is when it leads to a lack of competition because the companies in an industry are each so large that only a small number of companies produce the products consumed by all customers, and with so few competitors it becomes trivial for them to engage in "conscious parallelism" if not outright forming a cartel.
11. Re:I've got a solution.... by JustNilt · 2011-09-08 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Surely concerns with larger projects which could not be split could be nationalised instead?
  What the FREAKING heck gives you the idea that things can simply be nationalized in the US?! That wouldn't be constitutional in any way as an over-riding policy. WTF?!
  
  --
  You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
12. Re:I've got a solution.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 18:12 · Score: 2
  
  Better solution:
  How about we force any country that's over 50M people to split into multiple countries, with the exact same constitution. And we let all people have the same freedom of movement across borders that we allow incorporeal corporations. Watch market forces work *then*.
  Companies face market competition, so long as the government maintains a somewhat even playing field (yeah, I know. But go with me on this).
  But what produces that effect for governments?
  The original United States it setup. But 200 years of increasing Fed Government have damaged it. Irreparably, I think. Granted, damage was in response to some very f'd up external forces (yeah I'm talking about *you* Europe. And your anachronistic 20th century wars we're all still paying for.)
13. Re:I've got a solution.... by Spugglefink · 2011-09-08 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Kill all IP laws, but force any company over 500 employees to split into two completely independent entities, neither of which has an employee base greater than 300.
  Great plan. Just what the world needs! Now we'll have 3,333 different variations on Walmart.
14. Re:I've got a solution.... by silentcoder · 2011-09-08 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  >What the FREAKING heck gives you the idea that things can simply be nationalized in the US?! That wouldn't be constitutional in any way as an over-riding policy. WTF?!
  Two words: eminent domain.
  Sorry, your constitution allows it's existence which makes pretty much anything else it says about private property nothing but sugarcoating.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
15. Re:I've got a solution.... by gknoy · 2011-09-09 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  I shudder to think about how that would affect the cost of new airplanes. We already spend bizarro-world numbers on designing and testing new airplanes, let alone purchasing them from a production line.
16. Re:I've got a solution.... by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-09-09 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  The thing most people do not understand is that all government regulation stifles competition to one degree or another, even regulations whose purpose is to encourage competition.
  
  The flaw in your logic is that you've turned a reasonable heuristic into an absolute rule. Let me give you a counterexample: Suppose there exists a regulation that says that if two companies want to merge and the combined entity will have more than 5000 employees and more than $50,000,000 in annual revenue, it has to undergo review by the FTC. This regulation has literally zero impact on small companies, because it doesn't apply to them whatsoever.
  Furthermore, the valid criticism that large corporations have an undue influence on the regulations implemented does not lead to the conclusion that there should be no regulation of large corporations. It should lead to measures to reduce the influence of large corporations on regulations. Your alternative would be like saying that laws should not be enforced against government officials because they have greater influence over what laws get passed than other citizens -- just because the premise is true doesn't make the conclusion any less ridiculous, because the logic is flawed. Greater influence than is desirable is not the same thing as complete control, and to the extent that normal citizens can cause sensible regulations to be enacted, they should.
17. Re:I've got a solution.... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-09 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I, at no time, have argued that there should be no regulation of large corporations. My argument is that there should be less regulation of all kinds than what currently exists.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
18. Re:I've got a solution.... by StubNewellsFarm · 2011-09-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  OK, but you said "all government regulation stifles competition", which is complete nonsense.
  
  How about anti-trust laws? They require a whole bunch of regulations for corporate reporting approval of mergers, etc. The whole purpose of these regulations is to increase competition. You might try to argue that you have some brilliant new set of anti-trust laws that would do a better job (and maybe you do, though I doubt it), but you're insane if you think that fewer anti-trust regulations will, necessarily, lead to more competition. We know what happened before anti-trust.
  
  So look at anti-discrimination regulations. Insurance companies, for example, are not allowed to price based on race, even if their research shows that race is a predictor of life expectancy. Does this reduce competition among insurance companies? No - the companies just adjust their tables to price for the average across races. There's an even playing field for the companies, so the industry is every bit as competitive as it would be without these laws. In fact, this is a case where regulation is essential (unless you think that discrimination by race would be OK). If you left this to the unregulated free market, then any insurance company that advertised that it didn't use race in rating policies would rapidly go out of business, as it would attract mostly high-risk customers but would need to price to the average. Government regulations help keep the playing field even.
19. Re:I've got a solution.... by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-09-09 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  So look at anti-discrimination regulations. Insurance companies, for example, are not allowed to price based on race, even if their research shows that race is a predictor of life expectancy.
  The thing I find ridiculous is the extent to which such regulations are self-defeating. If it is actually the case that race correlates with bad insurance risk, the reverse correlation will also be true: Bad insurance risk will correlate with race. So you say that they can't use race, but they can use credit rating, occupation, etc., which are also predictors of bad insurance risk but, since insurance risk correlates with race, are also predictors of race. So at the end of the day you end up with the same situation: People of different races pay different insurance rates.
20. Re:I've got a solution.... by JamesP · 2011-09-09 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Boeing makes planes*, it takes hundreds of people to build a plane. How do you split that up?
  I suspect in much the same way that they make them right now. In pieces. Some companies make landing gear, some companies make navigation systems, some companies design the planes, some companies do final assembly, etc.
  Yeah, that'll work beautifully... see Boeing 787
  Making everything work together is the biggest PITA in every project.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
21. Re:I've got a solution.... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-09 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  We know what happened before anti-trust
  Yes, the government established rules that favored one company over another allowing that company to become a monopoly. Funny, that still worked after anti-trust laws (AT&T).
  
  So look at anti-discrimination regulations. Insurance companies, for example, are not allowed to price based on race, even if their research shows that race is a predictor of life expectancy. Does this reduce competition among insurance companies? No ...
  Sorry, yes it does. Not because of the impact on discrimination, but because the companies now have the added cost of documenting that they do not discriminate. This is one more cost that makes it more difficult for a smaller company to survive in the market.
  I happen to think that it is not the government's business to enforce anti-discrimination practices on private companies. What people seem to forget is that the segregationist policies that lead to the Civil Rights marches were not a result of lack of government regulation, they were a result of government regulation.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
22. Re:I've got a solution.... by StubNewellsFarm · 2011-09-09 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, yes it does. Not because of the impact on discrimination, but because the companies now have the added cost of documenting that they do not discriminate. This is one more cost that makes it more difficult for a smaller company to survive in the market.
  No. This does impose a cost, but the cost is the same for all companies in the market, so it doesn't disadvantage the small company (well, possibly there are economies of scale in favor of the larger company but that's not necessarily true and, in any case, those economies of scale apply to lots of things that have nothing to do with regulation). In any case, the cost is really small. Documenting non-discrimination is basically documenting how the company came up with the rate. If they don't already document that, then they aren't going to survive long.
  
  I happen to think that it is not the government's business to enforce anti-discrimination practices on private companies. What people seem to forget is that the segregationist policies that lead to the Civil Rights marches were not a result of lack of government regulation, they were a result of government regulation.
  I think people seem to forget that because it isn't true. In what way was Woolworth's refusal to serve blacks at their lunch counter a result of government regulation? American General Life charged black customers more for insurance than white. In what way was this a result of regulation?
23. Re:I've got a solution.... by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-09-09 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  No. This does impose a cost, but the cost is the same for all companies in the market, so it doesn't disadvantage the small company (well, possibly there are economies of scale in favor of the larger company but that's not necessarily true and, in any case, those economies of scale apply to lots of things that have nothing to do with regulation).
  Yes, but regulatory compliance costs add to the stack. Large companies tend to be inefficient and bureaucratic, in large part because economies of scale allow them to do so for the sake of stability and risk-avoidance without necessarily losing their competitiveness. But when a large company is too inefficient, it provides an opportunity for a smaller company to make up for their own lack of economies of scale by operating with greater efficiency and less bureaucracy.
  The more regulatory compliance costs there are, the more inefficient and bureaucratic the large companies can be before a smaller company can out-compete them based on greater efficiency, because the larger entity gains the same sort of economies of scale in regulatory compliance as it does for anything else. Which is that much more disadvantage that the smaller company has to overcome.
  
  In any case, the cost is really small. Documenting non-discrimination is basically documenting how the company came up with the rate. If they don't already document that, then they aren't going to survive long.
  This assuming that documenting it for internal purposes is sufficient for the government. And the trouble is that even to answer the question of whether it is, you have to pay a lawyer $500/hr for some number of hours and then you have to go around and train all your staff and make sure they're doing what the lawyer said. Essentially, it requires you to implement a certain amount of bureaucracy, which the larger entity probably already does, but which the smaller entity might have been willing to risk going without in order to keep their heads above water -- and then the government comes in and imposes it on both, which at the margin will drive the smaller entity out of business.
24. Re:I've got a solution.... by lastx33 · 2011-09-12 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Surely concerns with larger projects which could not be split could be nationalised instead?
  What the FREAKING heck gives you the idea that things can simply be nationalized in the US?! That wouldn't be constitutional in any way as an over-riding policy. WTF?!
  And why not? Surely if it is an improvement for the benefit of the economy and of the majority of the citizens of the US, it cannot be unconstitutional?
  
  --
  "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
25. Re:I've got a solution.... by bennomatic · 2011-09-14 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, forgot to mention that nobody making less than $50k would be taxed, and raise that number by $25k per child or disabled dependent.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
26. Re:I've got a solution.... by bennomatic · 2011-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  OK, my suggestion was a paragraph long, not a 1600 page document with all the details outlined, but let's use some imagination here:
  
  "Two companies" could be "two or more companies" to resolve your first question.
  
  And the latter question could be addressed a number of ways, including raising the minimum threshold for taxation, and maybe allow a grace period for transitional income for someone starting a new business.
  
  In your rage, you missed my point, which is that the wealthiest among us make lots and lots of money not doing anything other than having fund managers play with their money. People with no money have to work to earn it, and they work hard. Most of the fruits of their labors, though, go to people who already have more money than the workers will see in their lifetimes.
  
  When I was in the university, there was a mini-scandal when the Chancellor was accused of double-dipping because he got paid $90K for serving on a corporate board. This was in 1991, so that was *a lot* of money. His response was that he had done that work during his two-week vacation, and that was deemed an acceptable response. What struck me was that nobody seemed bothered that he could earn more than 3 times an average worker's annual salary at the time in two weeks' time. It's those sort of obscene levels of income that need to be attacked, de-normalized, and heavily taxed so that the economy can return to a more sane balance.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
27. Re:I've got a solution.... by bennomatic · 2011-09-14 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. And you're right. My idea is not even half baked. Not even quarter baked. I spent less time thinking about it than typing it. But to respond with a chant of FREEEEEEDOMMMM is crazy, isn't it? Freedom isn't freedom when the wealth delta between classes is as big as it is, and growing as it is.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
28. Re:I've got a solution.... by bennomatic · 2011-09-14 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not specifically better, but certainly interesting and in the same vein. Of course, the one time a federal breakup has been tried was when the south tried to secede in order to protect their *ahem* way of life. Makes one wonder how the splits would occur. Also, unfortunately, I don't know that we could simply write off all those war debts you're talking about just by splitting them up. Finally, regarding those war debts, do you know what that total is compared to our anachronistic 21st century wars we're still paying for? My gut says that the 20th century ones are a comparative pittance, although I don't know the numbers.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
29. Re:I've got a solution.... by bennomatic · 2011-09-14 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  We do. They're called dollar stores.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
Absurd Case? by StormReaver · 2011-09-08 11:22 · Score: 1

Is this the judge telling Oracle that the case is absurd? How often do judges tell litigation-happy plaintiffs to settle out of court?
1. Re:Absurd Case? by nomadic · 2011-09-08 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  They don't usually say "settle this," but they strongly suggest it by repeatedly ordering mediation, or making comments in their written orders intended to make both sides nervous about their chances.
2. Re:Absurd Case? by m.ducharme · 2011-09-08 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  My experience is that usually they do say "settle this", if it hasn't already settled by the time it gets before a judge. Now granted, my experience doesn't include large-scale corporate/commercial litigation, but I can say that the figure of 97% of civil law disputes being settled before trial seems totally reasonable to me.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Can oracle win the suit? by drater · 2011-09-08 11:47 · Score: 1

I guess the thing I don't fully understand is, does Oracle have the goods to stick it to Google or not?
1. Re:Can oracle win the suit? by Penguinisto · 2011-09-08 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't a question of whether Oracle has the evidence, but whether or not Oracle would get the money they originally demanded.
  Oracle's original win from SAP of $1.3 billion got knocked down to a (relatively) tiny $195 million.
  By those proportions, Google could lose the case, but still likely end up paying less than what Oracle normally would charge for licensing fees.
  I'm guessing that news alone is/was enough to get Ellison to shut up and pay attention, and probably even got him to consider sitting down with Google at a table to try and work things out in advance. Of course, Google now has a pretty good advantage as well, in that they may decide to let the trial go on anyway if the negotiation pricetag doesn't suit them.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:Can oracle win the suit? by cwebster · 2011-09-08 12:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He was wrong on the details and displays terrible ability to use google to find the right article, but he was right that the 1.3B judgment was struck down. To my knowledge a new amount has not been settled on. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-billion-award-tossed-sap-oracle.html
3. Re:Can oracle win the suit? by Eskarel · 2011-09-08 19:54 · Score: 2
  
  It's not about the money, and it never was. It's about Davlik.
  Oracle doesn't want Davlik to exist and Google can't get rid of it without ending Android.
  My feeling is that Oracle would take a settlement of a buck if Google replaced Davlik with Java, hell they'd probably even license it to them for free.
  The problem is that replacing Davlik would kill Android, not because Java is bad or Davlik is much better, but because every single Android application would have to be at the very least recompiled, retested, and redistributed. Every single Android phone would have to have its firmware updated and all its apps removed. Phones which didn't get updates wouldn't be able to get new applications, applications which didn't get updated wouldn't be available for new phones. By the time it was all sorted out they'd have lost a fortune.
4. Re:Can oracle win the suit? by maroberts · 2011-09-08 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  If I had mod points you'd be getting a +1:Insightful right now
  If it does run the course it also depends on whether Google's claims of Fair Use stand against the copyright claims. I think they will, but have reservations about explaining a highly technical area of law to a jury.
  Google appear to have a really good track record of defeating patent claims and seem willing to put the work in to do it, even if they could perhaps have settled for less, so I suspect that Google will run this to the end unless they get advised by their own lawyers to settle.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
5. Re:Can oracle win the suit? by tepples · 2011-09-09 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that replacing Davlik would kill Android, not because Java is bad or Davlik is much better, but because every single Android application would have to be at the very least recompiled, retested, and redistributed.
  The problem is that replacing PowerPC would kill Mac OS X, not because x86 is bad or PowerPC is much better, but because every single Mac OS X application would have to be at the very least recompiled, retested, and redistributed.
  The problem is that replacing 68K would kill Mac OS 7, not because PowerPC is bad or 68K is much better, but because every single Mac OS application would have to be at the very least recompiled, retested, and redistributed.
  Not all instruction set transitions have failed as hard as you imagine.
Errr, which one? by macraig · 2011-09-08 11:51 · Score: 1

Who are you saying this normal person should throttle, Ellison or the judge?
1. Re:Errr, which one? by Lifyre · 2011-09-08 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  Yes
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
2. Re:Errr, which one? by macraig · 2011-09-08 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, I guess I shouldn't have backspaced "or both".
Page should know by twoears · 2011-09-08 12:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Page should know you don't negotiate with terrorists. Ellison is a software terrorist.
Our IP laws are just too complex and absurd by bigsexyjoe · 2011-09-08 13:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

The judge has no idea what to do. The lawsuit is just a giant mess. Our IP laws strongly discourage competition and the judge doesn't want to admit it. He probably can't even begin to decide how the laws actually determine this complex case.

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Re:Great Idea by neonmonk · 2011-09-08 13:45 · Score: 1

Or one (or both) of them is dead...
Iron man can fix it by nitehawk214 · 2011-09-08 14:38 · Score: 1

Aren't they both friends of Tony Stark? Have them get into a power-suited brawl to determine who wins all.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:Great Idea by m.ducharme · 2011-09-08 15:13 · Score: 1

I think I like your option better...attrition among the CEOs...but then, what about the natural selection? Only the most psychopathic would survive.

--
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
There can be only one! by madhi19 · 2011-09-08 16:31 · Score: 2

I say we solve this Highlander style give the two Larry swords and let them settle this!.There can be only one Larry! (Who CEO of a big tech cartel!) Hell Google and Oracle can make a killing on the pay-per-view!
I've seen this! by rts008 · 2011-09-08 19:43 · Score: 1

ThunderCourt: Two men enter, one man leaves.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Crock. by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · 2011-09-08 23:26 · Score: 1

I don't think I've ever seen such a load of crock as I've seen in the first 51 responses to this article. No one, and I mean, no one, seems to have a clue.
Or maybe I've just missed the sarcasm tags in every post.
1. Re:Crock. by multipartmixed · 2011-09-08 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you talking about? I have *yet* to see a single reference to Douglas Crockford.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"You two, by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-09-08 23:36 · Score: 1

fight to the death."

/Star Trek dueling music
1. Re:"You two, by wwphx · 2011-09-09 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  YES! I would instantly buy a PPV package to watch this!
  
  --
  When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Oh yay, more management by Quila · 2011-09-09 00:33 · Score: 1

The more splits, the more management you need as opposed to worker bees who actually do things.
1. Re:Oh yay, more management by bennomatic · 2011-09-14 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the amount of management overhead grows significantly as organizations grow.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
Re:Great Idea by baerm · 2011-09-11 08:28 · Score: 1

You just have to change the rules.
Two men enter and the one that comes out alive, loses.