"Grousing about submission gets you modded down", etc., I know.
But me and eleventy billion other people submitted this story back when it started happening to our servers, seven days ago!
Mod me down, whatever. It's just freaking hilarious that when we have a story that actually matters to nerds in a real, visceral, quantifiable way, it gets ignored for a week.
Also, if you adjust your position any more, you're going to be arguing my point.
Sorry I made you mad, but you're just plain wrong about Mgmt and Board liability. Mel Weiss and everyone else who believed in this doctrine were bad for capitalism.
I'm not saying the shareholders have a right to sue based on this deal alone.
No, you actually implied that it was illegal to resist a buyout.
It's obvious from what we have heard that pride and stubbornness were pretty big factors in the refusal of the MS deal.
No, it isn't. That's just what Carl Icahn has said. And that is his "batshit crazy" opinion.
What is best for shareholders is not subjective. What is best for shareholders is money. Always has been, always will be. Once you go public you put aside all aspirations of being unique, true to your roots, nice, etc.
You should think really carefully about this opinion. It is uninformed. Yes, people invest to make money, but deciding against a one-time payout in favor of growing the company is a valid position. You can't possibly be saying that accepting a buyout is always the only option for a board of directors of a publicly traded company. That's absurd.
And about this "always has been, always will be" stuff: Public corporations as we know them have been around since 1934. There have been some pretty drastic changes in the philosophy of investing since that time.
This might seem pretty obvious: Yes, it is subjective. Everyone likes money, and people invest to make money, but over what term? There is nothing to back up your claim that companies must destroy themselves if it results in a moderate-sized payday for some investors.
We'd be unlikely to hear of any legal threats. It'll be shareholders Bob and Jim showing up at the office one day (with their buckets and buckets of shares) and having one of them big boy meetings.
Eww. I don't want to know what a "big boy meeting" is.
And I do think Yahoo will lose value fairly quickly in a month or so. I don't think Google will buy them out, and once that door is closed, Yahoo is screwed.
Why are they screwed if they are not owned by somebody else?
Also, speaking of legal matters, I think that the SEC is probably (if there is any justice) looking into manipulation of Yahoo's price.
This issue alone isn't enough for serious litigation. But the attitudes behind this issue, and Yahoo's countless missed opportunities, imply that there are plenty of things to bitch about in court if some angry shareholders really got motivated to do so.
Man... Quit watching so much CNBC. Google is your friend (hah!).
The "elaborate poker game" is pure speculation (no pun intended). It is entirely possible that Yahoo mgmt and executives actually think ownership by Microsoft is bad for the future of the company.
This "Yahoo is bluffing" meme assumes that it is illogical for Yahoo to think that they are better off without Microsoft. Why is it so hard to accept? From where I'm sitting, a Microsoft deal would be bad for Yahoo.
That's a fair point. It truly wasn't clear to me that you were not screwing with me. Sorry.
I do think that you are wrong about what is the greater of two evils, but you could certainly make an argument. I think the infrastructure maintenance, the petroleum use, the emissions, and the fatalities weigh in favor of retiring the fleet as soon as possible.
And besides, what if those resources which would be used to create the replacement cars went instead to rebuilding our rail system? Fat chance, I know... But it would be hard to design a less efficient system than everyone using a personal 200hp motor, even if they are in Honda sedans.
No reply required... 1200 inane comments are probably enough (not excluding mine).
Trying to confuse my poor, drug-addled, left-wing mind? I can't tell if you are being serious. I am going to proceed as if you are.
Yes, I am of the opinion that these vehicles are incompatible with our transportation infrastructure.
Yes, I am of the opinion that everyone who has purchased these vehicles has made a mistake. Most were swayed by television marketing that implicitly said that they are safer (which is a lie). People make mistakes.
Yes, I am of the opinion that Detroit manufacturers lied to the public in the United States about the safety of these vehicles. This allowed them to sell trucks built on 1960's technology, which were in fact largely *exempt* from safety regulations. They were cheaper to design and manufacture, and sold at a premium.
Yes, I believe the United States and the rest of the world would be a better place if these things had never been built and marketed to people who had no use for them.
Look, I know it's hard to admit that you've been duped, that you made a mistake. I'm willing to stop gloating about gas prices and flipping you off in traffic, if you're willing to move towards getting away from this horrible mistake in our transportation system.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
well, most SUV's are safer in an accident just because they are on stronger frames.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but crumple zones are a safety feature. I may not be able to change your mind about this, and I don't want to be impolite, but check around on the subject. The link in the FP is a pretty good New Yorker article.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Other requirements; remember 4 wheel drive, have to haul cargo, 7 ppl or 4 ppl and 3 dogs, need towing. Van will not cut it. Car will not cut it. The commute is just one minor part of the requirements.
But it was the commute that I was talking about.
It's probably obvious by now what I am getting at: SUV highway safety is a myth. It's something that the manufacturers have never, in fact, stated explicitly. They use it implicitly in marketing, though.
For all that is good and right in this world, please don't.
Re:completely missing the point with SUV's.
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
I'm afraid you're wrong about the safety.
Before McNamara et al., Detroit built cars that could be dropped off of cliffs and driven away. Collisions were almost always fatal.
2 tons at 75mph is a lot of force.
SUVs are not safer for you (think all the wet stuff inside you continuing forward at 75mph), just more likely to kill others.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Likewise, many parents are driving 30 miles one way to take their kids to soccer or swimming. Of course, commute (and we do not have a good rail/bus system since money was poured into the east coast rather than the west).
Why does this call for an SUV? SUV's are ill-suited for long-distance highway drives.
This is an article in a financial rag. It is meant as a PR piece for the tactic of suggesting that since CO2 is required for the processes of life, then governments have no right to regulate its release into the atmosphere. I'm surprised by how much traction this specious argument gets from otherwise logical/.ers.
And while I haven't read the original paper, I suspect that the authors did not come to the conclusion that CO2 emissions must not be reduced, which is absurd on its face.
Can any of you really accept the premise that regulating technological release of CO2 (i.e., releases above and beyond what we exhale) would endanger life on earth? That we must not interfere with coal plants and suv's, lest we harm the planet?
Super interesting reply. Interesting observation about Google's M.O. of growing their CS and software engineering.
Thanks for tip about hadoop... I think I may use it as an excuse to buy some cloud time. Also, slightly unrelated (and apologies if you are involved in the project and this is not news): according to wikipedia, the project's largest sponsor is Yahoo and they have hired Doug Cutting who started it... Which works nicely with my pet conspiracy theory that the Microsoft takeover bid had more to do with software engineering than anything else.
And about engEdu deserving more exposure... I could be wrong, but it seems like the old video.google.com domain has been repurposed to be a flash video repository with a higher s/n (noise being dogs on skateboards and signal being berkeley computer science lectures).
Lots of talk about DC hardware and networking here, but the part about parallelization was the really fascinating part to me. The software is the really cool bit here.
There is a meme, here and some other places, that multi-core/multi-unit processors are some great swindle by chip manufacturers. I've come to the conclusion that this is not the case; rather, we're all just dinosaur programmers stuck in the procedural/oop paradigm.
Python in its functional paradigm and MapReduce are amazing safe and efficient ways to solve Google's class of problems with parallel hardware.
What I'm saying here is that every self-respecting geek should learn a functional language.
Slashdot Mirror
"Grousing about submission gets you modded down", etc., I know.
But me and eleventy billion other people submitted this story back when it started happening to our servers, seven days ago!
Mod me down, whatever. It's just freaking hilarious that when we have a story that actually matters to nerds in a real, visceral, quantifiable way, it gets ignored for a week.
<sarcasm>Thanks for the update, taco.</sarcasm>
I meant a parliamentary second of "best post I've ever read on slashdot ever".
Totally got confused as to where I was replying.
Sorry.
Mod me down if you must.
Parent is right on. Too bad you can't be modded up any higher.
Let's move past worrying about our "Intellectual Property" and get to working out the cool stuff.
Here
How to read them
I feel that a great disservice was done to a lot of us early on with a simplistic view of the usual three phases of matter.
And yes, you're right. That is part of the explanation.
No more quotes.
Also, if you adjust your position any more, you're going to be arguing my point.
Sorry I made you mad, but you're just plain wrong about Mgmt and Board liability. Mel Weiss and everyone else who believed in this doctrine were bad for capitalism.
I agree... But just for information: The reporters in question had watched the death of a colleague on live television. (Death by A-10).
It's in the documentary, IIRC.
The film is worth a viewing.
No, you actually implied that it was illegal to resist a buyout.
It's obvious from what we have heard that pride and stubbornness were pretty big factors in the refusal of the MS deal.No, it isn't. That's just what Carl Icahn has said. And that is his "batshit crazy" opinion.
What is best for shareholders is not subjective. What is best for shareholders is money. Always has been, always will be. Once you go public you put aside all aspirations of being unique, true to your roots, nice, etc.You should think really carefully about this opinion. It is uninformed. Yes, people invest to make money, but deciding against a one-time payout in favor of growing the company is a valid position. You can't possibly be saying that accepting a buyout is always the only option for a board of directors of a publicly traded company. That's absurd.
And about this "always has been, always will be" stuff: Public corporations as we know them have been around since 1934. There have been some pretty drastic changes in the philosophy of investing since that time.
This might seem pretty obvious: Yes, it is subjective. Everyone likes money, and people invest to make money, but over what term? There is nothing to back up your claim that companies must destroy themselves if it results in a moderate-sized payday for some investors.
We'd be unlikely to hear of any legal threats. It'll be shareholders Bob and Jim showing up at the office one day (with their buckets and buckets of shares) and having one of them big boy meetings.Eww. I don't want to know what a "big boy meeting" is.
And I do think Yahoo will lose value fairly quickly in a month or so. I don't think Google will buy them out, and once that door is closed, Yahoo is screwed.Why are they screwed if they are not owned by somebody else?
Also, speaking of legal matters, I think that the SEC is probably (if there is any justice) looking into manipulation of Yahoo's price.
This issue alone isn't enough for serious litigation. But the attitudes behind this issue, and Yahoo's countless missed opportunities, imply that there are plenty of things to bitch about in court if some angry shareholders really got motivated to do so.Man... Quit watching so much CNBC. Google is your friend (hah!).
Recent Pro-Defendant Trends in Securities Class Action LitigationStandford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. Some great links to research.
And as for the kind of lawyer who would take up the kind of litigation you advocate:
Mel Weisshttp://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/21/business/suit.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/15/business/fraud.php
As I stated somewhere else on this story, embezzlement and fraud are the kind of things that would give shareholders the right to damages.
And think about it. Where did you develop this opinion? This is the very definition of a meme.
"What is best for shareholders" is subjective. I'd say the very survival of the company is in shareholders' long-term interest.
What is this "gross breach of fiduciary duty" you speak of? Is that a legal thing?
Yang boarding a flight to the Caribbean with suitcases stuffed with cash would be one thing, thinking beyond a one time buyout deal is quite another.
From almost exactly a year ago: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9388783?f=related
Suing a corporation for not selling their grandmothers for a nickel is an abuse of the legal system.
The "elaborate poker game" is pure speculation (no pun intended). It is entirely possible that Yahoo mgmt and executives actually think ownership by Microsoft is bad for the future of the company.
This "Yahoo is bluffing" meme assumes that it is illogical for Yahoo to think that they are better off without Microsoft. Why is it so hard to accept? From where I'm sitting, a Microsoft deal would be bad for Yahoo.
http://www.youtube.com/v/-oFxhqYn-g0
That's a fair point. It truly wasn't clear to me that you were not screwing with me. Sorry.
I do think that you are wrong about what is the greater of two evils, but you could certainly make an argument. I think the infrastructure maintenance, the petroleum use, the emissions, and the fatalities weigh in favor of retiring the fleet as soon as possible.
And besides, what if those resources which would be used to create the replacement cars went instead to rebuilding our rail system? Fat chance, I know... But it would be hard to design a less efficient system than everyone using a personal 200hp motor, even if they are in Honda sedans.
No reply required... 1200 inane comments are probably enough (not excluding mine).
Trying to confuse my poor, drug-addled, left-wing mind? I can't tell if you are being serious. I am going to proceed as if you are.
Yes, I am of the opinion that these vehicles are incompatible with our transportation infrastructure.
Yes, I am of the opinion that everyone who has purchased these vehicles has made a mistake. Most were swayed by television marketing that implicitly said that they are safer (which is a lie). People make mistakes.
Yes, I am of the opinion that Detroit manufacturers lied to the public in the United States about the safety of these vehicles. This allowed them to sell trucks built on 1960's technology, which were in fact largely *exempt* from safety regulations. They were cheaper to design and manufacture, and sold at a premium.
Yes, I believe the United States and the rest of the world would be a better place if these things had never been built and marketed to people who had no use for them.
Look, I know it's hard to admit that you've been duped, that you made a mistake. I'm willing to stop gloating about gas prices and flipping you off in traffic, if you're willing to move towards getting away from this horrible mistake in our transportation system.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but crumple zones are a safety feature. I may not be able to change your mind about this, and I don't want to be impolite, but check around on the subject. The link in the FP is a pretty good New Yorker article.
But it was the commute that I was talking about.
It's probably obvious by now what I am getting at: SUV highway safety is a myth. It's something that the manufacturers have never, in fact, stated explicitly. They use it implicitly in marketing, though.
For all that is good and right in this world, please don't.
I'm afraid you're wrong about the safety.
Before McNamara et al., Detroit built cars that could be dropped off of cliffs and driven away. Collisions were almost always fatal.
2 tons at 75mph is a lot of force.
SUVs are not safer for you (think all the wet stuff inside you continuing forward at 75mph), just more likely to kill others.
Why does this call for an SUV? SUV's are ill-suited for long-distance highway drives.
This is an article in a financial rag. It is meant as a PR piece for the tactic of suggesting that since CO2 is required for the processes of life, then governments have no right to regulate its release into the atmosphere. I'm surprised by how much traction this specious argument gets from otherwise logical /.ers.
And while I haven't read the original paper, I suspect that the authors did not come to the conclusion that CO2 emissions must not be reduced, which is absurd on its face.
Can any of you really accept the premise that regulating technological release of CO2 (i.e., releases above and beyond what we exhale) would endanger life on earth? That we must not interfere with coal plants and suv's, lest we harm the planet?
Seriously?Netflix is forced to use drm. I try to keep a drm-free box. Also, IIRC, it is Windows-only.
So, to answer your questions: 1. No, unless you don't have/want a windows box with drm crap down to the metal. 2. See (1).
It's not about "resolution" as you're probably thinking about it. For right now, it is 480p, but that's not what is important.
The amount of compression is varied depending on the speed of the connection. Netflix says it's pretty good at 1.5mbit, and perfect at 4mbit.
I'm guessing that the requirement is actually activex.
Super interesting reply. Interesting observation about Google's M.O. of growing their CS and software engineering.
Thanks for tip about hadoop... I think I may use it as an excuse to buy some cloud time. Also, slightly unrelated (and apologies if you are involved in the project and this is not news): according to wikipedia, the project's largest sponsor is Yahoo and they have hired Doug Cutting who started it... Which works nicely with my pet conspiracy theory that the Microsoft takeover bid had more to do with software engineering than anything else.
And about engEdu deserving more exposure... I could be wrong, but it seems like the old video.google.com domain has been repurposed to be a flash video repository with a higher s/n (noise being dogs on skateboards and signal being berkeley computer science lectures).
Lots of talk about DC hardware and networking here, but the part about parallelization was the really fascinating part to me. The software is the really cool bit here.
There is a meme, here and some other places, that multi-core/multi-unit processors are some great swindle by chip manufacturers. I've come to the conclusion that this is not the case; rather, we're all just dinosaur programmers stuck in the procedural/oop paradigm.
Python in its functional paradigm and MapReduce are amazing safe and efficient ways to solve Google's class of problems with parallel hardware.
What I'm saying here is that every self-respecting geek should learn a functional language.
Wikipedia - MapReduce Functional ProgrammingAlso, Google's engEdu videos are freaking AWESOME.
He got a Lifetime Achievement Award Webby and had a website in the 90's.
Ergo, he is not a douche and understands the web.