to Liverpool socialist MP Bessie Braddock, who told him, "Winston, you're drunk.":
"Bessie, you're ugly. And tomorrow morning I'll be sober, but you'll still be ugly."
(http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.asp?speaker= Sir%20Winston%20Churchill)
When a corporation goes into bankruptcy, and the remaining assets cannot cover the outstanding debt, it is the debt holders, and not the public, that absorbs the loss. That's no different from a person with more credit card debt than cash filing bankruptcy -- in this case, the credit card company takes the loss.
Similarly, I don't pay for the cost of pollution caused by my car, just as a corporation doesn't. I'm not saying that this is a good situation, but it is the current reality.
Really, I took three deep breaths before responding.
Zathrus my boy, you're spouting acronyms without knowing what the hell you're talking about. A few of your errors:
1. An AWACS is an Air Force aircraft, built on a modified Boeing 707 airframe. There's no way that it would ever land on a carrier. You should have referenced the E-2 Hawkeye.
2. Carriers are one of the fastest surface vessels in the US Navy. The predominate term in the drag equation is the length of the waterline. Further, since most of our CVs are nuclear power, the CV doesn't burn excessive amounts of fuel when it goes fast.
3. Neither you or I know what's in the SOP, as the interesting bits are classified. It is a fair bet that every US ship would go to condition III (wartime cruising) after a WMD is detonated in the US.
4. AEGIS cannon?!?!? There's no such critter. See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapo ns/wepaegis.html . My guess is that you meant CIWS (Close In Weapons System, the R2D2-looking Phalanx.)
5. As a deception, sometimes the oiler is in the center of the formation.
6. It may be difficult to penetrate the defenses of the battle group, but not impossible.
7. Boats do not cruise "through thermal layers" -- they are above or below the layer, as the situation dictates.
That said, putting GNU/ before everything smacks to me as the sort of brand-naming that goes on in the commercial software world. It's the equivalent of saying, "It's not Acrobat, it's Adobe Acrobat." Surely we are able to give credit where credit is due without putting the name of an organization on it.
Imagine Bosch going to Audi and saying "you guys use our engine computer; therefore, your brand is now Bosch/Audi". That's the kind of self-aggrandizing, arrogant crap RMS is pulling.
While RMS has done some good work for all of us, he has no business unilaterally renaming someone else's work.
But the last time they made this big a deal about something, they delivered.
Ah, but this "big deal" negatively affects their revenue and earnings, which is why I think it is little more than PR.
Historically, Microsoft has piled in multitudes of features and foisted what should be beta software on the market. They find out what breaks, and provide bug fixes (euphemistically called "service packs") for the things people really whine about. This approach maximized their revenue, and accelerates it.
Ask yourself if Microsoft would have turned Windows 2000 into Windows 2001 if a significant security hole was found on the eve of the launch.
In northern california, sprawl is using up the water supply, [...]
Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.
Short of California closing its borders to new residents, you're always going to have a water problem. Millions of people are contesting for water in a desert, and that is not a happy situation
Shameless Plug: rural communities with bandwidth can be found. Two I work in can be found at:
http://www.bowmannd.com
Checking the weather in balmy Bowman, ND, I find a temperature of 8 degrees F, with a wind chill of -4 degrees F.
You can call me a wimp if you want, but I don't really like freezing my ass off, even if office space goes for $1/sq ft and I get a free DS3 to my house.
Having gone through this two years ago, and it's looking like I'll do it again in the near future, let me suggest that you _not_ let A Big Company look before they buy.
Instead, make some objective Representations and Warranties in the acquisition contract -- say, your server (if you have one) can handle N clients, or the software handles functions X, Y, and Z. The objective is to have a fixed set of expectations that can be proved of disproved.
If the acquiring company wants to grab your good work for free, it will have to take you to court and prove to a judge (and maybe a jury) that your software doesn't do what you said it would do.
However, given that wininformant.com purports to be "Windows news and information. No fluff.", and has multiple publications, I expect some level of site professionalism -- more than simply plunking an IIS box on a random DSL or T1 line.
I can't tell whether the site was down because of insufficient bandwidth (as you suggested), or because the box(en) couldn't handle the load (or had insufficient load balancing.) Either way, I'm not impressed with the site design.
According to netcraft.com, serious sites (Most Requested Sites, or Top Hosting Locations) use mostly apache on solaris, linux, freebsd, or netbsd. Microsoft corporate-related sites are the obvious exception.
Because the "charge" involved a violation of SEC and NASD regulations, not a criminal charge (e.g., Murder.) The $100m is a combination of "disgorged profits" (you have to love the legalese) and a fine.
This has nothing to do with "the Swiss" -- CSFB is a multinational.
Why is not having to lug yourselves around in 6000 pounds of metal so unappealing?
Why to you is it?
{begin rant}
Simple (at least for me) -- SUVs excessively threaten me as the driver of a normal vehicle.
How?:
1. excessive weight and energy -- my car is 3000 lbs gross, while a suburban is 8600 lbs (http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/engine_sub/8100.htm). So, the suburban is carrying more than double the energy in a collision.
2. high bumpers, which conveniently miss most of the crumple zone of my vehicle, magnifying the hazard of the excess weight of the SUV.
3. poor handling relative to a normal vehicle, which increases the chance of a collision.
4. SUV drivers with no clue as to how to handle these limitations.
5. the fat, tall, and opaque behind of an SUV blocks my view of potential trouble ahead.
6. I observe that SUV drivers are more prone to poor driving -- Left Lane Banditry (failing to keep right except to pass), and wandering all over the road whilst Driving While Yakking/shaving/reading/disciplining their rug rats.
I would mitigate these hazards as follows:
1. SUV speed limit is 80% of the posted limit (limit 70 mph -> SUV limit of 56), which reduces the crash energy by 36% (one half m v squared.) Ban SUVs from the passing and HOV lanes.
2. tax SUV owners on a per mile driven and per pound basis, to compensate for the increased wear on the road. Heck, tax all drivers this way.
3. SUV owners pay $2000/year/SUV into a SUV victims fund.
To take this step further, what about a committee made up from representatives from all different competing businesses to provide some oversight?
While that sounds good, think of the motivations of the competitors. It would be in their interest to kill a "good" patent (read, real innovation with no prior art) which would be a competitive threat, and let a trivial patent through.
Not really -- Covad filed what is known as a prepackaged bankruptcy (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000064425aug08.story) , where the debt holders have already agreed to trade some or all of their debt for equity and some cash, reducing the amount of debt service the company had to support. From where I'm sitting, there was no question that Covad would reemerge from bankruptcy.
I've found that I can focus when all the chatter around me is blocked by the Bose headphones. They are pricey ($300), but worth it, IMHO.
I can't say anything about other brands. I went with Bose because I've used their Industrial Grade headphones (Bose X) on private aircraft with much success. Bose really knows how to negate noise.
While linksys is cheap, they won't support anything but windows users.
While Apple is cheap/good, they won't support anything but mac users. If you want to configure your airport, you have to have a mac, or grab Configurator or Freebase from SourceForge.
That's all their [sic] is to it.
I would appreciate a pointer to the IRS regulation in question. I've never heard of it.
What you may be referring to is the retained earning tax, which becomes relevant when a corporation keeps "too much" profit (the number $250k sticks in my head, but it's been awhile since I've looked at this) in the corporation. In general, this tax can be maneuvered around.
As for your last comment -- I'm not rich (yet), so I look to maximize my return on investment. Among other things, that means minimizing taxes. If you think that is wrong, that's your privilege. Justice Learned Hand said (http://www.taxsites.com/topics/quotes.html):
"
Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. "
This is so amazingly wrong that it's hard to believe someone typed it.
Wrong? I don't think so. I think you and I are after different things when we invest in a company.
Compound growth is your friend, especially in the tax-advantaged entity called a corporation (see WillSeattle's excellent description of MS as a holding company.) Once that growth leaves the corporation via a dividend, it is taxed twice -- first at the corporate level, then at the personal level. A capital gain, however, is only taxed once. And that's why I invest for capital gaines over income.
Warren Buffett has made billions investing in high cash flow companies that reinvest in themselves for even-higher cash flow in the future. I think that is a winning strategy.
If I want income, I buy a bond, preferably tax-free. If I want a capital gain, I invest in a stock. All things equal, I far prefer a cash payout in the form of a capital gain. Your Mileage May Vary.
(then again, I'm a code jockey, what the f**k do I know about finance)
Companies that pay dividends are essentially saying "we can't think of anything better to do with this cash we've generated, so we're giving it back to the shareholders." IMHO, that's a sign of managerial incompetence. If management can't think of a way to invest in the business for future growth, they should be fired.
Um, no. On the London-JFK run with stiff headwinds, the Concorde sometimes has to land at Boston due to low fuel. Given that, there's no friggin' way it would make it to Los Angeles non-stop, even using a great circle route.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, morgajel, all you really need is water, food, and shelter, in that order.
Get your sorry ass off the internet, you don't "need" it.
to Liverpool socialist MP Bessie Braddock, who told him, "Winston, you're drunk.":
"Bessie, you're ugly. And tomorrow morning I'll be sober, but you'll still be ugly." (http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.asp?speaker= Sir%20Winston%20Churchill)
When a corporation goes into bankruptcy, and the remaining assets cannot cover the outstanding debt, it is the debt holders, and not the public, that absorbs the loss. That's no different from a person with more credit card debt than cash filing bankruptcy -- in this case, the credit card company takes the loss.
Similarly, I don't pay for the cost of pollution caused by my car, just as a corporation doesn't. I'm not saying that this is a good situation, but it is the current reality.
Zathrus my boy, you're spouting acronyms without knowing what the hell you're talking about. A few of your errors:
1. An AWACS is an Air Force aircraft, built on a modified Boeing 707 airframe. There's no way that it would ever land on a carrier. You should have referenced the E-2 Hawkeye.
2. Carriers are one of the fastest surface vessels in the US Navy. The predominate term in the drag equation is the length of the waterline. Further, since most of our CVs are nuclear power, the CV doesn't burn excessive amounts of fuel when it goes fast.
3. Neither you or I know what's in the SOP, as the interesting bits are classified. It is a fair bet that every US ship would go to condition III (wartime cruising) after a WMD is detonated in the US.
4. AEGIS cannon?!?!? There's no such critter. See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapo ns/wepaegis.html . My guess is that you meant CIWS (Close In Weapons System, the R2D2-looking Phalanx.)
5. As a deception, sometimes the oiler is in the center of the formation.
6. It may be difficult to penetrate the defenses of the battle group, but not impossible.
7. Boats do not cruise "through thermal layers" -- they are above or below the layer, as the situation dictates.
Imagine Bosch going to Audi and saying "you guys use our engine computer; therefore, your brand is now Bosch/Audi". That's the kind of self-aggrandizing, arrogant crap RMS is pulling.
While RMS has done some good work for all of us, he has no business unilaterally renaming someone else's work.
Ah, but this "big deal" negatively affects their revenue and earnings, which is why I think it is little more than PR.
Historically, Microsoft has piled in multitudes of features and foisted what should be beta software on the market. They find out what breaks, and provide bug fixes (euphemistically called "service packs") for the things people really whine about. This approach maximized their revenue, and accelerates it.
Ask yourself if Microsoft would have turned Windows 2000 into Windows 2001 if a significant security hole was found on the eve of the launch.
Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.
Short of California closing its borders to new residents, you're always going to have a water problem. Millions of people are contesting for water in a desert, and that is not a happy situation
Checking the weather in balmy Bowman, ND, I find a temperature of 8 degrees F, with a wind chill of -4 degrees F.
You can call me a wimp if you want, but I don't really like freezing my ass off, even if office space goes for $1/sq ft and I get a free DS3 to my house.
Having gone through this two years ago, and it's looking like I'll do it again in the near future, let me suggest that you _not_ let A Big Company look before they buy.
...
Instead, make some objective Representations and Warranties in the acquisition contract -- say, your server (if you have one) can handle N clients, or the software handles functions X, Y, and Z. The objective is to have a fixed set of expectations that can be proved of disproved.
If the acquiring company wants to grab your good work for free, it will have to take you to court and prove to a judge (and maybe a jury) that your software doesn't do what you said it would do.
My two cents
... the MCF (Mongolian Cluster Fsck), which sadly occurs when a committee gets together to decide things.
However, given that wininformant.com purports to be "Windows news and information. No fluff.", and has multiple publications, I expect some level of site professionalism -- more than simply plunking an IIS box on a random DSL or T1 line.
I can't tell whether the site was down because of insufficient bandwidth (as you suggested), or because the box(en) couldn't handle the load (or had insufficient load balancing.) Either way, I'm not impressed with the site design.
According to netcraft.com, serious sites (Most Requested Sites, or Top Hosting Locations) use mostly apache on solaris, linux, freebsd, or netbsd. Microsoft corporate-related sites are the obvious exception.
As of this morning, however, the dog seems to be dead (www.wininformant.com.) Coincidence? You tell me.
Because the "charge" involved a violation of SEC and NASD regulations, not a criminal charge (e.g., Murder.) The $100m is a combination of "disgorged profits" (you have to love the legalese) and a fine.
This has nothing to do with "the Swiss" -- CSFB is a multinational.
Why to you is it?
{begin rant} Simple (at least for me) -- SUVs excessively threaten me as the driver of a normal vehicle.
How?:
1. excessive weight and energy -- my car is 3000 lbs gross, while a suburban is 8600 lbs (http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/engine_sub/8100 .htm). So, the suburban is carrying more than double the energy in a collision.
2. high bumpers, which conveniently miss most of the crumple zone of my vehicle, magnifying the hazard of the excess weight of the SUV.
3. poor handling relative to a normal vehicle, which increases the chance of a collision.
4. SUV drivers with no clue as to how to handle these limitations.
5. the fat, tall, and opaque behind of an SUV blocks my view of potential trouble ahead.
6. I observe that SUV drivers are more prone to poor driving -- Left Lane Banditry (failing to keep right except to pass), and wandering all over the road whilst Driving While Yakking/shaving/reading/disciplining their rug rats.
I would mitigate these hazards as follows:
1. SUV speed limit is 80% of the posted limit (limit 70 mph -> SUV limit of 56), which reduces the crash energy by 36% (one half m v squared.) Ban SUVs from the passing and HOV lanes.
2. tax SUV owners on a per mile driven and per pound basis, to compensate for the increased wear on the road. Heck, tax all drivers this way.
3. SUV owners pay $2000/year/SUV into a SUV victims fund.
4. remove the business tax preferences to SUVs.
{end rant}
Ok, so I'm dreaming. Sue me.
While that sounds good, think of the motivations of the competitors. It would be in their interest to kill a "good" patent (read, real innovation with no prior art) which would be a competitive threat, and let a trivial patent through.
I'm not sure there is a good solution.
Not really -- Covad filed what is known as a prepackaged bankruptcy (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000064425aug08 .story) , where the debt holders have already agreed to trade some or all of their debt for equity and some cash, reducing the amount of debt service the company had to support. From where I'm sitting, there was no question that Covad would reemerge from bankruptcy.
I can't say anything about other brands. I went with Bose because I've used their Industrial Grade headphones (Bose X) on private aircraft with much success. Bose really knows how to negate noise.
You have to choke one down to understand ...
While Apple is cheap/good, they won't support anything but mac users. If you want to configure your airport, you have to have a mac, or grab Configurator or Freebase from SourceForge. That's all their [sic] is to it.
What you may be referring to is the retained earning tax, which becomes relevant when a corporation keeps "too much" profit (the number $250k sticks in my head, but it's been awhile since I've looked at this) in the corporation. In general, this tax can be maneuvered around.
As for your last comment -- I'm not rich (yet), so I look to maximize my return on investment. Among other things, that means minimizing taxes. If you think that is wrong, that's your privilege. Justice Learned Hand said (http://www.taxsites.com/topics/quotes.html):
" Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. "
Wrong? I don't think so. I think you and I are after different things when we invest in a company.
Compound growth is your friend, especially in the tax-advantaged entity called a corporation (see WillSeattle's excellent description of MS as a holding company.) Once that growth leaves the corporation via a dividend, it is taxed twice -- first at the corporate level, then at the personal level. A capital gain, however, is only taxed once. And that's why I invest for capital gaines over income.
Warren Buffett has made billions investing in high cash flow companies that reinvest in themselves for even-higher cash flow in the future. I think that is a winning strategy.
If I want income, I buy a bond, preferably tax-free. If I want a capital gain, I invest in a stock. All things equal, I far prefer a cash payout in the form of a capital gain. Your Mileage May Vary.
Companies that pay dividends are essentially saying "we can't think of anything better to do with this cash we've generated, so we're giving it back to the shareholders." IMHO, that's a sign of managerial incompetence. If management can't think of a way to invest in the business for future growth, they should be fired.
My .03 euros ...
Yeah ... I can't spell this early in the morning.
Sorry -- government work is on a standard scale, which doesn't vary with the vissitudes of high tech.
There will, however, be more interested high tech workers, which should improve the quality of patent examinations.
Um, no. On the London-JFK run with stiff headwinds, the Concorde sometimes has to land at Boston due to low fuel. Given that, there's no friggin' way it would make it to Los Angeles non-stop, even using a great circle route.