is still a job. if you want to lower crime in general, then take steps to improve the economy - which (in the past) has meant the government getting out of the way.
I'm not opposed to gun control - I just don't think it will make any difference (except make politicians feel like they "did" something about the problem)
with my libertarian leanings satisfied, I'll point out that the only nation-state I know of to successfully manage "gun control" was feudal Japan (Samurai who had spent a lifetime perfecting their skills wanted protection from poorly trained peasants with guns).
If you believe that a primary function of government is to protect citizens from each other - then maybe we should be discussing repeal of the second amendment. Simply make it illegal for everyone (except the "government") to own guns - then be prepared to incarcerate everyone you find with a gun.
if THAT works, we could make all drugs illegal to cut down on drug addiction... (after all making something illegal NEVER has unintended consequences)
on the other hand the pointless reference of the day: this debate always reminds me of the "Treehouse of Horror" episode where Lisa wishes for world peace - "He's got a board with a nail in it!" and "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all..."
The legal question isn't "is this a common practice" but what type of contract HP had with the employees.
Years ago I was an "on site tech guy" for a small tech firm (fixing IBM PC/XTs and PS/2s - good times), they asked me to sign a "non compete" agreement which basically said if I stole their customer away that I'd have to pay damages equal to the value of the contract. I'd be surprised if HP didn't have some such agreement with their employees (it is expensive to find talent - and it sounds like these were the people that HP wanted to keep around)
I'm sure Mr. Mott is a fine human being - and will do a fine job. A huge part of his job will be hiring good people. After your post, I'm even more convinced that HP can't win and needs to re-evaluate their HR practices.
Mr. Mott doesn't make a very convincing defense. Sounds like "Yeah, we did what we are accused of - but so what"
this is probably a very simple case - assuming HP made their employees sign some form of "non compete" or other employment agreement/contract, but proving collusion or conspiracy and getting damages is going to be hard for HP. Sure, the employees in question were free to "'resign en masse and without notice' but were probably contractually limited from going to work directly with GM - (which is why HP wants to talk to the people involved).
my IANAL opinion is that no matter how this plays out, HP looks bad and "loses."
the link the Jon Stewart interview. Two very smart men, one of them is funnier than the other, you can decide:-)
I start wondering (every 4 years when people talk about getting rid of the electoral college) if we still teach United States History in high school. Sure let's reform it, take the rubber stamp "electors" out of the process - but you still have the fundamental "big states vs small states" issue (the reason we have a bicameral legislature) and not to mention some other big problems
Nate Silver deserves all of the plaudits he is receiving, I have nothing bad to say about Mr. Silver. I'm going to hunt up a copy of his book. #prepareToDuckAndRun do you know the difference between Nate Silver and God? Nate Silver wouldn't get booed at the Democratic convention #duckAndRun
This same question gets asked about writers and alcohol.
the question will be stated something like: There have been many incredibly talented writers who also abused alcohol (Hemingway immediately comes to mind - but there is there is a large sample size). Did alcohol make them better writers? Will alcohol make you a better writer?
The popular answer is: "The genius that made them great writers probably contributed to thier drinking, but drinking didn't make them great writers."
Drinking might make people think they are great writers, but simply being a drunk won't improve your writing. the cliche "correlation doesn't imply causality" applies.
Many great programmers may have also used recreational drugs - but recreational drugs didn't make them great programmers.
in both writing and coding there is a lot of hard work involved to become (and stay) "good" at your craft - and addiction (to anything) will interfere.
I admit my considerable ignorance of Nate Silver's blog - and humbly ask for pardon. i did not mean to question anyone's integrity and I don't think I was "making up shit":-)
I question the value of any polling - even if it is well done. example: The Carter/Reagan 1980 election was "too close to call" according to the polling data - and reagan won an electoral college landslide. Of course most/.'s probably remember Gore/Bush and the exit polling brouhaha (and "hanging chads" who could ever forget "hanging chads"
I've also heard pollsters complain about the limitations of current methodologies (if you are calling people on landlines then you are using an increasingly smaller portion of the likely voters) - I'm wondering if a "Dewey defeats Truman" event could be in the works...
They're not necessarily useless, but state-by-state polls are critical for determining a winner because of the electoral college. Fortunately, they conduct state-by-state polls.
Yes, there is polling done on a state by state basis - but that does not seem to be what is being discussed: from the blog, emphasis mine: "And increasingly, it is hard to find leads for Mr. Romney in national surveys — although several of them show a tie."
I'm surprised the NY Times says the race is that close. Even if we throw out the Times' bias and the fact that a bunch of inaccurate/biased polls don't make them more accurate, I disagree with the logic behind the article...
I have no idea who will win, but "national" polls aren't useful because of the Electoral college (skipping the U.S. history lesson) - I'll wholeheartedly agree that Obama has a 98% chance of winning the popular vote, but the election will come down to a couple "swing states" (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin). Romney could lose the popular vote big in California and New York, therefore lose the popular vote, but win enough of the other (smaller) states to win the required 270 Electoral college votes.
I am also extremely confident in predicting that neither candidate will win a "landslide" of the popular vote, but either candidate could win an electoral college landslide (define "landslide" as 60% or more).
For example: 1984 the popular vote was 58.8% Reagan over 40.6% Mondale, but Mondale only won 13 Electoral college votes to Reagan's 525 ("landslide").
In 2008 the popular vote was 52.9% Obama over 45.7% McCain, the Electoral College result was 365 to 173... (landslide in Electoral college, but not in the popular vote)
the only thing that is 97.7% probable is that it will be very close. The "election experts" have been saying for a long time that it will come down to voter turnout, which is 100% true
all this study illustrates is a low level of moral reasoning skills on the part of the reasearchers
isn't this sort of thing covered in introductory statistics classes? How the question is asked will always impact the results of the study. If you are making your living taking polls, it is possible to get the results you want by skewing the sample size/distribution and/or writing biased questions.
BTW: what is the difference between "ethics" and "morality?" If you are a politician (who just got caught cheating on his wife) you might say "Ethics is what I do on the job, morality is what I do in private." What the politician is REALLY saying is that "Whatever I do is right - because I say it is right."
moral relativity is a very dangerous thing which has become the norm in western society (but the other extreme is the Spanish Inquisition - and nobody expects the...)
I will argue that "ethics" is the day to day interpretation of "morality." for example: do you believe "stealing" is wrong? yes, you shouldn't take other people's stuff - that would be WRONG. ("morality") Is it stealing if I walk off with the bank teller's pen? ("ethics").
the Apple culture seems to irritate Steve Ballmer, and mystify industry experts. Yes, there is a sizable "Apple fanboy" market (those eagerly waiting to pre-order Apple's next product sight unseen) but that has been built on the fact that Apple has been releasing great products for a long time (but it hasn't ALWAYS been that way - the company went through some lean times once)
Apple is in a position in the tablet market that they once held in the personal computer market (and we all know how that ended).
Is someone really making something better AND cheaper than the iPad? Is the iPad just a $500 status symbol/fashion statement? I'd argue the answer to both question is "no." The iPad is positioned as a productive piece of hardware that happens to be elegant...
My personal bias: I would like an iPad - but I don't want to pay $500 for one (I love my iPod though) - so I have a Nook color. The Nook color is "nice", only cost me $100, but is just a glorified reading device (although I could watch Netflix with it - which was important in my decision process).
yup, the "iPad Killer" thing is in response to the writeup
education is big business - and positioning a device for "kids" implies an "education niche", not as a general purpose device that is even pretending to compete with the iPad
FTA: "In a nod to kids, the tablet is protected by a drop-safe bumper. And for their parents, specific controls are available to block objectionable Web sites."
and also: "Do children today really need a kids' tablet?"
I'll admit that I responded to the "iPad killer" bait and that this whole posting probably qualifies as advirtisement for a device without a viable marketing plan... (but if someone comes up with a killer app for a cheap and durable tablet then they might stumble onto something)
my first thought is of someone yelling "developers, developers, developers!" (the success of the platform will be directly related to the amount of useful work that can be accomplished using it)
this has the potential to carve out a niche - but has zero chance of "killing" the iPad - i.e. fundamentally different markets...
RIM might be in a death spiral but I wouldn't write them off yet. As far as I can tell they have the "corporate email" market cornered - which is a nice thing to have, but tiny compared to Apple's iPhone dominance.
I'd like an iPhone 4s myself (and when upgrade time rolls around I'll probably get one - but I'll wait for the prices to drop when Apple releases iPhone 5). Unless my employer requires it I'm not going to get anything from RIM...
competition is usually good for consumers (drives innovation, lowers prices) but that it also means there will be "winning" and "losing" companies in the marketplace
So once again the "/. question in the subject header == False" - Apple and Samsung are simply making superior products and/or out competing RIM (and/or using the patent system better)
the "cloud" is the latest (in a long line) of over used buzz words
are you running a few virtual machines on a couple of midlevel servers? probably not "cloud computing"
are you considering virtualizing a large number of servers to achieve high performance/high availability/infrastructure as a service/or some other "as a service" buzzword? probably "cloud computing"
where your "cloud configuration" exists is another issue. there was an article (Forbes maybe) that pointed out how much less money is required to start/run an "Internet startups." With the "public cloud provider" being Amazon Web Services (i.e. just because you are using the "cloud" doesn't mean you outsourced everything)
remember that "I.T." is about helping a company do whatever it is they do - the need for "I.T. people" (especially in security, virtualization, and developers) is not going away, but if you are a "hardware only" tech, spending your day replacing power supplies and installing new hard drives, you don't have a future in corporate IT departments...
Bill Gates was famously competitive about everything, and at times it looked as if he didn't just want Microsoft to win but also wanted to destroy other companies that might be a threat to Microsoft (or he might make them an offer they can't refuse)
so saying that he is "less cut-throat" than Bill Gates doesn't mean that Steve Ballmer won't do what he thinks is in Microsoft's best interest (which is kind of his job)
I'm sure Stephen Elop has done/is doing what he thinks is in Nokia's best interest (and if Elop isn't "looking out for Nokia" he should be fired)...
the big concern is that Microsoft has a history of not playing well with others, but that was with Bill Gates running the show
Steve Ballmer (who dropped out of Stanford's business school to join Microsoft - i.e. he is a "businessman" in the good sense) is probably a little less cut-throat (or inclined to "compliance with raised middle finger") than Bill Gates - which is obviously just my opinion - and I'd gladly work for either Microsoft or Red Hat (I've used both company's software for years, but I'm not religious about either)
anyway, I'm still not convinced that "UEFI" is the next big thing, I'm willing to listen/try it - but taking a "trust but verify" attitude toward the whole thing
I don't think Microsoft will actually be able to do what the article is worried about - and it probably requires a history lesson on how the PC (and PC "clones") came about in the first place to fully explain "why" - but I'll just point everyone at Triumph of the Nerds
the lesson from Microchannel was that people don't HAVE to pay you royalties just because you are the industry leader and come up with something new - they can form a gang of nine and do it another way...
this sounds a lot like Microsoft saying "pay us and get in the box" - I don't think they have that kind of power (and if you were working on PC's in the mid-late 90's you probably saw IBM PS/2's getting sold by the skid to be melted down for the gold in the connectors MCA used)
Shelley's "Ozymandias" is probably relevant ("My name is Microsoft, king of software/Look on my operating systems, ye competitiors, and despair"):-)
First let me say that I agree with everyone who is saying some form of "passing more laws won't make people better" and this is probably an example of pointless legislation, etc.
if I'm guessing at the intent of this legislation - then it looks a lot like what we used to require of the "old media." If someone writes a letter to the editor of the New York Times, they aren't going to print it unless they have a name and address, and claiming "anonymous sources" only goes so far.
As readers we take it on faith that the reporter went to some effort to verify the claims/reputation of the source. The difference between the New York Times ("All the news that's fit to print") and the National Enquirer ("Enquiring minds want to know") used to boil down to how rigorously they checked their sources.
oh, and we don't have complete "freedom of speech" - which would be say whatever you want about anything at anytime. examples: yelling "bomb" at an airport, "fire" in a crowded theater, or write threatening letters to someone in office - claiming "freedom of speech" in those cases isn't going to keep you from getting into some form of trouble with the man
we also have laws against libel and slander - and that whole "thou shall not bear false witness" thing kind of illustrates that this isn't a new problem. anyway, they illustrate the concept of "freedom within the law"...
the stock is being publically traded - so the price going down means that there are more "sellers" than "buyers" at the moment - what will be interesting is where the stock ends up in a year
remember, the underlying value of the company in question is a big factor in stock valuation, but the stock market is not a rational place, and people buy and sell for any number of reasons.
Facebook, Inc made its money on the i.p.o. (earlier posting said $16 billion) - the day to day fluctuations of the stock price don't directly impact its "bottom line"
for those who remember the dotcom bubble - the status symbol at that time was how much the stock price would rise, over the i.p.o. price ("Revolution OS" has a few examples of this near the end). I specifically remember RedHat's initial offering
notice that RedHat only offered 6 million shares (today RedHat, now RHT, is slightly above that price) - I haven't checked the numbers but if the $16 billion dollar number is correct then FB must have offered over 421 million shares...
in any case I'm happy to see the Mark Zuckerberg could FINALLY afford to get married - it is so hard to support a family on a couple million dollars (estimate is that he is now the 29th richest human being on the face of the earth)
good points - but would that be bad? is the person taking pictures at the "Walmart portrait" studio a "professional photographer?"
What about a wedding where they forego the "professional photographer" and just give guests digital cameras? A professional job would be easier, I'm sure the median quality of the pictures would be terrible, but they get a unique (and memorable) wedding album (anyone ever been part of a wedding that did that?).
the Jimmy Olsen's of the world probably don't have to worry about their job - if their job is going to dangerous places and documenting what is going on (which is the point that the article eventually gets to) - but then we are on the whole citizen journalism/blogging vs "old media" argument
Slashdot Mirror
is still a job. if you want to lower crime in general, then take steps to improve the economy - which (in the past) has meant the government getting out of the way.
I'm not opposed to gun control - I just don't think it will make any difference (except make politicians feel like they "did" something about the problem)
with my libertarian leanings satisfied, I'll point out that the only nation-state I know of to successfully manage "gun control" was feudal Japan (Samurai who had spent a lifetime perfecting their skills wanted protection from poorly trained peasants with guns).
If you believe that a primary function of government is to protect citizens from each other - then maybe we should be discussing repeal of the second amendment. Simply make it illegal for everyone (except the "government") to own guns - then be prepared to incarcerate everyone you find with a gun.
if THAT works, we could make all drugs illegal to cut down on drug addiction ... (after all making something illegal NEVER has unintended consequences)
on the other hand the pointless reference of the day: this debate always reminds me of the "Treehouse of Horror" episode where Lisa wishes for world peace - "He's got a board with a nail in it!" and "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all..."
The legal question isn't "is this a common practice" but what type of contract HP had with the employees.
Years ago I was an "on site tech guy" for a small tech firm (fixing IBM PC/XTs and PS/2s - good times), they asked me to sign a "non compete" agreement which basically said if I stole their customer away that I'd have to pay damages equal to the value of the contract. I'd be surprised if HP didn't have some such agreement with their employees (it is expensive to find talent - and it sounds like these were the people that HP wanted to keep around)
I'm sure Mr. Mott is a fine human being - and will do a fine job. A huge part of his job will be hiring good people. After your post, I'm even more convinced that HP can't win and needs to re-evaluate their HR practices.
Mr. Mott doesn't make a very convincing defense. Sounds like "Yeah, we did what we are accused of - but so what"
this is probably a very simple case - assuming HP made their employees sign some form of "non compete" or other employment agreement/contract, but proving collusion or conspiracy and getting damages is going to be hard for HP. Sure, the employees in question were free to "'resign en masse and without notice' but were probably contractually limited from going to work directly with GM - (which is why HP wants to talk to the people involved).
my IANAL opinion is that no matter how this plays out, HP looks bad and "loses."
so when is he announcing his new branch of mathematics
the link the Jon Stewart interview. Two very smart men, one of them is funnier than the other, you can decide :-)
I start wondering (every 4 years when people talk about getting rid of the electoral college) if we still teach United States History in high school. Sure let's reform it, take the rubber stamp "electors" out of the process - but you still have the fundamental "big states vs small states" issue (the reason we have a bicameral legislature) and not to mention some other big problems
Nate Silver deserves all of the plaudits he is receiving, I have nothing bad to say about Mr. Silver. I'm going to hunt up a copy of his book. #prepareToDuckAndRun do you know the difference between Nate Silver and God? Nate Silver wouldn't get booed at the Democratic convention #duckAndRun
This same question gets asked about writers and alcohol.
the question will be stated something like: There have been many incredibly talented writers who also abused alcohol (Hemingway immediately comes to mind - but there is there is a large sample size). Did alcohol make them better writers? Will alcohol make you a better writer?
The popular answer is: "The genius that made them great writers probably contributed to thier drinking, but drinking didn't make them great writers."
Drinking might make people think they are great writers, but simply being a drunk won't improve your writing. the cliche "correlation doesn't imply causality" applies.
Many great programmers may have also used recreational drugs - but recreational drugs didn't make them great programmers.
in both writing and coding there is a lot of hard work involved to become (and stay) "good" at your craft - and addiction (to anything) will interfere.
But remember: Mr Garrison says drugs are bad.
So just say no.
This is your brain: this is your brain on /.
Follow your dreams, but stay in school.
I admit my considerable ignorance of Nate Silver's blog - and humbly ask for pardon. i did not mean to question anyone's integrity and I don't think I was "making up shit" :-)
I question the value of any polling - even if it is well done. example: The Carter/Reagan 1980 election was "too close to call" according to the polling data - and reagan won an electoral college landslide. Of course most /.'s probably remember Gore/Bush and the exit polling brouhaha (and "hanging chads" who could ever forget "hanging chads"
I've also heard pollsters complain about the limitations of current methodologies (if you are calling people on landlines then you are using an increasingly smaller portion of the likely voters) - I'm wondering if a "Dewey defeats Truman" event could be in the works ...
They're not necessarily useless, but state-by-state polls are critical for determining a winner because of the electoral college. Fortunately, they conduct state-by-state polls.
Yes, there is polling done on a state by state basis - but that does not seem to be what is being discussed: from the blog, emphasis mine: "And increasingly, it is hard to find leads for Mr. Romney in national surveys — although several of them show a tie."
I'm surprised the NY Times says the race is that close. Even if we throw out the Times' bias and the fact that a bunch of inaccurate/biased polls don't make them more accurate, I disagree with the logic behind the article ...
I have no idea who will win, but "national" polls aren't useful because of the Electoral college (skipping the U.S. history lesson) - I'll wholeheartedly agree that Obama has a 98% chance of winning the popular vote, but the election will come down to a couple "swing states" (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin). Romney could lose the popular vote big in California and New York, therefore lose the popular vote, but win enough of the other (smaller) states to win the required 270 Electoral college votes.
I am also extremely confident in predicting that neither candidate will win a "landslide" of the popular vote, but either candidate could win an electoral college landslide (define "landslide" as 60% or more).
For example: 1984 the popular vote was 58.8% Reagan over 40.6% Mondale, but Mondale only won 13 Electoral college votes to Reagan's 525 ("landslide"). In 2008 the popular vote was 52.9% Obama over 45.7% McCain, the Electoral College result was 365 to 173 ... (landslide in Electoral college, but not in the popular vote)
the only thing that is 97.7% probable is that it will be very close. The "election experts" have been saying for a long time that it will come down to voter turnout, which is 100% true
something about history repeating itself probably applies ...
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
all this study illustrates is a low level of moral reasoning skills on the part of the reasearchers
isn't this sort of thing covered in introductory statistics classes? How the question is asked will always impact the results of the study. If you are making your living taking polls, it is possible to get the results you want by skewing the sample size/distribution and/or writing biased questions.
BTW: what is the difference between "ethics" and "morality?" If you are a politician (who just got caught cheating on his wife) you might say "Ethics is what I do on the job, morality is what I do in private." What the politician is REALLY saying is that "Whatever I do is right - because I say it is right."
moral relativity is a very dangerous thing which has become the norm in western society (but the other extreme is the Spanish Inquisition - and nobody expects the ...)
I will argue that "ethics" is the day to day interpretation of "morality." for example: do you believe "stealing" is wrong? yes, you shouldn't take other people's stuff - that would be WRONG. ("morality") Is it stealing if I walk off with the bank teller's pen? ("ethics").
you have to wait until 2:15 but here is an interview with Elon Musk/walk-thru of the Tesla factory
you raise an interesting point.
the Apple culture seems to irritate Steve Ballmer, and mystify industry experts. Yes, there is a sizable "Apple fanboy" market (those eagerly waiting to pre-order Apple's next product sight unseen) but that has been built on the fact that Apple has been releasing great products for a long time (but it hasn't ALWAYS been that way - the company went through some lean times once)
Apple is in a position in the tablet market that they once held in the personal computer market (and we all know how that ended).
Is someone really making something better AND cheaper than the iPad? Is the iPad just a $500 status symbol/fashion statement? I'd argue the answer to both question is "no." The iPad is positioned as a productive piece of hardware that happens to be elegant ...
My personal bias: I would like an iPad - but I don't want to pay $500 for one (I love my iPod though) - so I have a Nook color. The Nook color is "nice", only cost me $100, but is just a glorified reading device (although I could watch Netflix with it - which was important in my decision process).
yup, the "iPad Killer" thing is in response to the writeup
education is big business - and positioning a device for "kids" implies an "education niche", not as a general purpose device that is even pretending to compete with the iPad
FTA: "In a nod to kids, the tablet is protected by a drop-safe bumper. And for their parents, specific controls are available to block objectionable Web sites."
and also: "Do children today really need a kids' tablet?"
I'll admit that I responded to the "iPad killer" bait and that this whole posting probably qualifies as advirtisement for a device without a viable marketing plan ... (but if someone comes up with a killer app for a cheap and durable tablet then they might stumble onto something)
my first thought is of someone yelling "developers, developers, developers!" (the success of the platform will be directly related to the amount of useful work that can be accomplished using it)
this has the potential to carve out a niche - but has zero chance of "killing" the iPad - i.e. fundamentally different markets...
it is worth pointing out that Amazon will start COLLECTING sales tax not PAYING sales tax. The consumer is the one who will PAY the tax.
someone blundered but ... you magnificent bastard!
nope, nothing to worry about - unless you happen to like/work for/own stock in RIM. this is just the handset market maturing
two examples of market consolidation: /.s remember multiple computer manufacturers from the 1990's that aren't around
once upon a time there were a lot of car companies in the United States
I'm sure a lot of
RIM might be in a death spiral but I wouldn't write them off yet. As far as I can tell they have the "corporate email" market cornered - which is a nice thing to have, but tiny compared to Apple's iPhone dominance.
I'd like an iPhone 4s myself (and when upgrade time rolls around I'll probably get one - but I'll wait for the prices to drop when Apple releases iPhone 5). Unless my employer requires it I'm not going to get anything from RIM ...
competition is usually good for consumers (drives innovation, lowers prices) but that it also means there will be "winning" and "losing" companies in the marketplace
So once again the "/. question in the subject header == False" - Apple and Samsung are simply making superior products and/or out competing RIM (and/or using the patent system better)
the "cloud" is the latest (in a long line) of over used buzz words
are you running a few virtual machines on a couple of midlevel servers? probably not "cloud computing"
are you considering virtualizing a large number of servers to achieve high performance/high availability/infrastructure as a service/or some other "as a service" buzzword? probably "cloud computing"
where your "cloud configuration" exists is another issue. there was an article (Forbes maybe) that pointed out how much less money is required to start/run an "Internet startups." With the "public cloud provider" being Amazon Web Services (i.e. just because you are using the "cloud" doesn't mean you outsourced everything)
remember that "I.T." is about helping a company do whatever it is they do - the need for "I.T. people" (especially in security, virtualization, and developers) is not going away, but if you are a "hardware only" tech, spending your day replacing power supplies and installing new hard drives, you don't have a future in corporate IT departments ...
Bill Gates was famously competitive about everything, and at times it looked as if he didn't just want Microsoft to win but also wanted to destroy other companies that might be a threat to Microsoft (or he might make them an offer they can't refuse)
so saying that he is "less cut-throat" than Bill Gates doesn't mean that Steve Ballmer won't do what he thinks is in Microsoft's best interest (which is kind of his job)
I'm sure Stephen Elop has done/is doing what he thinks is in Nokia's best interest (and if Elop isn't "looking out for Nokia" he should be fired)...
the big concern is that Microsoft has a history of not playing well with others, but that was with Bill Gates running the show
Steve Ballmer (who dropped out of Stanford's business school to join Microsoft - i.e. he is a "businessman" in the good sense) is probably a little less cut-throat (or inclined to "compliance with raised middle finger") than Bill Gates - which is obviously just my opinion - and I'd gladly work for either Microsoft or Red Hat (I've used both company's software for years, but I'm not religious about either)
anyway, I'm still not convinced that "UEFI" is the next big thing, I'm willing to listen/try it - but taking a "trust but verify" attitude toward the whole thing
I don't think Microsoft will actually be able to do what the article is worried about - and it probably requires a history lesson on how the PC (and PC "clones") came about in the first place to fully explain "why" - but I'll just point everyone at Triumph of the Nerds
and does anyone remember IBM's "microchannel"?
the lesson from Microchannel was that people don't HAVE to pay you royalties just because you are the industry leader and come up with something new - they can form a gang of nine and do it another way...
this sounds a lot like Microsoft saying "pay us and get in the box" - I don't think they have that kind of power (and if you were working on PC's in the mid-late 90's you probably saw IBM PS/2's getting sold by the skid to be melted down for the gold in the connectors MCA used)
Shelley's "Ozymandias" is probably relevant ("My name is Microsoft, king of software/Look on my operating systems, ye competitiors, and despair") :-)
but we will always need desk bunny's
First let me say that I agree with everyone who is saying some form of "passing more laws won't make people better" and this is probably an example of pointless legislation, etc.
if I'm guessing at the intent of this legislation - then it looks a lot like what we used to require of the "old media." If someone writes a letter to the editor of the New York Times, they aren't going to print it unless they have a name and address, and claiming "anonymous sources" only goes so far.
As readers we take it on faith that the reporter went to some effort to verify the claims/reputation of the source. The difference between the New York Times ("All the news that's fit to print") and the National Enquirer ("Enquiring minds want to know") used to boil down to how rigorously they checked their sources.
oh, and we don't have complete "freedom of speech" - which would be say whatever you want about anything at anytime. examples: yelling "bomb" at an airport, "fire" in a crowded theater, or write threatening letters to someone in office - claiming "freedom of speech" in those cases isn't going to keep you from getting into some form of trouble with the man
we also have laws against libel and slander - and that whole "thou shall not bear false witness" thing kind of illustrates that this isn't a new problem. anyway, they illustrate the concept of "freedom within the law"...
the stock is being publically traded - so the price going down means that there are more "sellers" than "buyers" at the moment - what will be interesting is where the stock ends up in a year
remember, the underlying value of the company in question is a big factor in stock valuation, but the stock market is not a rational place, and people buy and sell for any number of reasons.
Facebook, Inc made its money on the i.p.o. (earlier posting said $16 billion) - the day to day fluctuations of the stock price don't directly impact its "bottom line"
for those who remember the dotcom bubble - the status symbol at that time was how much the stock price would rise, over the i.p.o. price ("Revolution OS" has a few examples of this near the end). I specifically remember RedHat's initial offering
notice that RedHat only offered 6 million shares (today RedHat, now RHT, is slightly above that price) - I haven't checked the numbers but if the $16 billion dollar number is correct then FB must have offered over 421 million shares...
in any case I'm happy to see the Mark Zuckerberg could FINALLY afford to get married - it is so hard to support a family on a couple million dollars (estimate is that he is now the 29th richest human being on the face of the earth)
good points - but would that be bad? is the person taking pictures at the "Walmart portrait" studio a "professional photographer?"
What about a wedding where they forego the "professional photographer" and just give guests digital cameras? A professional job would be easier, I'm sure the median quality of the pictures would be terrible, but they get a unique (and memorable) wedding album (anyone ever been part of a wedding that did that?).
the Jimmy Olsen's of the world probably don't have to worry about their job - if their job is going to dangerous places and documenting what is going on (which is the point that the article eventually gets to) - but then we are on the whole citizen journalism/blogging vs "old media" argument