Nk's website isn't run or paid for bythe n Korean government, but rather a 3rd party entity, the Korean friendship association. I know this because I'm also researching in hopes of visiting.
To the sympathizer accuser below: I'm not going to show support for the regime. Or disapproval. I'm just extremely curious about the place. There's an added kick that I'd certainly be within the first 10'000 americans to step foot there since the war. And I like non standard vacations. Forget France or Britain, gimme Bangkok, Cartagena or Pyongyang!!
The people Facebook suggested uploaded their address books to Facebook, and once she created her account, Facebook already had those users with her email address in their address book, so it just showed her those people, as well as maybe some mutual friends those people shared.
Some you give willingly. Other stuff, not so willingly. For instance if you're logged into your account and leave facebook to view another site, and that site has put a "Like" button on their page, guess what? The like button phones home and facebook knows what sites you've been visiting, without you consciously providing them that information.
To me, that's a lot more damaging to having any remaining shred of privacy than what we've each actively provided it (by posting text or pictures, etc). And it's not about information you gave them. It's about ancillary information that they linked back to you, without you clearly giving them approval to do so. Different story.
Yeah. As someone who grew up in Massachusetts, and mostly remained there until i was in my late 20's, that's where my friends and family are. Nowadays, I live in Florida and find that Facebook is a great way to stay in contact with everyone up there. So, despite my earlier postings of waning privacy, tossing my privacy aside in order to stay in touch with family and friends is something I've thought through and decided is appropriate to do.
Yeah, I remember debates on Slashdot and other forums 10 and 15 years ago about privacy and such. The mindset then was one of hyper-attentiveness to privacy. Absent legislation, companies didn't need to make any changes, and really, reduced even the expectation of privacy from their users. Then a new generation came onto the internet who never even contemplated a world without all this intrusive technology, and like that, the privacy battle was lost.
Why should the person who runs a university with 4,000 employees have their salary capped at less than what the CEO of a company with 4,000 employees makes? How would you encourage able, skilled individuals to work to run the universities if they knew that by doing so, they'ed be taking a paycut compared to what they could make in the private sector?
Likewise, for caps on professor salaries. If Wall Street can pay a million bucks to a mathemetician, why can't the universities try to match that pay and keep that person in academia? Seems likely that they might be able to contribute a whole lot more to society that way - but if contributing to society isn't as important to that individual as a outsized paycheck, then we all suffer as they flee the education sector and come up with the next high frequency trading algorithm.
Same for computer science. If we're training workers of tomorrow for higher skilled jobs, don't we want some of the best and most able programmers etc being their teachers? Why would those people linger at universities with a salary cap far below what they'ed make in the private sector?
On one hand there's an argument about cost. But on the other hand, there's an argument about quality - the US keeps scoring lower and lower on tests compared to the rest of the world - i can't help but think that some of that is because our some of best minds aren't imparting their intelligence to others and instead are just seeking the highest pay that they can attain.
I'm fairly certain that its unethical for a lawyer to draft a will that he is the beneficiary of. Not like your friend minds, she seems to have resigned herself to nothing,.
I think Yahoo just projected (post-microsoft deal) that they are anticipating 10-12% annual growth after 2008.
At $19 per share (pre-MSFT announcement), it would have taken the better part of a decade for yahoo to reach the value that Microsoft was offering. Even at the post-merger offer, the stock is only being buoyed by the hope that Icahn scares the Yahoo board into taking a deal. But even at the $26.00 price it now hovers near, it'll take 2 years after 2008 to reach the value that Microsoft offered most recently.
I have a feeling when its all said and done, Microsoft is going to end up taking a big chunk of Yahoo and pay far less than the premiums they've offered so far.
Yes, the duty of the Board is to maximize shareholder value, and if they think that they trully can provide a better offer than microsoft, they should have put it to a special shareholder vote and let the actual owners of the company weigh each parties argument.
Yahoo seems to go back quite a ways. A lot more than 10 years, at least. ANd it does show dividend payments, so you can do your own math to at least estimate what results would have been (depending when the amount got credited to your brokerage account, whether there's any fee or commission charged for the service, and whether the broker lets you accumulate fractional shares).
And even that will skew, because it doesn't note spin-offs, it just shows the amount value of stock received as a cash distribution...
Also, when a company delists, their data goes away - so you can't look up defunct companies.
So yes... after writing that, i agree, there is a ton of room for improvement!
The cash reserves are dwindling not because they're operating their business at a loss, but because they've been buying other companies, buying back their own shares, and increasing their dividend. The cash reserve numbers only start at the point where they started up dividend payments anyways...
But don't judge the health of the company by its cash reserve; that's just unproductive money waiting to be invested elsewhere. And it looks like they've been finding better places to park it.
I pretty much assumed the 160 GB iPod Classic was going to be the end of the line for that... Maybe a few people have more than that amount of music, but not terribly many. And the screen, compared to the touch model, isn't great for viewing video... Add uncompressed music and all of a sudden, 160 GB is likely to seem cramped.
So, yes, on the one hand, I'm sure audiophiles at Apple thought it'd be a great idea. But on the other, I'm also quite certain that the marketing department also thought "what a great way to continue the growth of the sales curve"
Next, they'll stop offering compressed.aac's altogether, just to kind of force the point.
Unless they put the storage business in a separate subsidiary who's revenue is dependent only on subscriber fees. Google's really really gotten me paranoid in their quest to know everything that there is to know about the interests of its users, so they (we) can all be tagged into their databases somewhere and have that information used for who knows what. I don't feel that i have anything special that needs hiding, but i still don't feel entirely secure with one relatively young entity with no track record defending it's users privacy amassing so much data about us. You don't even need to use Google to end up in their databases, as there's google ad boxes splashed just about everywhere these days. Yes, I clear my cookies on a constant basis, but A) what good is that when i'm always coming from the same IP address and B) what good is it to the millions of people (my mom included) that have no idea what a cookie even is?
And now, they want me to pay them to store my documents, music, etc? I'll have to read the TOS agreement, but i somehow believe that by signing up, i'll end up paying them for the right to let them scour every last thing i upload, all in hopes of delievering more "targeted advertising" to me.
That's a whole lot of functionality that would need to be replicated, not to mention a LOT of current data that would need to be replicated. Speaking only for what i've seen in the legal and financial services sector, the chance of any of the firms i've worked with in switching to Open Office is exactly nil.
So lets see, has anyone succeeded in making OpenOffice integrate with WorldDox and Amicus V+? I know that World Software and Gavel & Gowns went out of their way to make sure their applications would work properly with MSFT; if i knew that OpenOffice would work in our current production environment, i'd be more than happy to bring a proposal to the head partner of the firm I work at tomorrow morning.
Right, but if the original author is writing their document in Word, and they send a PDF to someone who then uses the full version of Acrobat to make revisions and sends that PDF back to the original author, what then?
The PDF was originally developed to let people share documents regardless of the application or operating system.
Word documents open in Word, Open Office, Word Perfect, etc... I have never heard a single complaint that "This is a.doc file, I don't know what to do with it"
This and so many other things are the reasons why I told everyone I know to avoid the thing for a little bit...
Especially for someone running a not-so-mainstream OS (sorry, 64-bit windows isn't a "standard" OS as of the moment), I'd have waited and let someone else take the plunge for me... Actually, we should all thank you, as someone had to do it for us, and who better than a slashdotter?:)
I went and checked it out yesterday, and while it was pretty cool, i'm wont be terribly impressed until more real world reviews come through.
My current gripes; the onscreen keyboard is much less intuitive than an actual built in keyboard... I only gave it a few minutes of trying, but i couldn't get the thing to recognize much of what i was writing - maybe i have finger that are too big for it? I admit, I dial while driving, and even send text messages while doing so... however, with any regular phone or a treo, i can do so without taking my eyes off the road... not so with the iphone. Woe to car insurance companies whose drivers buy these things!
Also, i'd like to see how the nice shiny display holds up after a few months of real world use, in and out of pockets, rubbed against keys, etc. How about a few drops from a desk, or clattering down to the concrete; my blackberry has done so many times, and the silver outline around the face place is now gone, but it's still just as functional as the day i bought it.
Next, what will real world experiences with the battery be like? It's soldered in place, so should there be a problem, it's not a DIY job to replace the thing.
And lastly, since the gadget is ostensibly for internet centric folks, i was more than a little disappointed that at the apple store, I could not find a unit on display that was connected to the EDGE network, they all ran from the store's wifi. Given that that's been an issue in the news recently, not allowing people to get a real world handle on how it will operate in the "real world" doesn't seem right.
And then there's software issues...
So yes, i'm glad i didnt rush out to buy a 1.0 product. And my friends that have gone to check them out have come back and agreed they they too will be waiting a while before buying the new gadget.
I saw the subject and thought that they'ed invented a drug to prevent prisoners to stop commiting suicide. Then i read a sentence or two further and saw that how off base I was. Never the less, i'll comment about it.
An acquaintance was arrested and served time in jail. Upon getting out, he googled himself and the top 5 links in google, along with several others, were all news articles pertaining to his arrest. So he asked me if we could bump those down in the rankings... Sure enough we did, by combination of both good press and posting a lot of cross-referenced fluff, the "tainted" material now has been pushed back to page 3 of googles results.
That said, it's not hidden, and if someone came upon it, it would be useless to deny, but he thought it valuable to at least not haev it come up first in the rankings
Without having read the article (sorry, i haven't had coffee yet), i have to say, I'm with Microsoft on this one. I can definetly see the anti-competitiveness of grafting a web browser or media player into the operating system, BUT for google to complain that the operating system includes a means of searching for files on the computer it's running on... that seems a bit babyish. Am I missing something? Should i read the original article?
Slashdot Mirror
Nk's website isn't run or paid for bythe n Korean government, but rather a 3rd party entity, the Korean friendship association. I know this because I'm also researching in hopes of visiting.
To the sympathizer accuser below: I'm not going to show support for the regime. Or disapproval. I'm just extremely curious about the place. There's an added kick that I'd certainly be within the first 10'000 americans to step foot there since the war. And I like non standard vacations. Forget France or Britain, gimme Bangkok, Cartagena or Pyongyang!!
The people Facebook suggested uploaded their address books to Facebook, and once she created her account, Facebook already had those users with her email address in their address book, so it just showed her those people, as well as maybe some mutual friends those people shared.
Some you give willingly. Other stuff, not so willingly. For instance if you're logged into your account and leave facebook to view another site, and that site has put a "Like" button on their page, guess what? The like button phones home and facebook knows what sites you've been visiting, without you consciously providing them that information.
To me, that's a lot more damaging to having any remaining shred of privacy than what we've each actively provided it (by posting text or pictures, etc). And it's not about information you gave them. It's about ancillary information that they linked back to you, without you clearly giving them approval to do so. Different story.
Yeah. As someone who grew up in Massachusetts, and mostly remained there until i was in my late 20's, that's where my friends and family are. Nowadays, I live in Florida and find that Facebook is a great way to stay in contact with everyone up there. So, despite my earlier postings of waning privacy, tossing my privacy aside in order to stay in touch with family and friends is something I've thought through and decided is appropriate to do.
Yeah, I remember debates on Slashdot and other forums 10 and 15 years ago about privacy and such. The mindset then was one of hyper-attentiveness to privacy. Absent legislation, companies didn't need to make any changes, and really, reduced even the expectation of privacy from their users. Then a new generation came onto the internet who never even contemplated a world without all this intrusive technology, and like that, the privacy battle was lost.
I don't market for Microsoft. And my UID quite plainly shows that I'm older than dirt!
Why should the person who runs a university with 4,000 employees have their salary capped at less than what the CEO of a company with 4,000 employees makes? How would you encourage able, skilled individuals to work to run the universities if they knew that by doing so, they'ed be taking a paycut compared to what they could make in the private sector?
Likewise, for caps on professor salaries. If Wall Street can pay a million bucks to a mathemetician, why can't the universities try to match that pay and keep that person in academia? Seems likely that they might be able to contribute a whole lot more to society that way - but if contributing to society isn't as important to that individual as a outsized paycheck, then we all suffer as they flee the education sector and come up with the next high frequency trading algorithm.
Same for computer science. If we're training workers of tomorrow for higher skilled jobs, don't we want some of the best and most able programmers etc being their teachers? Why would those people linger at universities with a salary cap far below what they'ed make in the private sector?
On one hand there's an argument about cost. But on the other hand, there's an argument about quality - the US keeps scoring lower and lower on tests compared to the rest of the world - i can't help but think that some of that is because our some of best minds aren't imparting their intelligence to others and instead are just seeking the highest pay that they can attain.
I'm fairly certain that its unethical for a lawyer to draft a will that he is the beneficiary of. Not like your friend minds, she seems to have resigned herself to nothing,.
I think Yahoo just projected (post-microsoft deal) that they are anticipating 10-12% annual growth after 2008.
At $19 per share (pre-MSFT announcement), it would have taken the better part of a decade for yahoo to reach the value that Microsoft was offering. Even at the post-merger offer, the stock is only being buoyed by the hope that Icahn scares the Yahoo board into taking a deal. But even at the $26.00 price it now hovers near, it'll take 2 years after 2008 to reach the value that Microsoft offered most recently.
I have a feeling when its all said and done, Microsoft is going to end up taking a big chunk of Yahoo and pay far less than the premiums they've offered so far.
Yes, the duty of the Board is to maximize shareholder value, and if they think that they trully can provide a better offer than microsoft, they should have put it to a special shareholder vote and let the actual owners of the company weigh each parties argument.
an 8% risk-free return is a pretty outlandish assumption.
Yahoo seems to go back quite a ways. A lot more than 10 years, at least. ANd it does show dividend payments, so you can do your own math to at least estimate what results would have been (depending when the amount got credited to your brokerage account, whether there's any fee or commission charged for the service, and whether the broker lets you accumulate fractional shares).
And even that will skew, because it doesn't note spin-offs, it just shows the amount value of stock received as a cash distribution...
Also, when a company delists, their data goes away - so you can't look up defunct companies.
So yes... after writing that, i agree, there is a ton of room for improvement!
give this guy some kudos for inserting Bill Hicks into this debate!
The cash reserves are dwindling not because they're operating their business at a loss, but because they've been buying other companies, buying back their own shares, and increasing their dividend. The cash reserve numbers only start at the point where they started up dividend payments anyways...
But don't judge the health of the company by its cash reserve; that's just unproductive money waiting to be invested elsewhere. And it looks like they've been finding better places to park it.
I pretty much assumed the 160 GB iPod Classic was going to be the end of the line for that... Maybe a few people have more than that amount of music, but not terribly many. And the screen, compared to the touch model, isn't great for viewing video... Add uncompressed music and all of a sudden, 160 GB is likely to seem cramped.
.aac's altogether, just to kind of force the point.
So, yes, on the one hand, I'm sure audiophiles at Apple thought it'd be a great idea. But on the other, I'm also quite certain that the marketing department also thought "what a great way to continue the growth of the sales curve"
Next, they'll stop offering compressed
Now... if someone would create a skype or other VoIP client for this thing, how cool would that be?
Unless they put the storage business in a separate subsidiary who's revenue is dependent only on subscriber fees. Google's really really gotten me paranoid in their quest to know everything that there is to know about the interests of its users, so they (we) can all be tagged into their databases somewhere and have that information used for who knows what. I don't feel that i have anything special that needs hiding, but i still don't feel entirely secure with one relatively young entity with no track record defending it's users privacy amassing so much data about us. You don't even need to use Google to end up in their databases, as there's google ad boxes splashed just about everywhere these days. Yes, I clear my cookies on a constant basis, but A) what good is that when i'm always coming from the same IP address and B) what good is it to the millions of people (my mom included) that have no idea what a cookie even is?
And now, they want me to pay them to store my documents, music, etc? I'll have to read the TOS agreement, but i somehow believe that by signing up, i'll end up paying them for the right to let them scour every last thing i upload, all in hopes of delievering more "targeted advertising" to me.
No thanks....
end of paranoid anti-google rant.
That's a whole lot of functionality that would need to be replicated, not to mention a LOT of current data that would need to be replicated. Speaking only for what i've seen in the legal and financial services sector, the chance of any of the firms i've worked with in switching to Open Office is exactly nil.
So lets see, has anyone succeeded in making OpenOffice integrate with WorldDox and Amicus V+? I know that World Software and Gavel & Gowns went out of their way to make sure their applications would work properly with MSFT; if i knew that OpenOffice would work in our current production environment, i'd be more than happy to bring a proposal to the head partner of the firm I work at tomorrow morning.
Right, but if the original author is writing their document in Word, and they send a PDF to someone who then uses the full version of Acrobat to make revisions and sends that PDF back to the original author, what then?
.doc file, I don't know what to do with it"
The PDF was originally developed to let people share documents regardless of the application or operating system.
Word documents open in Word, Open Office, Word Perfect, etc... I have never heard a single complaint that "This is a
Insightful? My thought that this post was dripping in sarcasm... to each their own
This and so many other things are the reasons why I told everyone I know to avoid the thing for a little bit...
:)
Especially for someone running a not-so-mainstream OS (sorry, 64-bit windows isn't a "standard" OS as of the moment), I'd have waited and let someone else take the plunge for me... Actually, we should all thank you, as someone had to do it for us, and who better than a slashdotter?
I went and checked it out yesterday, and while it was pretty cool, i'm wont be terribly impressed until more real world reviews come through.
My current gripes; the onscreen keyboard is much less intuitive than an actual built in keyboard... I only gave it a few minutes of trying, but i couldn't get the thing to recognize much of what i was writing - maybe i have finger that are too big for it? I admit, I dial while driving, and even send text messages while doing so... however, with any regular phone or a treo, i can do so without taking my eyes off the road... not so with the iphone. Woe to car insurance companies whose drivers buy these things!
Also, i'd like to see how the nice shiny display holds up after a few months of real world use, in and out of pockets, rubbed against keys, etc. How about a few drops from a desk, or clattering down to the concrete; my blackberry has done so many times, and the silver outline around the face place is now gone, but it's still just as functional as the day i bought it.
Next, what will real world experiences with the battery be like? It's soldered in place, so should there be a problem, it's not a DIY job to replace the thing.
And lastly, since the gadget is ostensibly for internet centric folks, i was more than a little disappointed that at the apple store, I could not find a unit on display that was connected to the EDGE network, they all ran from the store's wifi. Given that that's been an issue in the news recently, not allowing people to get a real world handle on how it will operate in the "real world" doesn't seem right.
And then there's software issues...
So yes, i'm glad i didnt rush out to buy a 1.0 product. And my friends that have gone to check them out have come back and agreed they they too will be waiting a while before buying the new gadget.
I saw the subject and thought that they'ed invented a drug to prevent prisoners to stop commiting suicide. Then i read a sentence or two further and saw that how off base I was. Never the less, i'll comment about it.
I haven't read this article, just the OP's summary.
Point:
We can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Should we be able to advocate genocide on the internet?
Point:
In the US, we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
Do they have the same in Sweden?
An acquaintance was arrested and served time in jail. Upon getting out, he googled himself and the top 5 links in google, along with several others, were all news articles pertaining to his arrest. So he asked me if we could bump those down in the rankings... Sure enough we did, by combination of both good press and posting a lot of cross-referenced fluff, the "tainted" material now has been pushed back to page 3 of googles results.
That said, it's not hidden, and if someone came upon it, it would be useless to deny, but he thought it valuable to at least not haev it come up first in the rankings
Without having read the article (sorry, i haven't had coffee yet), i have to say, I'm with Microsoft on this one. I can definetly see the anti-competitiveness of grafting a web browser or media player into the operating system, BUT for google to complain that the operating system includes a means of searching for files on the computer it's running on... that seems a bit babyish. Am I missing something? Should i read the original article?