You know I never actually thought about that one. Yeah you would have the same problems. And it is sad that you would live in constant fear of getting accused of something.
I know that people always say, "hey in my day." But somehow I do get the feeling that in the last 20 years or so that there has been a fundamental shift to the worse. And I don't quite know how we get back, or if we ever will.
Want to know something REALLY funny about your comment? The reality is that what they are talking about is typically applied to financial modeling. Though part of the problem we have right now is that the quants ("really smart") guys screwed up the analysis and underdid the risk.
Thus the reason why they are with IBM doing analysis using stochastic modeling is because they failed in the financial industry. They did not improve returns and thus needed another industry that they could tap for money.
I work in the financial industry and cracked up laughing when I saw "the science."
My wife and I have over the children from our in-laws. And they sleep in the bed with my wife. Just like kids do.
Though when that happens I on purpose stay away and sleep in the guest bedroom or what have you. The first time I did this my wife looked funny at me. I said, "think about it, think really hard about it."
It took her a moment or two and then she realized that I as a male cannot easily show emotion to children... There is a barrier that I have to erect, as I don't want people to ever think the wrong thing. Why? Because of the reason you said, Guilty first, innocent later.
A garbage collector is bad idea? How is C++ better? C++ has memory leaks, and on top of it, C++ has GPF's or core dumps. So in the end C# and Java are actually better.
You are labeled a troll, but you are talking straight talk here.
For example your garbage collection comment. I think it is only C++ and C that don't have garbage collection. Yet in Python, Perl, Ruby, Java, C#, etc, etc there is garbage collection. For crying out loud even D has garbage collection. This tells me that maybe C++ is missing the point.
I would prefer more people learn about C in combination with C# or Java.
I look at your example and think, Huh? I used to code C++ (about 4 years ago) and since then shifted completely to C# and Java. And if I need some low level code I will write it in C.
I talked to another individual about C++ and what he hates with C++ is that you are taking too much time thinking about infrastructure and not solving problems. Whereas in Java you think more about solving problems and less about infrastructure.
I wish I had mod points here. So many people get this wrong. Computer Science != Computer Engineering. I studied engineering and we build things to get things done. In Science you don't necessarily want to get things done, but want to understand why things get done and how they get done.
I always use the example of LaPlace transforms. Engineers devised them and used them to solve problems. The scientists at a later point in time figured out why they work.
Though I do take issue with the code monkey aspect because in essence that is what an engineer is. Nothing wrong with being a code monkey, though I don't think I would get a code monkey to devise a new relational database model.
Actually the GP has a point. I have a Nokia smartphone, and whenever there is a background task the battery is drained in a day or so. Otherwise my Nokia smartphone can last about a week without recharging.
What was bothersome is that I did not know at first why my phone needed a daily recharge. Then it dawned onto me that it was a background task running. And the irony here is that it was a poorly written Java applet that was causing the problems.
On this I have to give Apple quite a bit of credit...
I was at a conference and at a BOF where I raised this question and technology. One person said that at the end of the day Microsoft will be replaced by Google apps.
I said, yeah sure Microsoft will be replaced like IBM and the mainframe will be replaced. He then went on and explained to me on how the mainframe is dead. I looked at him and laughed because there are still oodles of people using the mainframe and there will be oodles of people using Microsoft.
It is not that Google apps will replace, but will complement Microsoft, like the mainframe compliments Microsoft. Where the real understanding begins is when you know what to use when...
That's freaken arrogant and spoken from somebody who has no clue about reality. Sorry, but I am an ME (fourth generation) and studied at one of the better universities. Though I also have an artistic background (mother is an artist, father is an engineer).
You really think Math, Science and Engineering students can make better films? BS! Try it, please I dare you to. I paint and let me tell you that to get inspiration for a painting is hard. And please don't get me started on "how I could do that in five minutes." If you think like that then you actually don't understand art.
I graduated 15 years ago, and if there is one thing I have learned is that I wish engineering/math/science students were not so dammed arrogant!
The problem I find with his critique is that we in the world expect a certain amount of trust that the takes advantage of. While I agree systems like that are bad from a security perspective he has to start understanding that we need to trust each other whether we like it or not.
Let me give an example from the Black Swan. Talleb asks the question why is the world as stable as it is? There is nothing to stop us all from being murderer's, rapists, terrorists and the likes. All that stops us is the fear of getting caught or not being part of the moral majority. When you think about it, it is quite impressive that the world works at all.
My point is that Schneider with these comments is only pointing out the obvious. And there will always be weaknesses. For example, let's say to retrieve a car you need to give id. How do you know its not fake id? So now you have to ask for id's and make people smart enough to figure out it is not fake id. I say you are in fact complicating a system because somebody who really wants to steal the car will figure it out security or not...
It does not mean anything if they don't comment. Here are possible scenarios for JPMorgan when confronted with the document.
1) They don't comment, and people are saying, "this doesn't sound like very "ok" activity." Thus implied is that they are guilty. 2) They say it is not theirs. People will comment on how this is spin. 3) They say it is theirs, and as previously noted it's legal, yet people will say, "oh look how unethical JPMorgan is."
In each of the scenarios JPMorgan is dammed so they take the route of not saying anything which is simplest from a legal perspective...
>You completely looked like an idiot declaring the parent is commiting two felonies by posting.
Sorry, but check the law! When you say things about a stock that are false and they can influence decisions then it is a felony. The SEC does not take kindly to that type of behavior.
The problem with the poster is that they are not speculating. Look at the posters words. They are making assertions. Sir, please read the following text.
"These so-called pension funds are likely part of that approach and just softening up Yahoo, while setting the media against the board in prep for its ousting."
This is making an assertion and it is slander. Had the poster chosen the following words, it would have been fine.
"By having the pension funds approach Yahoo to convince them to sell to Microsoft, while having support from the media bolsters Microsoft's case."
Yet those were not the words chosen. Chosen were "so-called", "softening", "setting the media" are accusations of tactics by Microsoft. That's slander.
Regarding your comment: "The difference with FrontPage and Visio was there were no MS products being threatened by it. FrontPage ties in with the IE strategy and Visio a logical complement for the Office offering."
I feel old. Please do some research on the Front Page take over. Front Page had no integration with IE, and it was its own animal with NO and I repeat NO ties to Microsoft. The people who developed Front Page were cut from the same wood currently in Yahoo. Yet that worked out and these days people are none the wiser.
Could you have sued to ask for more money? No, because in another posting I pointed out that the MS price was indeed quite fair. The price being offered is a fair PE valuation in terms of historical highs. MS did their research and they are right, you sir are wrong.
How is Microsoft going into debt? The deal is maximum 50% cash, with the remainder being Microsoft shares. Right now Microsoft has a war chest of 19 billion or so and thus they would not have to go into debt.
>If Yahoo can effectively prove that the 62% premium offered by Microsoft undervalues the company, then they are on good ground. And indeed, in the past 52 weeks, they have been over that, so that is in their favor. In fact, right now they are trading fairly high post-Microsoft offer, which is also a good thing for them.
If you are going to talk financial, then please talk about valuation and not share price. The reality is that the valuation of Yahoo has gone down because the earnings has gone down.
Earnings at Yahoo were at a high point in 2005, and they missed by 1 cent. So if you see a higher share price then you see a higher earnings. And the reality is that Yahoo could not make its case in front of a lawyer. Right now Microsoft is offering a PE valuation of around 65. Putting this into share price valuation of 2005 it means the share price was 37.7. And that ladies and gentleman was the share price of Yahoo at its high point. In other words Microsoft is being completely fair and a court would see that as well.
>Many articles somehow neglect that much of the initial offer was funny-money, aka MSFT stock, which MS prints on demand.
You got proof of this? If not you know I could charge you with a felony! The SEC does not take kind to this type of talk because it is called talking up or down a stock. The real reality is that Microsoft offered a deal where the takeover would be up 50% cash, and 50% Microsoft stock. Secondly nowhere has Microsoft said that the stock would be the result of a stock issue.
> These so-called pension funds are likely part of that approach and just softening up Yahoo
Again you got proof for this? If not then you are definitely slandering again. Another felony...
> is that Microsoftologians are likely to try to replace Yahoo's board. Poisoning the press against the board is a first step
Wow you just dont stop do you? The reality is that yes Microsoft is trying to challenge the board since the person they hired to handle this negiotiation is known to manage hostile takeovers. BTW Oracle does this all the time, like when they took over PeopleSoft. The reality is that the board is overstepping their boundaries and they are doing things that are not in the interest of the Yahoo shareholders. Microsoft is offering a 62% premium pricing Yahoo at a valuation of around 60 PE, which is an outrageous amount. Google on a PE valuation right now is cheaper than what Microsoft is offering Yahoo. The board is asking for 40, which is a PE of 95. 95 is completely outrageous!
>Quite a few shops would stop or drastically decrease use of MS products without MS Exchange. Zimbra is currently not GPL. Buying Yahoo would allow Zimbra to be put on ice as MS did with FoxPro
Again you got proof? You are making allegations because MS did something with one product. I could prove you wrong when Microsoft takes over companies with two notable examples being FrontPage and Visio. Both of these products were purchased and they were anything but buried in the Microsoft hierarchy.
When I read your post I read the complete lunacy of the paranoid.
The skin of a frog is permeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide, as well as to water. There are a number of blood vessels near the surface of the skin. When a frog is underwater, oxygen is transmitted through the skin directly into the bloodstream. On land, adult frogs use their lungs to breathe. Their lungs are similar to those of humans, but the chest muscles are not involved in respiration, and there are no ribs or diaphragm to support breathing. Frogs breathe by taking air in through the nostrils (causing the throat to puff out), and compressing the floor of the mouth, which forces the air into the lungs.
Want to see evolution in action, look at dogs. You know that the little itty bitty chiwawa, and the huge honken St Bernard are the same species.
Want to know something else, Labs and Newfoundlanders have webbed feet unlike any other dog. Poodles don't shed, whereas other dogs do. This evolution of dogs is the result of 12,000 years. Now imagine you had a couple million years?
The point is that evolution is a slow process where the animal adapts and adapts and adapts. It starts with a quirk and that quirk is given on and on.
Look at humans that are born together and share limbs, and those that have multiple toes, fingers, etc. There are even kids born with other deformities. Some survive, others don't. The way that evolution survives is if the living animal is able to reproduce. It does not need to grow old, just reproduce and gives its genes to another generation.
Develop and model business cases and royalty analysis for specific licensing opportunities or industries
Perform competitive analysis breakdown and strategic direction of leading industry companies
Supporting analysis for new business opportunities around targeted patent acquisitions "
Give me a freaken break! This company goes out looks at what are up and coming industries. Then it "creates" ideas and patents the heck out of them so that they can license and throttle an up and coming industry.
This is not even funny. Imagine coming up with some really cool idea, but to have it patented away from you. This is how industries are broken. Part of the problem with this is that lawyers can sue without restrictions. Lawyers can go fishing in the industry. They can patent, sue and see what sticks.
To make that go away, you can do the following:
1) Make lawyers work pro-bono (as they do in many countries). That is they can only charge so much. 2) Make lawyers pay if the lawsuit fails. For example, if say somebody brought up a lawsuit where they wanted 50 billion say, "if you loose you need to come up with say 1%". That way you can still sue, but you better have a good case. Otherwise it is going to cost you quite a bit.
You see the problem with parts of the Slashdot crowd is that they don't write the songs, or do the painting and don't realize how much work goes into the art.
Let me compare this to painting. There are two ways you can go with painting. Painting masterpieces or production art. Production art are originals that are produced within a few days. Artists have to do this because people want originals and not reproductions. And people are not willing to pay oodles for something hanging on their wall. So the artist who paints is caught between a rock and a hard place.
A musician on the other hand can take their time to come up with the next master piece because of copyright and the fact that people accept reproductions. Of course I some people who would never listen to a symphony on a CD and only live. But the reality is that copyright helps people earn livings.
Slashdot Mirror
You know I never actually thought about that one. Yeah you would have the same problems. And it is sad that you would live in constant fear of getting accused of something.
I know that people always say, "hey in my day." But somehow I do get the feeling that in the last 20 years or so that there has been a fundamental shift to the worse. And I don't quite know how we get back, or if we ever will.
Oh... When I am in the States I was wondering why there was so much fencing on the highways. Now I get it...
Want to know something REALLY funny about your comment? The reality is that what they are talking about is typically applied to financial modeling. Though part of the problem we have right now is that the quants ("really smart") guys screwed up the analysis and underdid the risk.
Thus the reason why they are with IBM doing analysis using stochastic modeling is because they failed in the financial industry. They did not improve returns and thus needed another industry that they could tap for money.
I work in the financial industry and cracked up laughing when I saw "the science."
Yeah society has become funny. Not to say before it was better.
But in Germany it seems to be sport to throw rocks off the bridge. Remember this is the autobahn and several people have been killed.
And in each of the cases, teenagers... My question WTF goes through their minds...
LOL.... That's funny....
Oh you are not kidding here.
My wife and I have over the children from our in-laws. And they sleep in the bed with my wife. Just like kids do.
Though when that happens I on purpose stay away and sleep in the guest bedroom or what have you. The first time I did this my wife looked funny at me. I said, "think about it, think really hard about it."
It took her a moment or two and then she realized that I as a male cannot easily show emotion to children... There is a barrier that I have to erect, as I don't want people to ever think the wrong thing. Why? Because of the reason you said, Guilty first, innocent later.
And often it depresses me...
A garbage collector is bad idea? How is C++ better? C++ has memory leaks, and on top of it, C++ has GPF's or core dumps. So in the end C# and Java are actually better.
You are labeled a troll, but you are talking straight talk here.
For example your garbage collection comment. I think it is only C++ and C that don't have garbage collection. Yet in Python, Perl, Ruby, Java, C#, etc, etc there is garbage collection. For crying out loud even D has garbage collection. This tells me that maybe C++ is missing the point.
I would prefer more people learn about C in combination with C# or Java.
I look at your example and think, Huh? I used to code C++ (about 4 years ago) and since then shifted completely to C# and Java. And if I need some low level code I will write it in C.
I talked to another individual about C++ and what he hates with C++ is that you are taking too much time thinking about infrastructure and not solving problems. Whereas in Java you think more about solving problems and less about infrastructure.
I wish I had mod points here. So many people get this wrong. Computer Science != Computer Engineering. I studied engineering and we build things to get things done. In Science you don't necessarily want to get things done, but want to understand why things get done and how they get done.
I always use the example of LaPlace transforms. Engineers devised them and used them to solve problems. The scientists at a later point in time figured out why they work.
Though I do take issue with the code monkey aspect because in essence that is what an engineer is. Nothing wrong with being a code monkey, though I don't think I would get a code monkey to devise a new relational database model.
Actually the GP has a point. I have a Nokia smartphone, and whenever there is a background task the battery is drained in a day or so. Otherwise my Nokia smartphone can last about a week without recharging.
What was bothersome is that I did not know at first why my phone needed a daily recharge. Then it dawned onto me that it was a background task running. And the irony here is that it was a poorly written Java applet that was causing the problems.
On this I have to give Apple quite a bit of credit...
I was at a conference and at a BOF where I raised this question and technology. One person said that at the end of the day Microsoft will be replaced by Google apps.
I said, yeah sure Microsoft will be replaced like IBM and the mainframe will be replaced. He then went on and explained to me on how the mainframe is dead. I looked at him and laughed because there are still oodles of people using the mainframe and there will be oodles of people using Microsoft.
It is not that Google apps will replace, but will complement Microsoft, like the mainframe compliments Microsoft. Where the real understanding begins is when you know what to use when...
That's freaken arrogant and spoken from somebody who has no clue about reality. Sorry, but I am an ME (fourth generation) and studied at one of the better universities. Though I also have an artistic background (mother is an artist, father is an engineer).
You really think Math, Science and Engineering students can make better films? BS! Try it, please I dare you to. I paint and let me tell you that to get inspiration for a painting is hard. And please don't get me started on "how I could do that in five minutes." If you think like that then you actually don't understand art.
I graduated 15 years ago, and if there is one thing I have learned is that I wish engineering/math/science students were not so dammed arrogant!
The problem I find with his critique is that we in the world expect a certain amount of trust that the takes advantage of. While I agree systems like that are bad from a security perspective he has to start understanding that we need to trust each other whether we like it or not.
Let me give an example from the Black Swan. Talleb asks the question why is the world as stable as it is? There is nothing to stop us all from being murderer's, rapists, terrorists and the likes. All that stops us is the fear of getting caught or not being part of the moral majority. When you think about it, it is quite impressive that the world works at all.
My point is that Schneider with these comments is only pointing out the obvious. And there will always be weaknesses. For example, let's say to retrieve a car you need to give id. How do you know its not fake id? So now you have to ask for id's and make people smart enough to figure out it is not fake id. I say you are in fact complicating a system because somebody who really wants to steal the car will figure it out security or not...
It does not mean anything if they don't comment. Here are possible scenarios for JPMorgan when confronted with the document.
1) They don't comment, and people are saying, "this doesn't sound like very "ok" activity." Thus implied is that they are guilty.
2) They say it is not theirs. People will comment on how this is spin.
3) They say it is theirs, and as previously noted it's legal, yet people will say, "oh look how unethical JPMorgan is."
In each of the scenarios JPMorgan is dammed so they take the route of not saying anything which is simplest from a legal perspective...
>You completely looked like an idiot declaring the parent is commiting two felonies by posting.
Sorry, but check the law! When you say things about a stock that are false and they can influence decisions then it is a felony. The SEC does not take kindly to that type of behavior.
The problem with the poster is that they are not speculating. Look at the posters words. They are making assertions. Sir, please read the following text.
"These so-called pension funds are likely part of that approach and just softening up Yahoo, while setting the media against the board in prep for its ousting."
This is making an assertion and it is slander. Had the poster chosen the following words, it would have been fine.
"By having the pension funds approach Yahoo to convince them to sell to Microsoft, while having support from the media bolsters Microsoft's case."
Yet those were not the words chosen. Chosen were "so-called", "softening", "setting the media" are accusations of tactics by Microsoft. That's slander.
Regarding your comment:
"The difference with FrontPage and Visio was there were no MS products being threatened by it. FrontPage ties in with the IE strategy and Visio a logical complement for the Office offering."
I feel old. Please do some research on the Front Page take over. Front Page had no integration with IE, and it was its own animal with NO and I repeat NO ties to Microsoft. The people who developed Front Page were cut from the same wood currently in Yahoo. Yet that worked out and these days people are none the wiser.
Could you have sued to ask for more money? No, because in another posting I pointed out that the MS price was indeed quite fair. The price being offered is a fair PE valuation in terms of historical highs. MS did their research and they are right, you sir are wrong.
How is Microsoft going into debt? The deal is maximum 50% cash, with the remainder being Microsoft shares. Right now Microsoft has a war chest of 19 billion or so and thus they would not have to go into debt.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
>If Yahoo can effectively prove that the 62% premium offered by Microsoft undervalues the company, then they are on good ground. And indeed, in the past 52 weeks, they have been over that, so that is in their favor. In fact, right now they are trading fairly high post-Microsoft offer, which is also a good thing for them.
If you are going to talk financial, then please talk about valuation and not share price. The reality is that the valuation of Yahoo has gone down because the earnings has gone down.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837281?q=yhoo
Earnings at Yahoo were at a high point in 2005, and they missed by 1 cent. So if you see a higher share price then you see a higher earnings. And the reality is that Yahoo could not make its case in front of a lawyer. Right now Microsoft is offering a PE valuation of around 65. Putting this into share price valuation of 2005 it means the share price was 37.7. And that ladies and gentleman was the share price of Yahoo at its high point. In other words Microsoft is being completely fair and a court would see that as well.
What a pile of BS you just wrote.
>Many articles somehow neglect that much of the initial offer was funny-money, aka MSFT stock, which MS prints on demand.
You got proof of this? If not you know I could charge you with a felony! The SEC does not take kind to this type of talk because it is called talking up or down a stock. The real reality is that Microsoft offered a deal where the takeover would be up 50% cash, and 50% Microsoft stock. Secondly nowhere has Microsoft said that the stock would be the result of a stock issue.
> These so-called pension funds are likely part of that approach and just softening up Yahoo
Again you got proof for this? If not then you are definitely slandering again. Another felony...
> is that Microsoftologians are likely to try to replace Yahoo's board. Poisoning the press against the board is a first step
Wow you just dont stop do you? The reality is that yes Microsoft is trying to challenge the board since the person they hired to handle this negiotiation is known to manage hostile takeovers. BTW Oracle does this all the time, like when they took over PeopleSoft. The reality is that the board is overstepping their boundaries and they are doing things that are not in the interest of the Yahoo shareholders. Microsoft is offering a 62% premium pricing Yahoo at a valuation of around 60 PE, which is an outrageous amount. Google on a PE valuation right now is cheaper than what Microsoft is offering Yahoo. The board is asking for 40, which is a PE of 95. 95 is completely outrageous!
>Quite a few shops would stop or drastically decrease use of MS products without MS Exchange. Zimbra is currently not GPL. Buying Yahoo would allow Zimbra to be put on ice as MS did with FoxPro
Again you got proof? You are making allegations because MS did something with one product. I could prove you wrong when Microsoft takes over companies with two notable examples being FrontPage and Visio. Both of these products were purchased and they were anything but buried in the Microsoft hierarchy.
When I read your post I read the complete lunacy of the paranoid.
Or if you have had your drivers license revoked because of drinking and driving...
Hey I am not kidding here. They have ads all over here in Zurich Switzerland that go along the lines,
License revoked? No problem rent speed reduced car here...
Oh yeah I forgot to add. Want to see this in action. Look at a frog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog
The skin of a frog is permeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide, as well as to water. There are a number of blood vessels near the surface of the skin. When a frog is underwater, oxygen is transmitted through the skin directly into the bloodstream. On land, adult frogs use their lungs to breathe. Their lungs are similar to those of humans, but the chest muscles are not involved in respiration, and there are no ribs or diaphragm to support breathing. Frogs breathe by taking air in through the nostrils (causing the throat to puff out), and compressing the floor of the mouth, which forces the air into the lungs.
Ok I will take you up on that challenge...
Want to see evolution in action, look at dogs. You know that the little itty bitty chiwawa, and the huge honken St Bernard are the same species.
Want to know something else, Labs and Newfoundlanders have webbed feet unlike any other dog. Poodles don't shed, whereas other dogs do. This evolution of dogs is the result of 12,000 years. Now imagine you had a couple million years?
The point is that evolution is a slow process where the animal adapts and adapts and adapts. It starts with a quirk and that quirk is given on and on.
Look at humans that are born together and share limbs, and those that have multiple toes, fingers, etc. There are even kids born with other deformities. Some survive, others don't. The way that evolution survives is if the living animal is able to reproduce. It does not need to grow old, just reproduce and gives its genes to another generation.
In their careers section they have the following description.
http://www.rembrandtip.com/careers.html
"
Analyze markets and companies to assess IP commercialization opportunities
Develop and model business cases and royalty analysis for specific licensing opportunities or industries
Perform competitive analysis breakdown and strategic direction of leading industry companies
Supporting analysis for new business opportunities around targeted patent acquisitions
"
Give me a freaken break! This company goes out looks at what are up and coming industries. Then it "creates" ideas and patents the heck out of them so that they can license and throttle an up and coming industry.
This is not even funny. Imagine coming up with some really cool idea, but to have it patented away from you. This is how industries are broken. Part of the problem with this is that lawyers can sue without restrictions. Lawyers can go fishing in the industry. They can patent, sue and see what sticks.
To make that go away, you can do the following:
1) Make lawyers work pro-bono (as they do in many countries). That is they can only charge so much.
2) Make lawyers pay if the lawsuit fails. For example, if say somebody brought up a lawsuit where they wanted 50 billion say, "if you loose you need to come up with say 1%". That way you can still sue, but you better have a good case. Otherwise it is going to cost you quite a bit.
You see the problem with parts of the Slashdot crowd is that they don't write the songs, or do the painting and don't realize how much work goes into the art.
Let me compare this to painting. There are two ways you can go with painting. Painting masterpieces or production art. Production art are originals that are produced within a few days. Artists have to do this because people want originals and not reproductions. And people are not willing to pay oodles for something hanging on their wall. So the artist who paints is caught between a rock and a hard place.
A musician on the other hand can take their time to come up with the next master piece because of copyright and the fact that people accept reproductions. Of course I some people who would never listen to a symphony on a CD and only live. But the reality is that copyright helps people earn livings.