At that scale companies don't really "buy" each other in the traditional sense, it's usually some ridiculously convoluted stock trade arrangement that really is more akin to a merger. When one "buys out" another it just means one of the mergees is the dominant one.
Back when AOL and Time Warner merged, everyone except techies said they didn't understand, Time Warner was a fading dinosaur while AOL was a superstar. The techies said they didn't understand, AOL was a company heading inevitably towards failure--they just didn't have anything that anyone really needed to pay for.
Long story short after about five of these over a few months I finally got a thing about secret nucular testing. I called them and explained what they did.
IBM has a secret nuclear testing program? That's somewhat disquieting.
An interesting point about consideration. IANAL, but it could be viewed in the same context as a monetary bonus - the benefit to the company (a happier employee) is obvious.
It's always a good idea to describe the consideration in the written agreement. I'd just put "In exchange for $10 and other valuable consideration this corporation transfers all rights etc. etc. to you." Then if you want to be really safe, give them $10.
I doubt that. In the event that the 5% in question migrate to an ISP that provides them with a better plan, or even 1% (that is 10% of the network use right there), Time Warner would have to offset that revenue loss by spreading it out.
But revenue isn't necessary a concern, if that 5% is using 50% of the system's resources, losing them will dramatically lower their costs. If you lose a million in revenue but are able to cut your costs by two million, you end up ahead.
Did these guys take a business class taught by Darl McBride? Why would any company go so far out of it's way to intentionally anger it's customer base?
Theoretically they'd only be angering 5% of their customer base, the 5% that costs them more than they bring in. It's entirely possible the other 95% will see measurable reductions in how much they pay.
Dude, you're going to leave a gaming group you've had for 24 years because of a ruleset? Any ruleset is playable with a good group; I have a great time with my shadowrun group even through the ruleset is a disaster.
It takes about 24 years to get through a round of combat on Shadowrun, so his group might be able to switch over to that game.
I haven't played Shadowrun in about 15 years, so I have no idea if my joke even makes sense anymore. Trust me, it would have been funny 15 years ago. It's the only RPG where you sometimes couldn't fit all the dice you needed to roll for an action into one hand.
I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget.
I wouldn't vote for any of them, but of the three I'd prefer whichever is willing to thoroughly and publicly exclude any neoconservative hawk from any position of power whatsoever.
Yes, I definitely think that buying Yahoo was a smart move at a great longterm price
I think it's a horrible move; they're basically spending a ridiculous amount of money (though how M&A deals are structured it's probably not as much out-of-pocket as it sounds) to get a fading company.
- Homosexual couples (2 lesbians, or 2 gay men + 1 surrogate mother)
I first heard about this on the radio, where the two (straight male) morning hosts were joking about having a child together. Then I thought about it and thought it would be fascinating if 2 non-homosexual same-sex people actually did it. I mean, let's say a guy wants kids, can't find a woman he wants to be the mother, he could have a kid with a friend. Same for a lesbian.
However, in the law, there's a doctrine called comparative (or contributory negligence). This means that where two people are negligent and one gets hurt, his or her recovery is reduced by his or her own proportion of the fault.
Actually contributory and comparative negligence are two different things; with contributory negligence, even if the victim was only slightly at fault, the defendant generally will escape all liability. I don't know which one California uses, but most states have switched over to comparative negligence so your point probably still remains.
Batteries, filters, fuses and other parts that wear out or need to be serviced should be easily accessible. If the carmakers can install all those oh-so-convenient comfort controls, do they really need to make me do gymnastics to change the oil?
I could go on, but you get the point. We all know companies are in a race to find smarter, faster, slicker technology, but do they really want to pursue that goal at the expense of consumers? Can't we all just be friends and play nice?
To my mind, engineering is a high art, and it brings tears to my eyes to see it so disrespected at times by the marketing and legal departments of corporations. Ideally, form is supposed to follow function, and designing and manufacturing consumer products should be a collaborative process. Companies, it's time to wake up and pay attention to your engineers--and to your customers.
Alright, I've known engineers, and I know engineers will never be convinced that any engineer anywhere ever made a bad decision, but this is just going to absurd lengths. Does he really contend that there's some marketing executive somewhere designing an engine schematic? Or that someone from Ford's legal department called down to the engineers and insisted that the battery be hard to reach?
It's been said 1000 times: These things were not downloaded FROM the Pirate Bay - they just provide the reference as to where they could be downloaded from
IAAL, but not a Swedish (or European) one, and I know your argument wouldn't necessarily be convincing in a US court. It's a technicality, and a judge (or jury) would probably be more interested in TPB's intent and whether TPB's actions helped result in the copyright violation.
From the Model Penal Code:
(a) A person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.
This is typical. Lawyers go after the most vulnerable members of our society, trying to score the big win that will elevate them to next political office or paycheck.
Uhh...wha? How does going after the most vulnerable members of society result in a big paycheck? Lawyers like to go after the richest, most powerful members of society.
It seems to me that this is egg in the face of QTRAX, but quite telling of the recording industry as a whole. It seems that if they want to turn the proverbial ship around as far as their business model, it would seem that they would be willing to try a lot of new things, hoping to refine a business model to the point where they're making the profits they once enjoyed.
True, but I don't think free, ad-supported music would be that business model. You just don't get the kind of revenue off advertising that they want; witness all the ad-based dot-com failures. For every Google there are a hundred sites that can't make ads work.
Eh, as best I can tell, no. There's no violence involved, and as a private citizen he's under no obligation to respect the blogger's first amendment rights.
I really can't find a damn bit of difference between the sort of out of control government that would allow that to be said in polite councils and one that will sit and calmly discuss the merits of banning Geiger counters. Both are discussing such grotesque violations of basic rights that any participation in the conversation beyond firmly denouncing the proposer in such fashion that it leaves no question that not only is the topic NOT fit for polite company and that simply proposing such a thing makes one unfit for public service leaves all participants morally tainted. I'd argue that they are tainted to the point of being unfit for public office.
Politics isn't polite. Politics shouldn't be polite. But yes, I think someone should be able to propose that resolution. I also think the other members of whatever legislative body that is should shout that person down and should actively campaign against the speaker during the next election. But it is not the rest of the legislator's right to remove them, the right to select and retain legislators belongs to the voters of their district ALONE. If the public discourse offends your sensibilities I'm not sure what you really can do about it. There's no god-given right not to be offended, and thankfully our country has been (reasonably) successful at keeping it that way.
That the general population and the media aren't screaming for heads on pointy sticks is the worst part, that they are so used to such abuses it isn't even newsworthy anymore.
Because screaming for heads on sticks doesn't do too much. If this idiotic law is passed, do you think screaming will change it? What I can guarantee will happen is private individuals and organizations will sue to overturn it. And they probably will be successful.
And you know what? As much as you seem to dislike NYC and its inhabitants, they have, and will, happily fight the government on any issues they feel are infringing on their rights. They're a lot more likely to (loudly) demonstrate, protest, and raise hell and lawsuits than your flyover staters.
I would hope an attorney of Mr. Niro's stature and experience would realize he has no right nor legal recourse against this anonymous blogger. I suspect that had the blogger written anything libelous, Mr. Niro would have already brought suit.
Of course he knows that, that's why he's offering the reward instead of suing and issuing a subpoena. I'm just surprised he doesn't just hire a private investigator, would probably cost less than $10,000.
Wouldn't have mattered though, the holdup happened at a workplace with one of those insane 'possession of a firearm on company property is an instant nonnegotiable termination offense' sort of places. With the current legal atmosphere it makes a perverted sort of sense but if nobody is willing to grow a pair and challenge the madness we get the current situation.
If it's a private employer, they have the right (both moral and legal) to tell you not to bring handguns to work I think.
Guess you missed the very first post to the article? But my objection is more basic. The plain fact is that the New York City Council had a reasoned discussion with the fascist instead of instantly impeaching his ass for being insane enough to even propose such an invasion of basic liberties and moving on to the next agenda item. Even if this particular proposal is defeated the problem remains, that the government of New York City considered the idea. As if it could have done it with a simple majority vote. The problem is that it COULD have done exactly that, both that it claims unto itself such power but that the governed consent to it's government having such power.
Because proposing a law should never be an impeachable offense. Once you start going down that slope the definition of "insane" becomes whatever the majority wants.
No, realist. The advantages of living in a city are more than outweighed by the risks and expenses, especially in the era of Internet commerce and FedEX delivery. I lived in the Dallas metro area for five years in the early 1990's and got to experience it first hand.
Well, not that I guess it would convince you of anything, but I think Dallas is a lot more dangerous than NYC. One question though, if you carry a gun why didn't you use it in Dallas when you were facing that gun barrel?
Look at the topic for this thread again. In only a couple of generations we have devolved from a proud free people into the sort of pitiful creatures that actually sit down and rationally discuss whether or not the State can regulate the possession of a Geiger counter.
Granted I am only one participant in this thread, but I think nobody here is supporting what these NYC politicians want to do. The conversation moved into somewhat broader terms regarding gun control and crime rates in cities vs. the country.
Free speech already doesn't cover inciting panic, so if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" causing a panic they would be arrested. Rightfully so IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
...you bring a pad of paper and a polaroid camera?
AOL bought Time Warner.
At that scale companies don't really "buy" each other in the traditional sense, it's usually some ridiculously convoluted stock trade arrangement that really is more akin to a merger. When one "buys out" another it just means one of the mergees is the dominant one.
Back when AOL and Time Warner merged, everyone except techies said they didn't understand, Time Warner was a fading dinosaur while AOL was a superstar. The techies said they didn't understand, AOL was a company heading inevitably towards failure--they just didn't have anything that anyone really needed to pay for.
Long story short after about five of these over a few months I finally got a thing about secret nucular testing. I called them and explained what they did.
IBM has a secret nuclear testing program? That's somewhat disquieting.
An interesting point about consideration. IANAL, but it could be viewed in the same context as a monetary bonus - the benefit to the company (a happier employee) is obvious.
It's always a good idea to describe the consideration in the written agreement. I'd just put "In exchange for $10 and other valuable consideration this corporation transfers all rights etc. etc. to you." Then if you want to be really safe, give them $10.
I doubt that. In the event that the 5% in question migrate to an ISP that provides them with a better plan, or even 1% (that is 10% of the network use right there), Time Warner would have to offset that revenue loss by spreading it out.
But revenue isn't necessary a concern, if that 5% is using 50% of the system's resources, losing them will dramatically lower their costs. If you lose a million in revenue but are able to cut your costs by two million, you end up ahead.
Much like Linux on the desktop, right?
Yes.
Did these guys take a business class taught by Darl McBride? Why would any company go so far out of it's way to intentionally anger it's customer base?
Theoretically they'd only be angering 5% of their customer base, the 5% that costs them more than they bring in. It's entirely possible the other 95% will see measurable reductions in how much they pay.
They only like Open Source because they benefit financially from it, no other reason.
And?
Dude, you're going to leave a gaming group you've had for 24 years because of a ruleset? Any ruleset is playable with a good group; I have a great time with my shadowrun group even through the ruleset is a disaster.
It takes about 24 years to get through a round of combat on Shadowrun, so his group might be able to switch over to that game.
I haven't played Shadowrun in about 15 years, so I have no idea if my joke even makes sense anymore. Trust me, it would have been funny 15 years ago. It's the only RPG where you sometimes couldn't fit all the dice you needed to roll for an action into one hand.
I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget.
You don't get invited to many parties, do you...
I wouldn't vote for any of them, but of the three I'd prefer whichever is willing to thoroughly and publicly exclude any neoconservative hawk from any position of power whatsoever.
Yes, I definitely think that buying Yahoo was a smart move at a great longterm price
I think it's a horrible move; they're basically spending a ridiculous amount of money (though how M&A deals are structured it's probably not as much out-of-pocket as it sounds) to get a fading company.
- Homosexual couples (2 lesbians, or 2 gay men + 1 surrogate mother)
I first heard about this on the radio, where the two (straight male) morning hosts were joking about having a child together. Then I thought about it and thought it would be fascinating if 2 non-homosexual same-sex people actually did it. I mean, let's say a guy wants kids, can't find a woman he wants to be the mother, he could have a kid with a friend. Same for a lesbian.
However, in the law, there's a doctrine called comparative (or contributory negligence). This means that where two people are negligent and one gets hurt, his or her recovery is reduced by his or her own proportion of the fault.
Actually contributory and comparative negligence are two different things; with contributory negligence, even if the victim was only slightly at fault, the defendant generally will escape all liability. I don't know which one California uses, but most states have switched over to comparative negligence so your point probably still remains.
From the article, in reference to car design:
Batteries, filters, fuses and other parts that wear out or need to be serviced should be easily accessible. If the carmakers can install all those oh-so-convenient comfort controls, do they really need to make me do gymnastics to change the oil? I could go on, but you get the point. We all know companies are in a race to find smarter, faster, slicker technology, but do they really want to pursue that goal at the expense of consumers? Can't we all just be friends and play nice? To my mind, engineering is a high art, and it brings tears to my eyes to see it so disrespected at times by the marketing and legal departments of corporations. Ideally, form is supposed to follow function, and designing and manufacturing consumer products should be a collaborative process. Companies, it's time to wake up and pay attention to your engineers--and to your customers.
Alright, I've known engineers, and I know engineers will never be convinced that any engineer anywhere ever made a bad decision, but this is just going to absurd lengths. Does he really contend that there's some marketing executive somewhere designing an engine schematic? Or that someone from Ford's legal department called down to the engineers and insisted that the battery be hard to reach?
IAAL, but not a Swedish (or European) one, and I know your argument wouldn't necessarily be convincing in a US court. It's a technicality, and a judge (or jury) would probably be more interested in TPB's intent and whether TPB's actions helped result in the copyright violation.
From the Model Penal Code:
This is typical. Lawyers go after the most vulnerable members of our society, trying to score the big win that will elevate them to next political office or paycheck.
Uhh...wha? How does going after the most vulnerable members of society result in a big paycheck? Lawyers like to go after the richest, most powerful members of society.
It seems to me that this is egg in the face of QTRAX, but quite telling of the recording industry as a whole. It seems that if they want to turn the proverbial ship around as far as their business model, it would seem that they would be willing to try a lot of new things, hoping to refine a business model to the point where they're making the profits they once enjoyed.
True, but I don't think free, ad-supported music would be that business model. You just don't get the kind of revenue off advertising that they want; witness all the ad-based dot-com failures. For every Google there are a hundred sites that can't make ads work.
Eh, as best I can tell, no. There's no violence involved, and as a private citizen he's under no obligation to respect the blogger's first amendment rights.
I really can't find a damn bit of difference between the sort of out of control government that would allow that to be said in polite councils and one that will sit and calmly discuss the merits of banning Geiger counters. Both are discussing such grotesque violations of basic rights that any participation in the conversation beyond firmly denouncing the proposer in such fashion that it leaves no question that not only is the topic NOT fit for polite company and that simply proposing such a thing makes one unfit for public service leaves all participants morally tainted. I'd argue that they are tainted to the point of being unfit for public office.
Politics isn't polite. Politics shouldn't be polite. But yes, I think someone should be able to propose that resolution. I also think the other members of whatever legislative body that is should shout that person down and should actively campaign against the speaker during the next election. But it is not the rest of the legislator's right to remove them, the right to select and retain legislators belongs to the voters of their district ALONE. If the public discourse offends your sensibilities I'm not sure what you really can do about it. There's no god-given right not to be offended, and thankfully our country has been (reasonably) successful at keeping it that way.
That the general population and the media aren't screaming for heads on pointy sticks is the worst part, that they are so used to such abuses it isn't even newsworthy anymore.
Because screaming for heads on sticks doesn't do too much. If this idiotic law is passed, do you think screaming will change it? What I can guarantee will happen is private individuals and organizations will sue to overturn it. And they probably will be successful.
And you know what? As much as you seem to dislike NYC and its inhabitants, they have, and will, happily fight the government on any issues they feel are infringing on their rights. They're a lot more likely to (loudly) demonstrate, protest, and raise hell and lawsuits than your flyover staters.
I would hope an attorney of Mr. Niro's stature and experience would realize he has no right nor legal recourse against this anonymous blogger. I suspect that had the blogger written anything libelous, Mr. Niro would have already brought suit.
Of course he knows that, that's why he's offering the reward instead of suing and issuing a subpoena. I'm just surprised he doesn't just hire a private investigator, would probably cost less than $10,000.
Wouldn't have mattered though, the holdup happened at a workplace with one of those insane 'possession of a firearm on company property is an instant nonnegotiable termination offense' sort of places. With the current legal atmosphere it makes a perverted sort of sense but if nobody is willing to grow a pair and challenge the madness we get the current situation.
If it's a private employer, they have the right (both moral and legal) to tell you not to bring handguns to work I think.
Guess you missed the very first post to the article? But my objection is more basic. The plain fact is that the New York City Council had a reasoned discussion with the fascist instead of instantly impeaching his ass for being insane enough to even propose such an invasion of basic liberties and moving on to the next agenda item. Even if this particular proposal is defeated the problem remains, that the government of New York City considered the idea. As if it could have done it with a simple majority vote. The problem is that it COULD have done exactly that, both that it claims unto itself such power but that the governed consent to it's government having such power.
Because proposing a law should never be an impeachable offense. Once you start going down that slope the definition of "insane" becomes whatever the majority wants.
No, realist. The advantages of living in a city are more than outweighed by the risks and expenses, especially in the era of Internet commerce and FedEX delivery. I lived in the Dallas metro area for five years in the early 1990's and got to experience it first hand.
Well, not that I guess it would convince you of anything, but I think Dallas is a lot more dangerous than NYC. One question though, if you carry a gun why didn't you use it in Dallas when you were facing that gun barrel?
Personally, I think there are advantages and disadvantages to living in a city, and for those of us who enjoy the advantages, the increased danger from crime is worth it. Besides which, the flyover states tend to have higher crime rates than New York.
Look at the topic for this thread again. In only a couple of generations we have devolved from a proud free people into the sort of pitiful creatures that actually sit down and rationally discuss whether or not the State can regulate the possession of a Geiger counter.
Granted I am only one participant in this thread, but I think nobody here is supporting what these NYC politicians want to do. The conversation moved into somewhat broader terms regarding gun control and crime rates in cities vs. the country.
Free speech already doesn't cover inciting panic, so if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" causing a panic they would be arrested. Rightfully so IMHO.
What if they were at an Anthrax concert?