It doesn't look as nice, but you will notice a snappier interface. This happens to me accidentally when using remote desktop software that disables it.
Turn Aero back on, and you will notice the lag. So being able to make everything look pretty and have a very snappy interface is always a plus.
Why do they need GameStop when they can deliver games directly to the console? PC gamers haven't needed anything else other than Steam / similar places. I haven't purchased a pc game game in stores for years now.
Totally agree. It's very helpful to see all the options on each tab right away. If they are in the menu, they are hidden under submenus etc, and it's just text. In the ribbon, what you want to do is also somewhat graphically displayed. For example, I want to turn numbers into percent, I click the "%" sign. I don't go into Tools->Format->Percent etc.
So no, you are not alone in liking the Ribbon. I bet that most people still making fun of the ribbon after all these years (it's been what, 5 years?) haven't actually tried to use it.
TV sucks now? I don't know, there are still quite a few good shows. I only need a few to keep track of, this is my list: Modern Family The Office How I Met Your Mother The Big Bang Theory Dexter
Ones that ended in the last few years: Lost Prison Break
You can point out all the crap as much as you want, but there are still some good quality shows out there.
I'm not sure why you are trying to use AT&T cellular as a guage for the US internet? From the article
About 4 per cent of premises will receive broadband through fixed wireless networks
A very low percentage of this plan has anythiing to do with wireless. The rest is wired, so your silly "2kbps from AT&T" comment is both ridiculous and irrelevant.
Now from someone else's comment
Most of the country has slow, horrifically overpriced ADSL, which is patchy even in some urban areas. The Telcos were not and are not doing anything about it. The government stepping in is exactly what was needed.
So the private industry failed them, thus the government stepped in. Now onto the US.. how exactly has the private industries failed to provide fast & affordable internet? Where is only "slow, horrifically overpriced ADSL" available?
You attempting to twist this into a free market vs socialism rant is simply laughable.
I don't think most people understand the concept of dividends.
The main criticism is that company profits are much better used when re-invested back into the company. Why would you be excited that a company is giving away it's money instead of re-investing in itself to make itself more profitable in the future? Now, if you personally don't want to see your "gains" re-invested, then you have the choice to just sell a portion of your investment and take the profit without affecting the company (assuming you don't have some massive position where a sell would affect the stock price, which is the normal case).
Dividends are usually also taxed twice. The company has paid taxes on it's profits, and the shareholder pays income tax on the dividend payment. Whereas taking your gain from selling the stock is independent of any tax the company has paid.
Dividends also give this false impression of extra profit. When a company pays a dividend, the stock reduces by virtually the same amount of the dividend that was paid. Thus you aren't theoretically getting anything extra. If your share was worth $30 and the dividend is $3, you receive $3 in cash and now your stock is worth $27. So, paying the dividend is not giving anything extra to shareholders. If anything, it forces you to manually rebalance your portfolio to account for the dividend. Now this may not be a big deal on a normal basis, but it's still something to consider. i.e., you put $100 in dividend paying stocks and $100 in nondividend paying stocks. If the dividend paying stocks have paid out $10, you now have $10 in cash, $90 in dividend paying stocks, $100 in non-dividend paying stocks. Your portfolio has changed balance simply because of dividends.
Some practical uses of dividends are receiving cash from your investment that is taxed at a more favourable rate than short-term capital gains and not having to act (i.e., sell shares) to receive income. So that can be a convenient point.
Now sure, you can argue that Apple is an extreme case.. after all who the hell has $100b in cash just sitting around. So I'm not really trying to apply the normal aspects of dividends to this situation. But these are facts worth noting in general. Dividends should not, in theory, be a "good thing". Thus even though you can argue dividend paying stocks do tend to perform better than non-dividend stocks, the reason is not the dividend itself. It may just be the company was in good enough shape to pay dividends, whereas a company losing value is probably not in a position to pay dividends.
And yet, I'm betting that the 1995 machine boots faster than the 2012 machine...
1) perhaps because you are still using an ancient hard drive from 1995, try these new things called SSD's for your boot drive... 2) it's interesting that out of all the performance measures of a computer you chose "boot speed" to be the end-all performance factor.... nice job mom
It really doesn't surprise me what gets modded "insightful" here these days.
Liquidity has no place in an investment system you say? So you mean, if you have some shares of Apple and you want to sell them, you should have to try to shop around to sell them and pay a large transaction cost just to get rid of something that has a market value? And how is that market value determined if there are not people actively trading the product? You can say a widget is worth $100 million, but until someone actually buys it for that price it's just imaginary.
And speculative investing is not good you say because it's gambling. Hmm, so what is buying shares of a new start-up company then, this would be investing, but not gambling?? I don't think you understand that both are in many ways the same thing. Investing IS gambling in every single way.
Not in the UK. All tax is included in the price, but it's still £9.99 instead of £10.00 to attract people to a one digit price instead of two (ignoring the cents).
If you think I'm making this up, here is a quote from Seinfeld:
Jerry: This Wednesday? Sid: No, next Wednesday, week after this Wednesday. Jerry: But the Wednesday two days from now is the next Wednesday. Sid: If I meant this Wednesday, I would have said this Wednesday. It's the week after this Wednesday.
Slashdot Mirror
Try turning off Aero.
It doesn't look as nice, but you will notice a snappier interface. This happens to me accidentally when using remote desktop software that disables it.
Turn Aero back on, and you will notice the lag. So being able to make everything look pretty and have a very snappy interface is always a plus.
or on wall street bailing out incompetent bankers
You mean the incompetent public that buy houses with 0% down and then bitch when can't afford their mortgage and their house is taken away?
Make 'em nice and long if you don't want the NSA to read 'em!
I tried some pills from an email link but that didn't help my password length.
I agree, I also can't figure out how we are supposed to know Hitler and Elvis are really dead too.
We are modding people insightful for saying it's OK to lie as long as you can get away with it?
Whatever floats your boat, slashdot...
Yahoo needs an accounting CEO more than a cs one lately.
I shall call you: The Predictor
FTA: [SECOND UPDATE: Stone Hill also confirmed that Thompson's degree was only a Bachelor's of Science in Business Administration (Accounting).)
Perhaps there are some agreements in place that the game has to be basically the same price on PC/PS3/360? Don't know, but that could make sense.
Why do they need GameStop when they can deliver games directly to the console?
PC gamers haven't needed anything else other than Steam / similar places. I haven't purchased a pc game game in stores for years now.
Totally agree. It's very helpful to see all the options on each tab right away. If they are in the menu, they are hidden under submenus etc, and it's just text. In the ribbon, what you want to do is also somewhat graphically displayed. For example, I want to turn numbers into percent, I click the "%" sign. I don't go into Tools->Format->Percent etc.
So no, you are not alone in liking the Ribbon. I bet that most people still making fun of the ribbon after all these years (it's been what, 5 years?) haven't actually tried to use it.
turns out there is a not insignificant difference ...
Very clear...
TV sucks now? I don't know, there are still quite a few good shows. I only need a few to keep track of, this is my list:
Modern Family
The Office
How I Met Your Mother
The Big Bang Theory
Dexter
Ones that ended in the last few years:
Lost
Prison Break
You can point out all the crap as much as you want, but there are still some good quality shows out there.
I've concluded that pornography can actually quite harmful to some marriages if not most marriages.
Then you have concluded incorrectly.
porn is generally harmless
Porn is harmless. Just because you may choose to get obsessed with porn and choose it over your wife does not make porn harmful.
I'm not sure why you are trying to use AT&T cellular as a guage for the US internet? From the article
About 4 per cent of premises will receive broadband through fixed wireless networks
A very low percentage of this plan has anythiing to do with wireless. The rest is wired, so your silly "2kbps from AT&T" comment is both ridiculous and irrelevant.
Now from someone else's comment
Most of the country has slow, horrifically overpriced ADSL, which is patchy even in some urban areas. The Telcos were not and are not doing anything about it. The government stepping in is exactly what was needed.
So the private industry failed them, thus the government stepped in. Now onto the US.. how exactly has the private industries failed to provide fast & affordable internet? Where is only "slow, horrifically overpriced ADSL" available?
You attempting to twist this into a free market vs socialism rant is simply laughable.
I don't think most people understand the concept of dividends.
The main criticism is that company profits are much better used when re-invested back into the company. Why would you be excited that a company is giving away it's money instead of re-investing in itself to make itself more profitable in the future? Now, if you personally don't want to see your "gains" re-invested, then you have the choice to just sell a portion of your investment and take the profit without affecting the company (assuming you don't have some massive position where a sell would affect the stock price, which is the normal case).
Dividends are usually also taxed twice. The company has paid taxes on it's profits, and the shareholder pays income tax on the dividend payment. Whereas taking your gain from selling the stock is independent of any tax the company has paid.
Dividends also give this false impression of extra profit. When a company pays a dividend, the stock reduces by virtually the same amount of the dividend that was paid. Thus you aren't theoretically getting anything extra. If your share was worth $30 and the dividend is $3, you receive $3 in cash and now your stock is worth $27. So, paying the dividend is not giving anything extra to shareholders. If anything, it forces you to manually rebalance your portfolio to account for the dividend. Now this may not be a big deal on a normal basis, but it's still something to consider. i.e., you put $100 in dividend paying stocks and $100 in nondividend paying stocks. If the dividend paying stocks have paid out $10, you now have $10 in cash, $90 in dividend paying stocks, $100 in non-dividend paying stocks. Your portfolio has changed balance simply because of dividends.
Some practical uses of dividends are receiving cash from your investment that is taxed at a more favourable rate than short-term capital gains and not having to act (i.e., sell shares) to receive income. So that can be a convenient point.
Now sure, you can argue that Apple is an extreme case.. after all who the hell has $100b in cash just sitting around. So I'm not really trying to apply the normal aspects of dividends to this situation. But these are facts worth noting in general. Dividends should not, in theory, be a "good thing". Thus even though you can argue dividend paying stocks do tend to perform better than non-dividend stocks, the reason is not the dividend itself. It may just be the company was in good enough shape to pay dividends, whereas a company losing value is probably not in a position to pay dividends.
How insightful. I'd never have imagined to see a comment like this on Slashdot, thanks for contributing to the discussion!
How is that news?
It's not.. and that's not what the article or summary was about. That was YOU trying to turn the discussion into tinfoil-hat-no-privacy world.
But I guess you accomplished your goal, enjoy eating your mod points tonight.
And yet, I'm betting that the 1995 machine boots faster than the 2012 machine...
1) perhaps because you are still using an ancient hard drive from 1995, try these new things called SSD's for your boot drive...
2) it's interesting that out of all the performance measures of a computer you chose "boot speed" to be the end-all performance factor.... nice job mom
Wow I've never seen that posted in every single thread on Slashdot before, good thing you've been modded insightful.
jfij2oijf93j(*J#*(@(#*&$@#*(&JIEWJFiofjeoiwjifojio + 1
jfij2oijf93j(*J#*(@(#*&$@#*(&JIEWJFiofjeoiwjifojio
It really doesn't surprise me what gets modded "insightful" here these days.
Liquidity has no place in an investment system you say? So you mean, if you have some shares of Apple and you want to sell them, you should have to try to shop around to sell them and pay a large transaction cost just to get rid of something that has a market value? And how is that market value determined if there are not people actively trading the product? You can say a widget is worth $100 million, but until someone actually buys it for that price it's just imaginary.
And speculative investing is not good you say because it's gambling. Hmm, so what is buying shares of a new start-up company then, this would be investing, but not gambling?? I don't think you understand that both are in many ways the same thing. Investing IS gambling in every single way.
Not in the UK. All tax is included in the price, but it's still £9.99 instead of £10.00 to attract people to a one digit price instead of two (ignoring the cents).
Although Religion may be outdated, we can thank it for many cultural and technological advances
I will never thank "Religion".
Another way of looking at it... thousands of jobs have been destroyed so that the uber-rich NFL owners can snatch even more money from the commoners.
Oh piss the fuck off, that is all.
If you think I'm making this up, here is a quote from Seinfeld:
Jerry: This Wednesday?
Sid: No, next Wednesday, week after this Wednesday.
Jerry: But the Wednesday two days from now is the next Wednesday.
Sid: If I meant this Wednesday, I would have said this Wednesday. It's the week after this Wednesday.