Speaking of that, how much of that $130 figure you keep quoating is defrayed by the $100 i spent on my reciever + accessories. Not the full $100, of course, but some of that must have made it back to Sirius.
I see where the confusion comes from. A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them. Buying another receiver doesn't help them out, it actually costs them money.
Except that it cost them $130 to sign you up. So, by your own numbers they have made $52 off of you in the last 14 months. That's less than $4/month. How much of that do you think is profit? How much of it do you think is available to pay Stern?
Every new subscriber cost Sirius $130. At $13 a month, it takes them most of a year to recover that cost. Sirius isn't even breaking even on cash flow, so after the 10 months it takes them to pay off the subscriber for showing up, they still lose money on every subscriber every month.
Most people in Europe (i.e. UK, Norway) have far more vacation weeks than us (and use them) and they live quite well on average.
Main Entry: i.e. Function: abbreviation Etymology: Latin id est that is
"I.e." can only proceed an inclusive list. I'm not sure if you are asserting that Europe is comprised of only the UK and Norway, or that the populations of the UK and Norway (65,000,000 combined) comprise the majority of Europeans. It doesn't matter though. Both assertions are false.
Futher, while europeans may live "quite well" on average (which is itself debateable) they also pay much more in taxes.
In HP's case, I believe they would be more interested in who leaked the email rather than who receives it, therefore each authorized recipient would get their own trackable bug.
Did you read the article? They sent the email to a reporter, hopeing that she would forward it to her "source" to confirm it. They cared very much who received it.
And what does my reply say about selling? Nothing. You can't republish someone else's book and insert ads, even if you give the book away. This is similar to what YouTube and Google videos do. These sites have claimed protection up until now under the DMCA (wait, I thought the DMCA was all bad?) which provides a defense as long as the content is removed as soon as the host is notified by the copyright holder. However, a court could certainly decide that YouTube is encouraging the use of their service to infringe copyright, and possibly still hold them liable.
Yes, copyright law is actually much broader than that. In fact, you can't distribute other people's copyrighted content without their permission, even if you aren't making money off it.
The company being sold was a corporation, so most likely, only a majority of the board of directors (and possibly the shareholders) had to agree to the sale. Greenspan was a minority shareholder, and apparantly was opposed to the sale. He can sue on the basis that the sale was improper and deprived him as a minority shareholder of some rights. Since there was apparantly a higher per-share offer made, he can argue that the board breached its duty to the shareholders by not taking the higher offer. The board probably has a lot of leeway, and Greenspan will have a hard row to hoe, but there's certainly a possibility that he's right, especially if the board misled the shareholders.
Block should be worth one point, a false positive should cost one point, and warnings should be worth nothing. As Bruce Schneier once said:
You're surfing the Web and you see a button on the Web site saying, "Click here to see the dancing pigs." And you click on the Web site and then this window comes up saying, "Warning: this is an untrusted Java applet. It might damage your system. Do you want to continue? Yes/No." Well, the average computer user is going to pick dancing pigs over security any day. And we can't expect them not to.
Do they not teach world history in Australia? Perhaps you have not heard of World War II. Or were you under the impression that it was fully contained in Germany?
Not that it matters, since anyone should be able to critize anyone (even if no one gives a damn about your opinion), but Hitler killed folks all over Europe and tried to kill folks on other continents, too.
Your post would be +5, Insightful if ISPs were common carriers. But they aren't. You've got it exactly backwards. Passing Net Neutrality legislation would disrupt the status quo that you seem to think is working so well, and essentially make all ISPs common carriers. There is no doubt that this will put smaller ISPs out of business. It will also transfer costs from folks like Google to folks like your grandmother.
I think most slashbotters support Net Neutrality because they like that it sounds "free". In reality it's the opposite of that.
You ASSume that the problem is not being solved in a reasonable timeframe, and that public disclosure will accelerate the fix. What if that isn't the case. There are many exploits that are known to the real blackhats, that they keep to themselves and don't share. If a security researcher discovers one of these (he may even know that it is in the wild) should he immediately tell the world? Then a vulnerability that was once only exploited by a small group is know exploitable by ever 1337 cr4ck3r and script kiddie in the world. Even if the vendor takes 4 months to patch the vulnerability when you think it should take 4 weeks, do you make the public more or less safe by your disclosure?
That's a nice little sentiment. But unless you're a quaker or a mennonite or another TRULY pacifistic person then you are most likely talking out of your ass. If someone was trying to kill you, would you not use violence to defend yourself? And if you were rendered incapable of defending yourself would you not want someone who was witnessing this to help you? please tell me...
You've defeated your own argument, and you aren't even smart enought to know it. "Violence" is a relative term, and it can be justified. You just justified it.
Most sane people consider it morally justifiable to use small amounts of violence to prevent greater violence. This guy was killing 30 primates a year.
And how many people did that research save? How many people will get a life saving drug or be able to walk again because of the research done on those primates? As you say, doing research on lesser animals is justified because it aids in our understanding of ourselves. But you don't care about any of that, and neither do the terrorists threatening this guy's family. According to your own statement, you must not be sane. We have to test, and the common assertion that we should only test on "volunteers" is a red herring and misses the point entirely. We test on human subjects whenever we can. It's simply better data. But we must do some testing when the results are unknown. We also have to do some testing which will kill the subject (how else do you determine the fatal dose of a drug?), and some testing requires the subject to be killed and disected (how else to you determine whether a drug causes damage to internal organs?). You can use volunteers for that research.
I'll bet you're OK with sacrificing human embryos to do stem cell research, huh?
I hope the sanctimonious pricks who boycott lipstick and shampoo that has been tested on animals also boycott medicines, vaccines, and surgical treatments that have been tested on animals, and refuse to be treated by doctors who have dissected animals.
It isn't PC to go after liberal terrorists. Witness the media feeding frezy when a bunch of Greenpeacies were arrested for illegally boarding a ship last year.
Let's see, manned vs. unmanned is like American vs. Chinese...
Sorry, the judges aren't going to give you that one. Sending a probe and sending a human are not even in the same ballpark. You're still comparing pine trees and volkswagons. But that's pretty typical of people who have nothing more interesting to say than some random criticism of President Bush.
The first American Astronaut traveled into space in 1961. How does the fact that China sent a man into space three years ago have any bearing on a planned mars mission?
The government (whether you like Bush or not) is extremely pro-business right now and for all the wrong reasons. It's one thing to make sure businesses operate fairly, it's another thing entirely to give them control of the law via lobbyists. This will likely happen here and we pro-FOSS people will have to do whatever it takes to get by.
Maybe you just hate Bush so much that you throw accusations at his administration without even knowing it?
If I were going to guess about the source of an attorney's legal education, I wouldn't go about the same way as you. Across the board the quality of a law school's legal writing program is inversely proportional to the quality of just about everything else. The top law schools are near the bottom when it comes to teaching lawyers how to write. Yes, a great lawyer will be able to write AND do all the other stuff well, but he won't have learned it in law school.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of that, how much of that $130 figure you keep quoating is defrayed by the $100 i spent on my reciever + accessories. Not the full $100, of course, but some of that must have made it back to Sirius.
I see where the confusion comes from. A significant portion of that $130 is actually in that receiver you bought. Sirius subsidises the cost of the receivers, so you don't have to pay $300 for them. Buying another receiver doesn't help them out, it actually costs them money.
Except that it cost them $130 to sign you up. So, by your own numbers they have made $52 off of you in the last 14 months. That's less than $4/month. How much of that do you think is profit? How much of it do you think is available to pay Stern?
Every new subscriber cost Sirius $130. At $13 a month, it takes them most of a year to recover that cost. Sirius isn't even breaking even on cash flow, so after the 10 months it takes them to pay off the subscriber for showing up, they still lose money on every subscriber every month.
Most people in Europe (i.e. UK, Norway) have far more vacation weeks than us (and use them) and they live quite well on average.
Main Entry: i.e.
Function: abbreviation
Etymology: Latin id est
that is
"I.e." can only proceed an inclusive list. I'm not sure if you are asserting that Europe is comprised of only the UK and Norway, or that the populations of the UK and Norway (65,000,000 combined) comprise the majority of Europeans. It doesn't matter though. Both assertions are false.
Futher, while europeans may live "quite well" on average (which is itself debateable) they also pay much more in taxes.
In HP's case, I believe they would be more interested in who leaked the email rather than who receives it, therefore each authorized recipient would get their own trackable bug.
Did you read the article? They sent the email to a reporter, hopeing that she would forward it to her "source" to confirm it. They cared very much who received it.
Free (as in freedom)? If you don't like the service Yahoo! provides, use their competitor.
Please provide a link to the FCC decision that says Yahoo!, or any instant message service is a common carrier.
And what does my reply say about selling? Nothing. You can't republish someone else's book and insert ads, even if you give the book away. This is similar to what YouTube and Google videos do. These sites have claimed protection up until now under the DMCA (wait, I thought the DMCA was all bad?) which provides a defense as long as the content is removed as soon as the host is notified by the copyright holder. However, a court could certainly decide that YouTube is encouraging the use of their service to infringe copyright, and possibly still hold them liable.
Yes, copyright law is actually much broader than that. In fact, you can't distribute other people's copyrighted content without their permission, even if you aren't making money off it.
That is what you meant, right?
The company being sold was a corporation, so most likely, only a majority of the board of directors (and possibly the shareholders) had to agree to the sale. Greenspan was a minority shareholder, and apparantly was opposed to the sale. He can sue on the basis that the sale was improper and deprived him as a minority shareholder of some rights. Since there was apparantly a higher per-share offer made, he can argue that the board breached its duty to the shareholders by not taking the higher offer. The board probably has a lot of leeway, and Greenspan will have a hard row to hoe, but there's certainly a possibility that he's right, especially if the board misled the shareholders.
Does mom have an alarm system connected to the phone line?
No, you didn't:
Feel free to speak your mind. Just remember that opinions are like assholes...
Do they not teach world history in Australia? Perhaps you have not heard of World War II. Or were you under the impression that it was fully contained in Germany?
Not that it matters, since anyone should be able to critize anyone (even if no one gives a damn about your opinion), but Hitler killed folks all over Europe and tried to kill folks on other continents, too.
HTH
Your post would be +5, Insightful if ISPs were common carriers. But they aren't. You've got it exactly backwards. Passing Net Neutrality legislation would disrupt the status quo that you seem to think is working so well, and essentially make all ISPs common carriers. There is no doubt that this will put smaller ISPs out of business. It will also transfer costs from folks like Google to folks like your grandmother.
I think most slashbotters support Net Neutrality because they like that it sounds "free". In reality it's the opposite of that.
Without knowing more about the quality of those fixes, your statistics are worse than meaningless; they are potentially misleading.
You ASSume that the problem is not being solved in a reasonable timeframe, and that public disclosure will accelerate the fix. What if that isn't the case. There are many exploits that are known to the real blackhats, that they keep to themselves and don't share. If a security researcher discovers one of these (he may even know that it is in the wild) should he immediately tell the world? Then a vulnerability that was once only exploited by a small group is know exploitable by ever 1337 cr4ck3r and script kiddie in the world.
Even if the vendor takes 4 months to patch the vulnerability when you think it should take 4 weeks, do you make the public more or less safe by your disclosure?
All of my computers are carbon free. Nuclear power. The hippies only have themselves to blame for carbon belching power plants.
I'll bet you're OK with sacrificing human embryos to do stem cell research, huh?
I hope the sanctimonious pricks who boycott lipstick and shampoo that has been tested on animals also boycott medicines, vaccines, and surgical treatments that have been tested on animals, and refuse to be treated by doctors who have dissected animals.
It isn't PC to go after liberal terrorists. Witness the media feeding frezy when a bunch of Greenpeacies were arrested for illegally boarding a ship last year.
Let's see, manned vs. unmanned is like American vs. Chinese...
Sorry, the judges aren't going to give you that one. Sending a probe and sending a human are not even in the same ballpark. You're still comparing pine trees and volkswagons. But that's pretty typical of people who have nothing more interesting to say than some random criticism of President Bush.
The first American Astronaut traveled into space in 1961. How does the fact that China sent a man into space three years ago have any bearing on a planned mars mission?
Maybe you just hate Bush so much that you throw accusations at his administration without even knowing it?
Moron.
If I were going to guess about the source of an attorney's legal education, I wouldn't go about the same way as you. Across the board the quality of a law school's legal writing program is inversely proportional to the quality of just about everything else. The top law schools are near the bottom when it comes to teaching lawyers how to write. Yes, a great lawyer will be able to write AND do all the other stuff well, but he won't have learned it in law school.
And that doesn't even begin to touch the issues of parol evidence.
It's still spoliation, and you still lose. You have evidence in your possesion and you are failing to produce it. Judgement for the plaintiff.