And ruthlessly crushes any "opposition," whether or not it actually represents a threat, and with no consideration given to morality over self interest.
What is good for the company is good for the shareholder.
How is this true, unless the shareholder gets some of the profit? The promise of perpetual stock price growth? The only way you can make money on that is to become less of an owner of that company.
If the managers think they have a better idea, then so be it.
Do you mean 'shareholders' when you say 'managers'? The shareholders are the owners.
Berkshire Hathaway thinks they have better ways to spend money than dividends, and I think most of their shareholders agree that they are doing the right thing with _their_ money.
Of course, the shareholders have the right to make whatever decisions they think best, but it's likely that dividends will become the primary value in a stock again.
Actually, the pattern is that regardless of the laws in the US or other countries, US corporate interests are paramount. I find it hard to believe that this is deliberate on the part of all judges, but it seems to be the rule, nonetheless.
Because the RIAA was victorious against Napster! When the P2P products are eliminated, sales will skyrocket! Without the P2P temptation, every human on Earth would buy at least one copy of each album released!
So who's worse - the band for being too dumb to know the value of education or to cover their ass, or the record companies for taking advantage of that?
Are you serious? One did something dumb, the other did something cruel. Granted, contract lawyers like to hide their cruelty behind impersonality. It's usually OK, since it's two contract lawyers battling each other's wit, but it's just cruel when you pit a professional contract lawyer against some shmoe off the street. Even if he can read.
does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
Yes, but I don't have enough money to do anything about it.
Why does Microsoft have to serve anyone but themselves (and their stockholders)? If you buy a product from them, you're deal is done.
Wouldn't that be nice... Licensing, however, continues indefinately. I'll grant that this is more of an issue for corporate customers than home users, though.
I think polar_bear meant that Microsoft should be able to continue to 'innovate' in its standards, but they must publish the specs for it in entirity by the time the product which uses it is published. MS would still have a jump start, but others could catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
"Disinfectant Gel" Note: In the last 15 minutes or so of the buffy musical, Buffy sorta-kinda-almost strips.
Um, she takes off her jacket, to reveal - wait for it - her shirt. I don't think that qualified as "sorta-kinda-almost stripping" even in the fifties.
IMHO, that's the episode of LEXX that trancends "goofy fun" to become "pretty good."
As such, it's just a sappy chick-flick "Isn't-that-sweet" moment, at least to my mind.
Even when Willow goes down on Tara, and Tara is singing "You make me com - plete! You make me com - plete!"?
Windows might be the most sold software but the amount of windows users who paid for the software is around 30%, I'd wager.
Deliberately, at least.
And ruthlessly crushes any "opposition," whether or not it actually represents a threat, and with no consideration given to morality over self interest.
Every bug fix will introduce two or more new bugs?
What is good for the company is good for the shareholder.
How is this true, unless the shareholder gets some of the profit? The promise of perpetual stock price growth? The only way you can make money on that is to become less of an owner of that company.
If the managers think they have a better idea, then so be it.
Do you mean 'shareholders' when you say 'managers'? The shareholders are the owners.
Berkshire Hathaway thinks they have better ways to spend money than dividends, and I think most of their shareholders agree that they are doing the right thing with _their_ money.
Of course, the shareholders have the right to make whatever decisions they think best, but it's likely that dividends will become the primary value in a stock again.
Hey, I'm famous!
Or maybe not...
Actually, the pattern is that regardless of the laws in the US or other countries, US corporate interests are paramount. I find it hard to believe that this is deliberate on the part of all judges, but it seems to be the rule, nonetheless.
Cruel? I call that capitalist.
What, they're mutually exclusive?
Because the RIAA was victorious against Napster! When the P2P products are eliminated, sales will skyrocket! Without the P2P temptation, every human on Earth would buy at least one copy of each album released!
What? You only want to cheer? Isn't booing fun for you? "No dissenting opinions allowed."
Perhaps we should make a concerted effort to only infringe copyrights that are 17 or more years old? ;)
Volkswagon commercials will be a bonus!
Eeeeeeewwww. The image of just her was bad enough! No dinner for me tonight.
The RIAA is a monopoly.
Technically, a cartel. Otherwise, spot on.
So who's worse - the band for being too dumb to know the value of education or to cover their ass, or the record companies for taking advantage of that?
Are you serious? One did something dumb, the other did something cruel. Granted, contract lawyers like to hide their cruelty behind impersonality. It's usually OK, since it's two contract lawyers battling each other's wit, but it's just cruel when you pit a professional contract lawyer against some shmoe off the street. Even if he can read.
Probably better, but mail service has gotten slower (and it was already called snail mail) to government offices.
does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
Yes, but I don't have enough money to do anything about it.
Revert back to pen and paper, write a well-thought-out letter detailing the issues you have with this and send it.
And then FAX it. They are less interested in mail these days.
Why does Microsoft have to serve anyone but themselves (and their stockholders)? If you buy a product from them, you're deal is done.
Wouldn't that be nice... Licensing, however, continues indefinately. I'll grant that this is more of an issue for corporate customers than home users, though.
I think it's the latest mod that shows up.
I think polar_bear meant that Microsoft should be able to continue to 'innovate' in its standards, but they must publish the specs for it in entirity by the time the product which uses it is published. MS would still have a jump start, but others could catch up.
He should make it even bigger, so all of the words will line-break. Maybe even one letter per line.
Then boycott all of CRC's other books, and buy their reprint of the encyclopedia.