I think this is the likely scenario. Cue the cries of "Goldman Sachs is plotting to screw Joe the Inverstor over."
Here's my advice to Joe: Don't buy into Facebook, and let GS lose out from being unable to find anyone to dump it to.
Maybe it's the opposite. Who knows? Maybe they actually think they woefully overvalued Facebook and decided they only want to screw over the foreigners.
False. There are settings for not allowing allow friends' apps to access your information. Account -> Privacy Settings, scroll down to "Apps and Websites."
I second that. Look at the wikipedia page on the Ixtoc I oil spill, under "long term effects." While the article tries to make it sound like the long term effects were utterlty disastrous, there isn't a single effect mentioned there that lasted more than 10 years.
Your point is valid, although you'd have to speak for the individual atoms in water, not the molecules as a whole, as it dissociates and reassociates rather rapidly into H+ and OH-.
If laptop use during a particular class gets out of hand, the professor should have a right to enforce a certain level of decorum. To have a school-policy banning them would be a terrible idea; instant access to wikipedia and/or wolframalpha is useful in pretty much any class.
Professors on the individual level should have a right to set the decorum in their classrooms, if laptop use gets completely out of hand. This should be a classroom policy dictated by the professor, rather than a generic school-wide ban. It would be unfair to hold responsible the ~5% of students who are actually taking notes and/or being productive on their laptops for the sins of the other 95%, especially because there are many classes where access to wikipedia and/or wolframalpha can be extremely useful during lectures.
Time will tell, but I don't think it's necessarily a stupid move on Murdoch's part. It's a trade-off between readership and revenue; they're different business models, and one will eventually be shown to be more efficient than the other. I used the NYT comparison primarily because I read the Wall Street Journal.
He can go looking for that evidence all day long. Meanwhile, his competitors will keep making money left, right, and center.
Please back up your assertions with data. You're wrong. News Corp has a significantly higher margin of profit (not just absolute profit) than the New York Times. Additionally, the NY Times has been losing revenue over the past 5 years, while News Corp gained.
I don't understand this from a marketing perspective. Those who buy Apple products, such as the iPad, tend to be younger college student types, and to draw a correlation, overwhelmingly liberal. Why is News Corp even attempting to market to them, let alone exclusively?
Yes. Hundreds of thousands. Try 7,500, 1,500 of whom were killed in intra-Palestinian fighting. If you are going to claim "well, the Israelis are tergeting primarily civilians," note that the Israeli civilian casualty rate is some higher than that of the Palestinians, despite that most of the intense fighting has been in Palestinian cities.
It was specifically NOT being done in the name of Americans. Yes, t was being done by the US, but in Yemen's name. The Yemenites even said something along the lines of "we will continue saying they are our bombs."
Targeting American citizens in such a way would be illegal, I agree, but issue was not his point.
We had drone strikes. Big freaking deal. Not a single American soldier was put in danger by the strikes, as they were by drones. Why does the public really need to know, given all the politics that may be screwed up as a result of the public knowledge?
I'm tired of people saying that. Read the terms of the agreement, and if you don't like it, get someone else. Call #MIN to see how much extra data you still have. Although I do think they should give you some sort of 10% warning or something to that effect, they have no moral obligation to.
That's more or less what Wikileaks said about the possible effects of past two releases. However, neither the Iraq files or the diplomatic cables told anyone anything all that incriminating or surprising. They have a tendency to hype things up out of proportion to what they are. It will simply be a buncha documents telling us the bankers had no clue what was going on and/or were somewhat corrupt. We know those things already.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen something along these lines at least a year and a half ago. http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html
The person who contributed the summary used the word 'Wikileaks'.
I think he was going for 'funny'.
I think this is the likely scenario. Cue the cries of "Goldman Sachs is plotting to screw Joe the Inverstor over." Here's my advice to Joe: Don't buy into Facebook, and let GS lose out from being unable to find anyone to dump it to.
Maybe it's the opposite. Who knows? Maybe they actually think they woefully overvalued Facebook and decided they only want to screw over the foreigners.
False. There are settings for not allowing allow friends' apps to access your information. Account -> Privacy Settings, scroll down to "Apps and Websites."
The more intuitive word, assuming no prior prejudices, would probably be "boxes."
I think parent was going for sarcastic.
Messed up the link
I second that. Look at the wikipedia page on the Ixtoc I oil spill, under "long term effects." While the article tries to make it sound like the long term effects were utterlty disastrous, there isn't a single effect mentioned there that lasted more than 10 years.
Clausewitz would disagree.
Your point is valid, although you'd have to speak for the individual atoms in water, not the molecules as a whole, as it dissociates and reassociates rather rapidly into H+ and OH-.
If laptop use during a particular class gets out of hand, the professor should have a right to enforce a certain level of decorum. To have a school-policy banning them would be a terrible idea; instant access to wikipedia and/or wolframalpha is useful in pretty much any class.
Professors on the individual level should have a right to set the decorum in their classrooms, if laptop use gets completely out of hand. This should be a classroom policy dictated by the professor, rather than a generic school-wide ban. It would be unfair to hold responsible the ~5% of students who are actually taking notes and/or being productive on their laptops for the sins of the other 95%, especially because there are many classes where access to wikipedia and/or wolframalpha can be extremely useful during lectures.
Obviously; everybody knows there are simulators all the way down.
Time will tell, but I don't think it's necessarily a stupid move on Murdoch's part. It's a trade-off between readership and revenue; they're different business models, and one will eventually be shown to be more efficient than the other. I used the NYT comparison primarily because I read the Wall Street Journal.
He can go looking for that evidence all day long. Meanwhile, his competitors will keep making money left, right, and center.
Please back up your assertions with data. You're wrong. News Corp has a significantly higher margin of profit (not just absolute profit) than the New York Times. Additionally, the NY Times has been losing revenue over the past 5 years, while News Corp gained.
I don't understand this from a marketing perspective. Those who buy Apple products, such as the iPad, tend to be younger college student types, and to draw a correlation, overwhelmingly liberal. Why is News Corp even attempting to market to them, let alone exclusively?
I'm not sure you're aware, but I'm pretty sure you've just described the basic premise of Intelligent Design.
Yes. Hundreds of thousands. Try 7,500, 1,500 of whom were killed in intra-Palestinian fighting. If you are going to claim "well, the Israelis are tergeting primarily civilians," note that the Israeli civilian casualty rate is some higher than that of the Palestinians, despite that most of the intense fighting has been in Palestinian cities.
You dont use the delete key? how do you delete files? right click?!?
And you can never delete files on a Mac!
It was specifically NOT being done in the name of Americans. Yes, t was being done by the US, but in Yemen's name. The Yemenites even said something along the lines of "we will continue saying they are our bombs." Targeting American citizens in such a way would be illegal, I agree, but issue was not his point.
We had drone strikes. Big freaking deal. Not a single American soldier was put in danger by the strikes, as they were by drones. Why does the public really need to know, given all the politics that may be screwed up as a result of the public knowledge?
I'm tired of people saying that. Read the terms of the agreement, and if you don't like it, get someone else. Call #MIN to see how much extra data you still have. Although I do think they should give you some sort of 10% warning or something to that effect, they have no moral obligation to.
That's more or less what Wikileaks said about the possible effects of past two releases. However, neither the Iraq files or the diplomatic cables told anyone anything all that incriminating or surprising. They have a tendency to hype things up out of proportion to what they are. It will simply be a buncha documents telling us the bankers had no clue what was going on and/or were somewhat corrupt. We know those things already.