net neutrality should most certainly not be left to shareholders.
And it's not. All the SEC is saying that the Telcos must consult shareholders on the position they are taking regarding net neutrality. So if the shareholders vote for net neutrality, then the *Telcos* may not pursue an anti-net neutrality position. If the shareholders allow them to pursue an anti-net neutrality position, the decision is still in the political sphere. Just like now - no change.
If the documents are legitimate, then both sides are attempting to silence the other.
Assuming they are legitimate, then don't show anything about the other side, that much should be clear.
Anyway, you can read these documents - there is no indication in there that anyone is looking to find out the truth. They might be convinced to know the truth and act in order to address an imagined imbalance, that's a possibility, I give you that. However they are not trying to further an open discussion - there is no such point in the agenda document. They are funded by a very small number of donors and they are trying to shape public discussion to the desires of these donors. There is nothing honest and nothing open about their activities, though it's possible that they are acting on the conviction they are right and that therefore the ends would justify the means for them.
It's not impossible that by accident they'd happen to latch on the correct side of the debate, but it's very unlikely. You can stumble into the truth, but stumbling is not a useful method for seeking it.
Same here. I used to live in the US, still have many friends there - in a rather convenient holiday location even (Florida) and they have nice places with pools where I'd be welcome. I don't want to go anymore. It always sucked going through US immigration, but now with fingerprinting, groping, entrance fee and credit card information storing... I'll pass.
Last time I went to Singapore the immigration agent said "Welcome" and offered me a sweet. Singapore has it's own problems, but that was a great example how a civilized country should present itself.
So far the only alleged issue is a single sentence
No, there is more in the article. E.g.: This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.
I don't think market saturation is anywhere near that point actually, and of course people regularly replace their phones to get the next upgraded model. Similar to the iPod- > iPhone transition as you said. I don't see that changing much for the foreseeable future. There will be new features coming (e.g. Siri which I think is crap, but which people seem to like) which will only work on newer phones. (I know that can be hacked to work on older versions, but they'll come up with other stuff - 4G for example.) It's basically the same situation as it has been for PCs for a long time. For PCs that development has reached it's end, but for smartphones it could well be another 10 or 20 years. And they control the entire ecosystem, can add things to it and get the benefit of other companies sales within that system. Some years down the road they may miss being part of the next big thing, they could be taken over by accountants again who'll ruin the development of new products by cost cutting etc, but until then they are a pretty safe bet.
That argument makes no sense. Google is not an ad network it gets it's money from ads - there is a world of difference. You could call a TV station an ad network with the same justification, and it wouldn't make sense there either. The TV station needs to bring you shows and movies you want to watch, Google provides services and products people want to use - that's why they can sell advertising space.
Slashdot is a discussion site. People come here to discuss aspects of the topic *they* are interested in. If that helps the "anonymous reader", that's fine - but none of the Slashdot posters owe him anything. If they would rather talk about why he chose the wrong approach he'll just have to live with it.
Well the idea is that people will sit there, see the thing and think "hey cool, what is this" and that that will get them to watch the video. The idea itself is not bad, but of course they'll quickly notice that nothing at all works on the tablet and that they are just watching a boring video. It would be better if it was an app, letting them interact with the tablet interface - which is fun.
Of course there is still the problem of people stealing or breaking the things, and playing sound in the waiting room is an annoyance to everybody else around.
What about the campaigns claiming Obama was a Muslim with a faked birth certificate? Or about Kerry and the swift boat claims making him out to be a coward even though he was a decorated war hero?
Nothing particularly bad is happening to Santorum. Nobody is twisting his words or slandering him. However people campaign against him and attack his absurd positions - as they should.
This is difficult for all of us who have daughters, but they will grow up, they will be sexually attractive to others - and they will want to be sexually attractive to others.
As a parent you are afraid for your daughter, you worry, you want to protect her. That's natural, and you need to try and guide her. However you also need to come to terms with her becoming an independent sexually aware person. There will never be legislation which will spare you that, and there shouldn't be.
I don't particularly like Apple, but they have a pretty sweet business model. They own a considerable share of the smart phone market, and they have these 30% cuts on many of the revenue streams going into the apps and content sold in their walled garden. They don't even need to maintain their market share - as long as they grow at a healthy rate (and the overall smartphone market is growing, so that part looks good) they have an expanding income stream. Plus they have the opportunity to expand into other markets (smart TV etc) which would be reasonably attractive for the huge numbers of people who are already locked into Apple.
I don't buy their products (and likely never will) but their stock looks good.
There is very little evidence that software patents do so
I work in a department which files about 50 patents/year. We get a lot of pressure to do so, I've filed some myself, too.
The curious thing is: we don't read patents unless we are checking for prior art. I have the distinct impression that we are not unusual in this respect - from an engineers point of view, patents are write-only. They can't promote innovation, because engineers don't hear about them.
Well you are concurring with a conclusion I did not arrive at. I gave you the reasons why a bad measurement makes things worse than not measuring at all. This matches up with decades of experience in the field: each time such a faulty measurement methodology is introduced, it's entirely to the detriment of the company.
Evaluating people(not just programmers) has always been a problem. But not doing anything is not a solution.
And neither is using the wrong methodology. It's seductive this hope you could run a simple computer program and presto - there is your evaluation. Unfortunately it's just a pipe dream, there is no such shortcut. You need to look at what people do, you need to watch who is solving the difficult problems, you need to find out who has the respect of his peers. Anything else is just like using a "system" in order to win at roulette. It would be so nice if it worked - but of course it doesn't and obviously it can't.
I've encountered this thinking frequently: "we can't measure everything objectively, so we'll just measure something somewhat related - that's got to be better than not measuring anything."
Sounds reasonable, but is actually wrong and dangerous. Engineers will identify what you are measuring and will change accordingly - which skews the results. And worse some will not change out of a sense of obligation or pigheadedness - which also skews the results because others do. Even if the thing you measured originally had some correlation with what you *wanted* to measure - it will no longer do that once you start measuring.
At least they are patenting it, which should prevent others from introducing this dumb idea.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
That's not what he is doing (according to the article linked to) though. He seems to bet that his shares will rise, so that he can sell them later. That's risky as his financial adviser points out. If they fall significantly he could end up owing more than his shares are worth (even if it's just temporarily) in which case the bank would collect and he'd lose big time. That's his problem though, people are free to take risks.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Should have inheritance tax then - the inheritance is income.
As for the borrowing stuff - how is that supposed to work? So Ellison borrows against his shares (fair enough) and buys something with it. So now he has to pay back the loan. That payment needs to come from income, and for that he pays tax. Seems fair.
Samsung manufactures in China and in Korea, too. You can get a "Made in Korea" phone from Samsung. However given the guy is a Chinese Labor activist, he probably wants conditions to become better in China, not to move production outside of China.
China 400 years ago was wealthy, then 100 years ago it was not, now it is becoming wealthy again.
They are still poor as dirt. I'm not saying they can not possibly become wealthy, but I don't think that's guaranteed either. Look at Taiwan: they are way ahead of China, and used to have fantastic growth rates. However now that they have a mature economy their growth rates are comparable to other industrial nations - it doesn't look like they are going to become more wealthy than the US or Germany anytime soon.
if I learn German, will I fit size 32 pants again?
Well I speak German and I don't fit into size 32, so... Anyway, aren't Germans relatively overweight on average, too? Maybe it's all the English classes they are being subjected to in school.
You should have said "Morgen schreibe ich noch einen."
Ok, "Heute schreibe ich einen Satz" ("Today I'm writing a sentence") and "Morgen schreibe ich noch einen" ("Tomorrow I'll write another"). So you need the "will" in the English structure, whereas in German you could use the equivalent "werde schreiben" ("will write") but there is a simpler form available, too.
You could simplify the English version too, though: "And another tomorrow".
Slashdot Mirror
net neutrality should most certainly not be left to shareholders.
And it's not. All the SEC is saying that the Telcos must consult shareholders on the position they are taking regarding net neutrality. So if the shareholders vote for net neutrality, then the *Telcos* may not pursue an anti-net neutrality position. If the shareholders allow them to pursue an anti-net neutrality position, the decision is still in the political sphere. Just like now - no change.
If the documents are legitimate, then both sides are attempting to silence the other.
Assuming they are legitimate, then don't show anything about the other side, that much should be clear.
Anyway, you can read these documents - there is no indication in there that anyone is looking to find out the truth. They might be convinced to know the truth and act in order to address an imagined imbalance, that's a possibility, I give you that. However they are not trying to further an open discussion - there is no such point in the agenda document. They are funded by a very small number of donors and they are trying to shape public discussion to the desires of these donors. There is nothing honest and nothing open about their activities, though it's possible that they are acting on the conviction they are right and that therefore the ends would justify the means for them.
It's not impossible that by accident they'd happen to latch on the correct side of the debate, but it's very unlikely. You can stumble into the truth, but stumbling is not a useful method for seeking it.
And it continues to baffle me why anyone would choose to vote for either Republican or Democrat
Because if you don't chose the lesser of two evils, you will get the worse of two evils. Do you want a Santorum supreme court?
Same here. I used to live in the US, still have many friends there - in a rather convenient holiday location even (Florida) and they have nice places with pools where I'd be welcome. I don't want to go anymore. It always sucked going through US immigration, but now with fingerprinting, groping, entrance fee and credit card information storing ... I'll pass.
Last time I went to Singapore the immigration agent said "Welcome" and offered me a sweet. Singapore has it's own problems, but that was a great example how a civilized country should present itself.
So far the only alleged issue is a single sentence
No, there is more in the article. E.g.: This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.
I don't think market saturation is anywhere near that point actually, and of course people regularly replace their phones to get the next upgraded model. Similar to the iPod- > iPhone transition as you said. I don't see that changing much for the foreseeable future. There will be new features coming (e.g. Siri which I think is crap, but which people seem to like) which will only work on newer phones. (I know that can be hacked to work on older versions, but they'll come up with other stuff - 4G for example.) It's basically the same situation as it has been for PCs for a long time. For PCs that development has reached it's end, but for smartphones it could well be another 10 or 20 years. And they control the entire ecosystem, can add things to it and get the benefit of other companies sales within that system. Some years down the road they may miss being part of the next big thing, they could be taken over by accountants again who'll ruin the development of new products by cost cutting etc, but until then they are a pretty safe bet.
That argument makes no sense. Google is not an ad network it gets it's money from ads - there is a world of difference. You could call a TV station an ad network with the same justification, and it wouldn't make sense there either. The TV station needs to bring you shows and movies you want to watch, Google provides services and products people want to use - that's why they can sell advertising space.
Slashdot is a discussion site. People come here to discuss aspects of the topic *they* are interested in. If that helps the "anonymous reader", that's fine - but none of the Slashdot posters owe him anything. If they would rather talk about why he chose the wrong approach he'll just have to live with it.
Well the idea is that people will sit there, see the thing and think "hey cool, what is this" and that that will get them to watch the video. The idea itself is not bad, but of course they'll quickly notice that nothing at all works on the tablet and that they are just watching a boring video. It would be better if it was an app, letting them interact with the tablet interface - which is fun.
Of course there is still the problem of people stealing or breaking the things, and playing sound in the waiting room is an annoyance to everybody else around.
What about the campaigns claiming Obama was a Muslim with a faked birth certificate? Or about Kerry and the swift boat claims making him out to be a coward even though he was a decorated war hero?
Nothing particularly bad is happening to Santorum. Nobody is twisting his words or slandering him. However people campaign against him and attack his absurd positions - as they should.
This is difficult for all of us who have daughters, but they will grow up, they will be sexually attractive to others - and they will want to be sexually attractive to others.
As a parent you are afraid for your daughter, you worry, you want to protect her. That's natural, and you need to try and guide her. However you also need to come to terms with her becoming an independent sexually aware person. There will never be legislation which will spare you that, and there shouldn't be.
I don't particularly like Apple, but they have a pretty sweet business model. They own a considerable share of the smart phone market, and they have these 30% cuts on many of the revenue streams going into the apps and content sold in their walled garden. They don't even need to maintain their market share - as long as they grow at a healthy rate (and the overall smartphone market is growing, so that part looks good) they have an expanding income stream. Plus they have the opportunity to expand into other markets (smart TV etc) which would be reasonably attractive for the huge numbers of people who are already locked into Apple.
I don't buy their products (and likely never will) but their stock looks good.
There is very little evidence that software patents do so
I work in a department which files about 50 patents/year. We get a lot of pressure to do so, I've filed some myself, too.
The curious thing is: we don't read patents unless we are checking for prior art. I have the distinct impression that we are not unusual in this respect - from an engineers point of view, patents are write-only. They can't promote innovation, because engineers don't hear about them.
Well you are concurring with a conclusion I did not arrive at. I gave you the reasons why a bad measurement makes things worse than not measuring at all. This matches up with decades of experience in the field: each time such a faulty measurement methodology is introduced, it's entirely to the detriment of the company.
Evaluating people(not just programmers) has always been a problem. But not doing anything is not a solution.
And neither is using the wrong methodology. It's seductive this hope you could run a simple computer program and presto - there is your evaluation. Unfortunately it's just a pipe dream, there is no such shortcut. You need to look at what people do, you need to watch who is solving the difficult problems, you need to find out who has the respect of his peers. Anything else is just like using a "system" in order to win at roulette. It would be so nice if it worked - but of course it doesn't and obviously it can't.
If you are in Germany, don't forget to join the demonstrations tomorrow.
It's more of a "oops people seem to care about that and the Pirate Party got 8,6% in Berlin" response.
I've encountered this thinking frequently: "we can't measure everything objectively, so we'll just measure something somewhat related - that's got to be better than not measuring anything."
Sounds reasonable, but is actually wrong and dangerous. Engineers will identify what you are measuring and will change accordingly - which skews the results. And worse some will not change out of a sense of obligation or pigheadedness - which also skews the results because others do. Even if the thing you measured originally had some correlation with what you *wanted* to measure - it will no longer do that once you start measuring.
At least they are patenting it, which should prevent others from introducing this dumb idea.
That's not what he is doing (according to the article linked to) though. He seems to bet that his shares will rise, so that he can sell them later. That's risky as his financial adviser points out. If they fall significantly he could end up owing more than his shares are worth (even if it's just temporarily) in which case the bank would collect and he'd lose big time. That's his problem though, people are free to take risks.
Should have inheritance tax then - the inheritance is income.
As for the borrowing stuff - how is that supposed to work? So Ellison borrows against his shares (fair enough) and buys something with it. So now he has to pay back the loan. That payment needs to come from income, and for that he pays tax. Seems fair.
Samsung manufactures in China and in Korea, too. You can get a "Made in Korea" phone from Samsung. However given the guy is a Chinese Labor activist, he probably wants conditions to become better in China, not to move production outside of China.
China 400 years ago was wealthy, then 100 years ago it was not, now it is becoming wealthy again.
They are still poor as dirt. I'm not saying they can not possibly become wealthy, but I don't think that's guaranteed either. Look at Taiwan: they are way ahead of China, and used to have fantastic growth rates. However now that they have a mature economy their growth rates are comparable to other industrial nations - it doesn't look like they are going to become more wealthy than the US or Germany anytime soon.
Are GOTO statements bad for your health an well being?
Yes.
if I learn German, will I fit size 32 pants again?
Well I speak German and I don't fit into size 32, so ... Anyway, aren't Germans relatively overweight on average, too? Maybe it's all the English classes they are being subjected to in school.
You should have said "Morgen schreibe ich noch einen."
Ok, "Heute schreibe ich einen Satz" ("Today I'm writing a sentence") and "Morgen schreibe ich noch einen" ("Tomorrow I'll write another"). So you need the "will" in the English structure, whereas in German you could use the equivalent "werde schreiben" ("will write") but there is a simpler form available, too.
You could simplify the English version too, though: "And another tomorrow".
If you know the "Gy" bit, then you are right. Try "gillenhall secretary" though - no problem for Google, no results for IMDB.