Good point, however its not so much the deviousness of a company but rather the reality of GAAP accounting. The manufacturer counts the sell upon delivery of the product to a wholesaler (Best Buy, CompUSA) and receiving consideration (money) for the sale equals revenue. However, the smart analyst will look at how things flow through the channel (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc.) to ascertain how well things are selling to the consumer because this will be the best indicator of the future.
That's how grand jury's work. The prosecutor is free to produce any and all evidence including and excluding exculpatory evidence as they see fit. Its not until after you have been indicted do you get to present your side of the case. For these reasons and the "guilty until proven innocent" idea that has started to pervade our society that the grand jury has been abolished in many areas. Only half of the states have grand juries and they have been abolished in many countries including Canada, the UK, and Australia replaced by other institutions that seek both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, the grand jury is such a powerful weapon to the US Attorneys office that the chances of reform at the federal level are probably slim.
There is a difference between trying to get everything perfect and good enough. This is good enough. Waiting around trying to figure out how to get all this networked isn't it going to help.
Yes, new versions of Microsoft OSs break some things but this is nothing new but its not like beta versions and the RTM haven't been around for over six months. This is irresponsibility by Apple plain and simple. Apple should have testing the product far ahead of time and had it ready for release anything else is irresponsibility.
Today Google is arguably the number one place to work for in the US. You can put someone through 5 or 6 phone interviews today and ask three months later for a "2nd round" after having an onsite because there is little demand and endless supply. It becomes almost a badge for those who are there. Those around ask why it only took this person 9 interviews to get the job when it took you 11. Trust me on this I worked for the number one company for talent, it happens.
However, this position in the marketplace to shall pass and the bad habits of today will linger. There talking about now "standardizing" the interview process. What a novel concept. It only took this company five years to figure that one out. We did that in an afternoon in my own team at my former employer. I can't think why having 5000 engineers asking all different questions might not be a good thing.
Apparently nobody at Google has ever looked for a job before also from the TFA, taking two months to get back to someone after an "onsite" and to ask them for a "2nd round" interview. If I haven't heard from someone in two weeks after coming to there office, I am moving on at that point.
Finally, why are the co-founders still approving people to hire? Yes, I understand that the culture and the people you hire are important aspects of the firm. But were not talking about the first 100 employees anymore, were talking about employee 6,000 to 7,000. All this does is frustrate people inside the firm and job seekers.
This stupidity will cost and its going to cost Google shareholders about $1 billion. This is a small field and the number of talented people that Google is looking for are few. Someone is going to go through this process, get pissed off, and pull a YouTube, which Google will purchase. At that point, you will be able to put an actual value to how idiotic this process really is.
Disclaimer: No I have never interviewed with Google, nor do I plan to, but had many friends go through the process.
Personally, I don't think it is. The company makes money and increases the abilities of its product by adding the works of individuals it has not compensated. Either give consideration for the IP (at least $1) or don't add it.
Is there anything left to be done to make your online video site "the best"?
I am patiently waiting for the next innovation. If the reviewer or we had the answer then it would getting rolled into a new site as we speak. Innovation takes time, a PVR is just a VCR without a tape but Tivo made it better.
Hmmmm... Go check out OPENXML in the BOL. SQL Server allows you to send an XML string, shred it, store it in temp tables and in the end process it into the database without having to write multiple insert statements. You can move up and down the XML tree storing multiple transactions and additional datapoints as needed for instance an order and all its associated items as one XML string sent to SQL Server which then processes it. Since I do not come from the programming side of the tracks (DBA / SQL programmer really) I'm not quite sure why you would want to manage files on a database anyway. You can also check out the following newsgroup post I made discussing the issue. Hope this helps.
Will he have any juice to stop, sway, change direction, or do something in our best interest? Its easy to give someone a job but its quite another to give them the responsibility and the power to do it effectively.
Don't wanna risk those karma point huh? That's fine. I can say over the last few years after I have read a number of these business patents, Yes indeed they are not novel. Patents were originally meant for those things that were unique and innovative not knock-offs of things that occurred in the real world. One-click purchases, "Buy It Now", these things that lived in the real world for 100s of years do not classify as being novel. On the whole, I would rather see business patents struck down (like it had been for 100 years prior to 1998) then continue to clog up our court system. If the USPTO was better at interpreting the "novel" test I wouldn't have a problem with it but quite frankly they do and therefore I am against it.
The double-entry accounting system developed in the 1300s and put into book form in 1494 - Novel and I would say very patentable
Amazon's One-click purchase - Not Novel MercExchange - Not Novel NetFlix - Rentals through the mail - Not Novel
The difference is that one is entirely new way of doing business and the other is just an extrapolated real world idea grafted on this thing called the Internet.
infringed on two e-commerce patents that MercExchange said were key to eBay's "Buy it Now" feature
How about striking down this lower court ruling
# 1998 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial.[46] holds that there is no prohibition in U.S. law on patents for business methods as long as they are new, useful and non-obvious.
Considering that business methods are NOT new, useful and non-obvious its time to reverse this error in one judge's career sign-off opinion.
Sony is fine with waiting given the poor execution of the 360. Ironically, if MS had given itself a few more months it may have put more pressure on Sony. However, given the numbers I am seeing on the components even another nine months may not be enough for the PS3 to come in at a reasonable amount for Sony . Sony will not price it above $400 USD retail. But losing $500 on each console sold cannot be an attractive proposition for Sony higher-ups.
No, it is that doing so may confer an advantage in some instances Fair enough, I'm not sure there is one but the possibility is that it might.
Sony currently has a 70% market share in terms of consoles, and the media centre market is still open...
Sony has been trying the same strategy since the early 80's with owning end-to-end. It has somewhat worked in some high-end niche markets (see broadcast television equipment) but has fallen flat on its face in the consumer sector. The problem with Sony it has two competing factions within it with very different aims. If you bet Sony and hence anyone that has both hardware and content, you have diametrically SBUs with opposite goals and that doesn't make a you a long-term winner (see the crippled MP3 walkman).
And that might be a wise choice, but it would also depend on an detailed analysis of what is to be gained by various levels of integration. The complicating factor here is that Steve Jobs is a forceful personality and may have his own agenda in this regard.
The merger would be extremely messy and as someone who worked for the Mouse for a time, I'm not sure Jobs personality would work for Disney. Disney is very much a company that lives its history. I do not think Jobs could appreciate that.
Microsoft Everything you cited, Microsoft wants to be a gatekeeper not an owner. Microsoft truly understands its better to CONTROL an asset then own it, hence why they leave others to do so.
Its the difference though of Apple being a niche player in the computer market versus Apple being an industry player in entertainment shaping the next 10 years. The Ipod was the right product at the right time but everyone forgets that their were more than a few players out before the Ipod (see Diamond Rio). Sometimes a firm can get lucky, if you take enough chances you will.
What was the impetus for the AOL-TimeWarner merger? If you look back it wasn't harmonizing and creating more content efficiently it was TimeWarner wanting to hike their stock price by linking itself with the Internet. Those conditions will not exist perhaps ever but definitely nowhere anytime soon, so no we will not see something like Disney and Apple getting together because the market and companies figured out it doesn't create shareholder value.
Your basic premise is that in order to be sucessful you have to control the entire value chain. If we have seen anything from customers is that they punish those firms that try to lock them into one particular market. I don't believe Sony's plan will work, Microsoft will not own content, and Disney and Apple should remain seperate and focus on what they are good at it (brand management and style).
Nice pipe dream but these companies are in WAY TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. One is television, movies, theme parks and merchandising. The other is in hi-tech hardware manufacturing, software development, and digital distribution. Putting them together would create a conglomerate and the market HATES conglomerates. If the market wants to diversify they buy Disney and Apple stock not look for Disney and Apple to get together.
Slashdot Mirror
still haven't seen a Wii for sale in ANY store I visit. Plenty of PS3s though. I think this whole Wii thing is a hoax. ;)
Good point, however its not so much the deviousness of a company but rather the reality of GAAP accounting. The manufacturer counts the sell upon delivery of the product to a wholesaler (Best Buy, CompUSA) and receiving consideration (money) for the sale equals revenue. However, the smart analyst will look at how things flow through the channel (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc.) to ascertain how well things are selling to the consumer because this will be the best indicator of the future.
so we don't have to fight them here?
That's how grand jury's work. The prosecutor is free to produce any and all evidence including and excluding exculpatory evidence as they see fit. Its not until after you have been indicted do you get to present your side of the case. For these reasons and the "guilty until proven innocent" idea that has started to pervade our society that the grand jury has been abolished in many areas. Only half of the states have grand juries and they have been abolished in many countries including Canada, the UK, and Australia replaced by other institutions that seek both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, the grand jury is such a powerful weapon to the US Attorneys office that the chances of reform at the federal level are probably slim.
There is a difference between trying to get everything perfect and good enough. This is good enough. Waiting around trying to figure out how to get all this networked isn't it going to help.
Yes, new versions of Microsoft OSs break some things but this is nothing new but its not like beta versions and the RTM haven't been around for over six months. This is irresponsibility by Apple plain and simple. Apple should have testing the product far ahead of time and had it ready for release anything else is irresponsibility.
Today Google is arguably the number one place to work for in the US. You can put someone through 5 or 6 phone interviews today and ask three months later for a "2nd round" after having an onsite because there is little demand and endless supply. It becomes almost a badge for those who are there. Those around ask why it only took this person 9 interviews to get the job when it took you 11. Trust me on this I worked for the number one company for talent, it happens.
However, this position in the marketplace to shall pass and the bad habits of today will linger. There talking about now "standardizing" the interview process. What a novel concept. It only took this company five years to figure that one out. We did that in an afternoon in my own team at my former employer. I can't think why having 5000 engineers asking all different questions might not be a good thing.
Apparently nobody at Google has ever looked for a job before also from the TFA, taking two months to get back to someone after an "onsite" and to ask them for a "2nd round" interview. If I haven't heard from someone in two weeks after coming to there office, I am moving on at that point.
Finally, why are the co-founders still approving people to hire? Yes, I understand that the culture and the people you hire are important aspects of the firm. But were not talking about the first 100 employees anymore, were talking about employee 6,000 to 7,000. All this does is frustrate people inside the firm and job seekers.
This stupidity will cost and its going to cost Google shareholders about $1 billion. This is a small field and the number of talented people that Google is looking for are few. Someone is going to go through this process, get pissed off, and pull a YouTube, which Google will purchase. At that point, you will be able to put an actual value to how idiotic this process really is.
Disclaimer: No I have never interviewed with Google, nor do I plan to, but had many friends go through the process.
"EEStor is backed by VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the company's founders are engineers Richard Weir and Carl Nelson."
This should at least some credence to the company. They did invest in Amazon.com, Intuit, Google, Genomic Health.
Personally, I don't think it is. The company makes money and increases the abilities of its product by adding the works of individuals it has not compensated. Either give consideration for the IP (at least $1) or don't add it.
The chances of false positives go up exponentially given a large enough population and small enough topic area.
Is there anything left to be done to make your online video site "the best"?
I am patiently waiting for the next innovation. If the reviewer or we had the answer then it would getting rolled into a new site as we speak. Innovation takes time, a PVR is just a VCR without a tape but Tivo made it better.
...from 6 years ago. Still trying to figure out that second step looks like.
Hmmmm...
q lserver.programming/browse_thread/thread/361f14c2b b73149b/8f0aa6a958cbaae2?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#8f 0aa6a958cbaae2
Go check out OPENXML in the BOL. SQL Server allows you to send an XML string, shred it, store it in temp tables and in the end process it into the database without having to write multiple insert statements. You can move up and down the XML tree storing multiple transactions and additional datapoints as needed for instance an order and all its associated items as one XML string sent to SQL Server which then processes it. Since I do not come from the programming side of the tracks (DBA / SQL programmer really) I'm not quite sure why you would want to manage files on a database anyway. You can also check out the following newsgroup post I made discussing the issue. Hope this helps.
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.s
Will he have any juice to stop, sway, change direction, or do something in our best interest? Its easy to give someone a job but its quite another to give them the responsibility and the power to do it effectively.
...its great nice work guys, I am looking forward to my day of entertainment.
Maybe some Google news today as well. *crosses fingers*
Don't wanna risk those karma point huh? That's fine. I can say over the last few years after I have read a number of these business patents, Yes indeed they are not novel. Patents were originally meant for those things that were unique and innovative not knock-offs of things that occurred in the real world. One-click purchases, "Buy It Now", these things that lived in the real world for 100s of years do not classify as being novel. On the whole, I would rather see business patents struck down (like it had been for 100 years prior to 1998) then continue to clog up our court system. If the USPTO was better at interpreting the "novel" test I wouldn't have a problem with it but quite frankly they do and therefore I am against it.
The double-entry accounting system developed in the 1300s and put into book form in 1494 - Novel and I would say very patentable
Amazon's One-click purchase - Not Novel
MercExchange - Not Novel
NetFlix - Rentals through the mail - Not Novel
The difference is that one is entirely new way of doing business and the other is just an extrapolated real world idea grafted on this thing called the Internet.
infringed on two e-commerce patents that MercExchange said were key to eBay's "Buy it Now" feature
How about striking down this lower court ruling
# 1998 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial.[46] holds that there is no prohibition in U.S. law on patents for business methods as long as they are new, useful and non-obvious.
Considering that business methods are NOT new, useful and non-obvious its time to reverse this error in one judge's career sign-off opinion.
If your like me and a power user of Excel some of these should catch your eye and almost force an upgrade especially the new row and column limits.
The total number of available columns in Excel
Old Limit: 256 (2^8)
New Limit: 16k (2^14)
The total number of available rows in Excel
Old Limit: 64k (2^16)
New Limit: 1M (2^20)
Number of levels of sorting on a range or table
Old Limit: 3
New Limit: 64
The maximum length of formulas (in characters)
Old Limit: 1k characters
New Limit: 8k characters
The number of levels of nesting that Excel allows in formulas
Old Limit: 7
New Limit: 64
Number of rows allowed in a Pivot Table
Old Limit: 64k
New Limit: 1M
Number of columns allowed in a Pivot Table
Old Limit: 255
New Limit: 16k
Sony is fine with waiting given the poor execution of the 360. Ironically, if MS had given itself a few more months it may have put more pressure on Sony. However, given the numbers I am seeing on the components even another nine months may not be enough for the PS3 to come in at a reasonable amount for Sony . Sony will not price it above $400 USD retail. But losing $500 on each console sold cannot be an attractive proposition for Sony higher-ups.
No, it is that doing so may confer an advantage in some instances
Fair enough, I'm not sure there is one but the possibility is that it might.
Sony currently has a 70% market share in terms of consoles, and the media centre market is still open...
Sony has been trying the same strategy since the early 80's with owning end-to-end. It has somewhat worked in some high-end niche markets (see broadcast television equipment) but has fallen flat on its face in the consumer sector. The problem with Sony it has two competing factions within it with very different aims. If you bet Sony and hence anyone that has both hardware and content, you have diametrically SBUs with opposite goals and that doesn't make a you a long-term winner (see the crippled MP3 walkman).
And that might be a wise choice, but it would also depend on an detailed analysis of what is to be gained by various levels of integration. The complicating factor here is that Steve Jobs is a forceful personality and may have his own agenda in this regard.
The merger would be extremely messy and as someone who worked for the Mouse for a time, I'm not sure Jobs personality would work for Disney. Disney is very much a company that lives its history. I do not think Jobs could appreciate that.
Microsoft
Everything you cited, Microsoft wants to be a gatekeeper not an owner. Microsoft truly understands its better to CONTROL an asset then own it, hence why they leave others to do so.
Its the difference though of Apple being a niche player in the computer market versus Apple being an industry player in entertainment shaping the next 10 years. The Ipod was the right product at the right time but everyone forgets that their were more than a few players out before the Ipod (see Diamond Rio). Sometimes a firm can get lucky, if you take enough chances you will.
What was the impetus for the AOL-TimeWarner merger? If you look back it wasn't harmonizing and creating more content efficiently it was TimeWarner wanting to hike their stock price by linking itself with the Internet. Those conditions will not exist perhaps ever but definitely nowhere anytime soon, so no we will not see something like Disney and Apple getting together because the market and companies figured out it doesn't create shareholder value.
Your basic premise is that in order to be sucessful you have to control the entire value chain. If we have seen anything from customers is that they punish those firms that try to lock them into one particular market. I don't believe Sony's plan will work, Microsoft will not own content, and Disney and Apple should remain seperate and focus on what they are good at it (brand management and style).
Hence wise DIS stock has been in the gutter for so long.
Nice pipe dream but these companies are in WAY TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. One is television, movies, theme parks and merchandising. The other is in hi-tech hardware manufacturing, software development, and digital distribution. Putting them together would create a conglomerate and the market HATES conglomerates. If the market wants to diversify they buy Disney and Apple stock not look for Disney and Apple to get together.