Sometimes it can go the other way, too. I had a friend years ago named Henry. He was named for his dad, Hank. When Hank passed away, Henry started going by Hank in respect of his dad's memory. He was pretty surprised a few months later when he received an offer for a credit card with a $20,000 limit (at the time, that was about what Henry was making per year in the Navy). Turns out his dad had had much better credit, so he had inadvertently given himself a bump by taking over the nickname.
You're probably going to have to host it yourself, at least until it's far enough long to find someone willing to donate space/bandwidth. You'll have to install some forum software yourself, like phpBB, of course. Isn't the software SF runs itself Open Source? If so, why not download that and put it to work?
The upshot of hosting it yourself is, you can set up a Google AdSense or Overture account and try to get some revenue coming in to help defray development costs.
It serves as more proof that the market for malware is well and truly alive.
No kidding, they've got a whole aisle over at Fry's for this stuff. No, not the anti-viral stuff. Look over in the office productivity and word processing section. They even bundle it together sometimes!
First that law student who was shocked, shocked!, that an IP firm would not want a lawyer on staff who is against IP (and who advocates breaking the law when you don't agree with it). Now we have a developer who's flabbergasted, flabbergasted!, that an employer would fire an employee for publicly dissing its product.
Next up: a real estate agent is amazed, amazed!, when he loses a client after telling potential buyers "This is house is OK, but I wouldn't want to live here."
It's basic web accessibility: any link that goes to something other than another web page -- an email, a video clip, an archive... or a PDF -- should be labeled or should at least be obvious from the text of the link itself. Remeber, Acrobat Reader takes time to load.
I don't know about you, but when I look at the status bar to see what the link is (and I've gotten to the point where I rarely click on a link without doing that, just in case), I can usually tell if the file is a PDF. Those are the ones that have '.pdf' at the end of 'em.
Not always true. There's already a market maker for this stock (not sure who it is, I don't have access to Thompson anymore...kinda miss working at an online brokerage). You can check out the options for GOOG here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=GOOG
The premiums on the options are almost as whacked as the stock itself. A June '06 350 (which I'm picking almost at random) is going for $15.90. So it's going to cost you $1590 to just to buy 100 contracts (the minimum, for those new to options trading, all trading is done in lots of 100 contracts per option). Then of course, there's no guarantee that GOOG will drop below that range. And if it did, it would have to drop by a lot to get you in the money enough to make a profit. (Though by buying in June, you're positioning yourself to take advantage of the next round of corrections that'll likely happen in April when Google again misses analysts' expectations. So you should be able to sell to close your positions and walk away with a chunk of change.)
There are some other more complicated strategies that would fit this stock better, but you'd better have a decent sized bankroll and a strong stomache if you're gonna do it.
Again, none of the above should be taken as investment advice. Consult a professional before making any investment decisions.
Agreed. Buying a metric ass ton of put options, on the other hand, could make for a very nice year.
Of course, if you're feeling really frisky and very bearish on Google, you could always sell uncovered calls. I bet there are a lot of people out there willing to buy March 500s! (God forbid it should actually hit that, though, you'd be ruined.)
*Note: the above does not constitute investment advice. When trading, always evaluate a stock's risks and objectives. Consult a financial professional for more details.
Whoever meta-mods this, please mark the moderation on my above post as 'unfair'. It was not Informative, the event never happened! I completely made it up. Do you honestly think the majority leader of the House would shout something like that? He might have said it to the guy next to him, but there's no way any seasoned politician is going to make that big of a fool of himself (except, of course, former Rep. Jim "Beam Me Up, Scotty!" Traficant).
Your [sic] missing the point, I'm not talking about a position on abortion, I'm talking about a position on laws regarding choice.
No, you said specifically "abortion", like it was the end-all, be-all. You also sound like one of those people who believes in abortion-on-demand, all the way up until the ninth month. If you don't believe abortions should be permitted in the ninth month, then you agree that, at some point, the developing child's right to life outweighs the mother's right to choice. The entire debate centers on where that line is.
Of course, if you believe it should be ok to abort a fetus that is 100% viable outside the womb, then you're definitely in the fringe along with NARAL and like-minded groups. Despite what the Ninth Circus believes, almost every poll I've seen says most Americans want limits on abortion. Like I said, they just disagree on what those limits should be.
I think RvW is a good metric for fundamentalist influence. The only people that vehemently oppose it are the staunch Christian bloc.
Uh-huh. So it's impossible for someone to vehemently oppose abortion for any reason other than "fundamentalism"?
It sounds like you're saying "If you disagree with me on abortion, you're one of THEM!" I thought only fundamentalists (or Sith) had such worldviews, and that enlightened liberals were beyond such pedestrian, black-and-white, delusions?
Tell me again why one of these rogue states would bother with a very complex, and very visible, ballastic missile system when they could simply send it to the US in a cargo container?
Because it is very visible. It would be a way to shout out "We did it, and we're proud." Of course, it would also be suicidal, but you can't automatically assume that megalomaniacal dictators wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a significant portion of their population to, in effect, thumb their noses at the US. Or they might reason that the US wouldn't respond, since they view us as weak.
The missile shield plan is to protect against exactly those crackpots who aren't convinced they are subject to MAD, for either of the reasons listed above.
Their stock did not drop 20% of its value. It dropped 20% of its price. Unless you truly believe that Google, its assets, revenue stream, et cetera, have no inherent value.
I think you're confusing "book value" with "market value". Those are two distinct items. So, yes, Google's stock value (eg, market value) did drop 20%, even if its book value (all those other things you mentioned) remained essentially unmoved.
Professionals can keep their work and private life separate.
Professionals also don't give interviews to the media in which they identify their profession and publicly state an opinion contrary to their employer's business model. If this had been a private comment made to friends or even other co-workers, that would be one thing. But talking to a reporter? In what way is that "private"?
If I had the time and the talent, I would soooo work up a spoof page saying that Google is in talks to buy VA Software. Just seems so appropriate, somehow.
How is it different if someone wants to lose weight but does not have the willpower to do so?
So society should change itself to fit the needs of the lazy, is that what you're saying? Care to rephrase? 'cause that don't make no sense, no how.
Or did I misunderstand and you were advancing the argument that people with hormonal problems are not responsible for their actions? That don't make no sense, neither.
I know you were playing devil's advocate, but also remember I allowed it might not be easy for someone to lose weight. That doesn't change the fact that it's their responsibility to do so, no one else's.
Yowsers, you're right, that's a stunningly bad idea.
As for campaign finance reform, the only practical way to enact it is two fold. First, enact term limits. We already have two for President, set two for Senators and four for Representatives. That should guarantee enough churn that donating huge gobs of money to any given candidate won't get you a whole lot (or at least, not for long).
Part two is to limit how much the parties can spend on campaigning, and how much they can reimburse people for campaigning. A political party's primary function should be administrative, it should be up to the individual party members to get themselves elected. Interestingly, this might also result in people from so-called "third parties" getting elected.
There's not a lot that can be done about the cost of running a campaign, though, modern media is just too expensive[1]. So forcing artificial constraints on how much politicians can raise for their campaigns just pushes these things into the back rooms and side alleys. Kinda like DeLay here in Texas. (I'm not excusing his actions, just pointing out that the way the laws work encourages unethical types like him to get ahead in the first place. People who are willing to follow the rules get steamrollered by the ones who bend or outright break them. I leave it as an exercise for the jury in Austin to determine which one, if either, applies to Tommy Boy.)
[1]Though clever candidates can find ways around that, ways blocked by McCain-Feingold, like blogging, which is actually cheap, but the cost of the servers and network services themselves are counted towards the amount "donated"
Our society makes allowances for people with other sorts of handicaps -- e.g. wheelchair ramps.
Except that you can lose weight, someone in a wheelchair cannot grow legs/nerves/bones (or whatever else is preventing them from being able to walk). You said yourself it wouldn't be easy to lose weight, but it is possible. For better or worse, your weight is your responsibility. It is inappropriate for you to expect society to conform to your needs. It's different when someone cannot change their condition, which is why we (try to) make things easier for the lame, the blind, the deaf, and, of course, Pamela Anderson.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it can go the other way, too. I had a friend years ago named Henry. He was named for his dad, Hank. When Hank passed away, Henry started going by Hank in respect of his dad's memory. He was pretty surprised a few months later when he received an offer for a credit card with a $20,000 limit (at the time, that was about what Henry was making per year in the Navy). Turns out his dad had had much better credit, so he had inadvertently given himself a bump by taking over the nickname.
Organized crime has found the internet
I suddenly had a vision of Robert DeNiro in "Analyze This!", saying "Get with the times? What do you want to do, start a fuckin' web page?"
You're probably going to have to host it yourself, at least until it's far enough long to find someone willing to donate space/bandwidth. You'll have to install some forum software yourself, like phpBB, of course. Isn't the software SF runs itself Open Source? If so, why not download that and put it to work?
The upshot of hosting it yourself is, you can set up a Google AdSense or Overture account and try to get some revenue coming in to help defray development costs.
It serves as more proof that the market for malware is well and truly alive.
No kidding, they've got a whole aisle over at Fry's for this stuff. No, not the anti-viral stuff. Look over in the office productivity and word processing section. They even bundle it together sometimes!
First that law student who was shocked, shocked!, that an IP firm would not want a lawyer on staff who is against IP (and who advocates breaking the law when you don't agree with it). Now we have a developer who's flabbergasted, flabbergasted!, that an employer would fire an employee for publicly dissing its product.
Next up: a real estate agent is amazed, amazed!, when he loses a client after telling potential buyers "This is house is OK, but I wouldn't want to live here."
It's basic web accessibility: any link that goes to something other than another web page -- an email, a video clip, an archive... or a PDF -- should be labeled or should at least be obvious from the text of the link itself. Remeber, Acrobat Reader takes time to load.
I don't know about you, but when I look at the status bar to see what the link is (and I've gotten to the point where I rarely click on a link without doing that, just in case), I can usually tell if the file is a PDF. Those are the ones that have '.pdf' at the end of 'em.
Not always true. There's already a market maker for this stock (not sure who it is, I don't have access to Thompson anymore...kinda miss working at an online brokerage). You can check out the options for GOOG here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=GOOG
The premiums on the options are almost as whacked as the stock itself. A June '06 350 (which I'm picking almost at random) is going for $15.90. So it's going to cost you $1590 to just to buy 100 contracts (the minimum, for those new to options trading, all trading is done in lots of 100 contracts per option). Then of course, there's no guarantee that GOOG will drop below that range. And if it did, it would have to drop by a lot to get you in the money enough to make a profit. (Though by buying in June, you're positioning yourself to take advantage of the next round of corrections that'll likely happen in April when Google again misses analysts' expectations. So you should be able to sell to close your positions and walk away with a chunk of change.)
There are some other more complicated strategies that would fit this stock better, but you'd better have a decent sized bankroll and a strong stomache if you're gonna do it.
Again, none of the above should be taken as investment advice. Consult a professional before making any investment decisions.
Agreed. Buying a metric ass ton of put options, on the other hand, could make for a very nice year.
Of course, if you're feeling really frisky and very bearish on Google, you could always sell uncovered calls. I bet there are a lot of people out there willing to buy March 500s! (God forbid it should actually hit that, though, you'd be ruined.)
*Note: the above does not constitute investment advice. When trading, always evaluate a stock's risks and objectives. Consult a financial professional for more details.
In the old days, we etched our words into stone tablets for safe keeping.
A destructive virus was when a sick person would start coughing so hard that they'd break tablets by knocking them over.
The cost of physical media was high & the write speed was slow. Back then, we went to a lot more effort to make sure that our backups stayed safe.
You forgot "And we were grateful!"
MS certainly isn't winning over any of the open source community with that move.
What about the article leads you to believe they are trying to "win over" the FOSS community?
Whoever meta-mods this, please mark the moderation on my above post as 'unfair'. It was not Informative, the event never happened! I completely made it up. Do you honestly think the majority leader of the House would shout something like that? He might have said it to the guy next to him, but there's no way any seasoned politician is going to make that big of a fool of himself (except, of course, former Rep. Jim "Beam Me Up, Scotty!" Traficant).
Try to tell a joke, and look what happens. Jeez.
Your [sic] missing the point, I'm not talking about a position on abortion, I'm talking about a position on laws regarding choice.
No, you said specifically "abortion", like it was the end-all, be-all. You also sound like one of those people who believes in abortion-on-demand, all the way up until the ninth month. If you don't believe abortions should be permitted in the ninth month, then you agree that, at some point, the developing child's right to life outweighs the mother's right to choice. The entire debate centers on where that line is.
Of course, if you believe it should be ok to abort a fetus that is 100% viable outside the womb, then you're definitely in the fringe along with NARAL and like-minded groups. Despite what the Ninth Circus believes, almost every poll I've seen says most Americans want limits on abortion. Like I said, they just disagree on what those limits should be.
I think RvW is a good metric for fundamentalist influence. The only people that vehemently oppose it are the staunch Christian bloc.
Uh-huh. So it's impossible for someone to vehemently oppose abortion for any reason other than "fundamentalism"?
It sounds like you're saying "If you disagree with me on abortion, you're one of THEM!" I thought only fundamentalists (or Sith) had such worldviews, and that enlightened liberals were beyond such pedestrian, black-and-white, delusions?
Once RvW starts to bend, THEN it is time to panic.
Not a troll, a serious question: Why? Why is Roe v. Wade so important? That is, why do you think it's more important than any other issue?
However, I don't ever remember them heckling a Democrat President.
Funny, I could've sworn Tom DeLay shouted out "Who's under the podium, Bill!?" during the 2000 State of the Union address...
If effective it would only help minimize damage.
When talking about the effects of a nuclear strike, isn't "minimizing damage" something worth aiming for (no pun intended)?
Tell me again why one of these rogue states would bother with a very complex, and very visible, ballastic missile system when they could simply send it to the US in a cargo container?
Because it is very visible. It would be a way to shout out "We did it, and we're proud." Of course, it would also be suicidal, but you can't automatically assume that megalomaniacal dictators wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a significant portion of their population to, in effect, thumb their noses at the US. Or they might reason that the US wouldn't respond, since they view us as weak.
The missile shield plan is to protect against exactly those crackpots who aren't convinced they are subject to MAD, for either of the reasons listed above.
Their stock did not drop 20% of its value. It dropped 20% of its price. Unless you truly believe that Google, its assets, revenue stream, et cetera, have no inherent value.
I think you're confusing "book value" with "market value". Those are two distinct items. So, yes, Google's stock value (eg, market value) did drop 20%, even if its book value (all those other things you mentioned) remained essentially unmoved.
Professionals can keep their work and private life separate.
Professionals also don't give interviews to the media in which they identify their profession and publicly state an opinion contrary to their employer's business model. If this had been a private comment made to friends or even other co-workers, that would be one thing. But talking to a reporter? In what way is that "private"?
Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.
So only bad parents let their kids get kidnapped? WTF?? That's either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid, or incredibly heartless, take your pick.
If I had the time and the talent, I would soooo work up a spoof page saying that Google is in talks to buy VA Software. Just seems so appropriate, somehow.
How is it different if someone wants to lose weight but does not have the willpower to do so?
So society should change itself to fit the needs of the lazy, is that what you're saying? Care to rephrase? 'cause that don't make no sense, no how.
Or did I misunderstand and you were advancing the argument that people with hormonal problems are not responsible for their actions? That don't make no sense, neither.
I know you were playing devil's advocate, but also remember I allowed it might not be easy for someone to lose weight. That doesn't change the fact that it's their responsibility to do so, no one else's.
Yowsers, you're right, that's a stunningly bad idea.
As for campaign finance reform, the only practical way to enact it is two fold. First, enact term limits. We already have two for President, set two for Senators and four for Representatives. That should guarantee enough churn that donating huge gobs of money to any given candidate won't get you a whole lot (or at least, not for long).
Part two is to limit how much the parties can spend on campaigning, and how much they can reimburse people for campaigning. A political party's primary function should be administrative, it should be up to the individual party members to get themselves elected. Interestingly, this might also result in people from so-called "third parties" getting elected.
There's not a lot that can be done about the cost of running a campaign, though, modern media is just too expensive[1]. So forcing artificial constraints on how much politicians can raise for their campaigns just pushes these things into the back rooms and side alleys. Kinda like DeLay here in Texas. (I'm not excusing his actions, just pointing out that the way the laws work encourages unethical types like him to get ahead in the first place. People who are willing to follow the rules get steamrollered by the ones who bend or outright break them. I leave it as an exercise for the jury in Austin to determine which one, if either, applies to Tommy Boy.)
[1]Though clever candidates can find ways around that, ways blocked by McCain-Feingold, like blogging, which is actually cheap, but the cost of the servers and network services themselves are counted towards the amount "donated"
Our society makes allowances for people with other sorts of handicaps -- e.g. wheelchair ramps.
Except that you can lose weight, someone in a wheelchair cannot grow legs/nerves/bones (or whatever else is preventing them from being able to walk). You said yourself it wouldn't be easy to lose weight, but it is possible. For better or worse, your weight is your responsibility. It is inappropriate for you to expect society to conform to your needs. It's different when someone cannot change their condition, which is why we (try to) make things easier for the lame, the blind, the deaf, and, of course, Pamela Anderson.
...can I eat fat people...
... Mad Cow Disease...
Yeah, but you'll develop
What the hell, Mr. Insensitive? What are you trying to say?