On certain DVD players, usually made by not very well known Chinese companies. It's not illegal to do so, but those manufacturers may have breached their contract with the DVD-Concortium (wish gives the license to make DVD players) by allowing this.
gmail doesn't have a folder/subfolder structure. They have labels, other than that mail is either in your box or in the archive. It is a bit of an adjustment.
Who says Yahoo is worth its market capitalization either? But regardless, Yahoo is a different company. The only thing they really have in common is they are both internet stocks. What I am asking is to look at Google, its business model, the numbers they've published (for revenue, etc) and make the determination based on that. Those are the only numbers a smart investor will consider. Any other consideration is just gambling.
Right. I am going by the current numbers of shares they've putting out.
Re:Pre-IPO getting less shares owners selling less
on
Google Slashes IPO price
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Do you really believe that a company like Google is worth $100+ a share? No offense to Google - I love their search engine and gmail - and it is a profitable company, but really look at their business model and tell me that it's worth tens of billions in market capitalization. If you think so you're out of your mind. Anyone getting in at those level are hoping for a short term increase (right after the IPO) to make some cash. Long term, that price has only one place to go: down.
If Mexico has all the facilities (and capacities) to host all the events (there are many, many events - including sports that most likely are not played in Mexico much if at all) and the visitors in safe and efficient way, then good for Mexico! Maybe you should apply to host the Olympics and do it on the cheap.
But I guess Greece felt they did not have adequate facilities and infrastructures. I think both you and I would be hard press to tell them otherwise.
I am aware of the corruption, it's sad. I trust they are isolated incidents and will be dealt with. I don't believe in a large conspiracy theory that the whole Olympic movement is rotten. Maybe I am naive.
It would work for me, and it seems it would make some sense (it still wouldn't be cheap though - security alone is costing more than 1 billion in Athens). Of course, oddly enough countries and city line up for the honor of hosting the Olympics in spite of the great expenses. So this proposal is not likely to receive much success.
It think it would be better if this was a distributed affair, where many country each host one event. And then one country would get the honor and prestige of hosting the opening ceremony. Just a thought. With planes it seems a bit uneccessary to concentrate the games in one country.
I have no problems with that suggestion. Let's see if the Greeks would agree with that. Even if you could reuse the stadiums over and over (which you can't, eventually you have to renovate or rebuild), it will still cost them hundreds of millions each time. Maybe each country that participate could share the costs? Doubtful considering that the US (for example) won't even pay it's UN bill on time (if at all).
It would be a bit of a shame though (I could get over it though) because part of the allure of the modern games, as a spectator, is the different city and culture every time. Makes our world feel a lot smaller than it really is (which is part of the goals of the games too).
Even if it was a no frills affaire without an opening ceremony it would still cost billions. There are more countries (and athletes) participating than ever, more sports than ever, and in our very mobile society, more visitors than ever. You can't host millions of people and not spend some serious money on stadium, security and infrastructure. That stuff is NEVER cheap - repaving half a mile of highway a few miles from where I live cost tens of millions. Plans to build a small-ish hockey arena in my city is running $250 millions... You do the math! You just can't escape it.
Should be Olympics be only 3-5 sports and only 2 people from each country should be invited? Maybe. That might bring the cost down.
Well - several reasons. First of all, there weren't 200+ countries competing in 776BC or 1896. If you want to host the Olympics you have to build stadiums, and accomodations for the athletes, coaches and visitors. And improved infrastructure to the city. There is no way around it - you can't have millions of people converge on a city at the same time and not do some serious work to handle that. There is not one city in the world capable of doing it without massive constructions (unless you want to have the Olympics in the same city over and over like in 776BC). Also, security by itself is costing upwards of $1 billion for these games. In short: your answer is time has changed.
Could some of the costs could be avoided by not putting such a fancy show on? I don't doubt it for a second. However, I don't think it will add up to much savings - in the end most of the costs is still brick and mortar (and concrete), not Bjorn's gigantic dress.
But then again, once upon a time the Olympics didn't cost 6 billion dollars to organize either. It's a sad reality, but keeping sponsors happy is the only thing that makes such an event possible nowadays.
6 billion dollars is a lot of money in any country. But it's especially a lot in a country of 10 million inhabitants.
Oooohh... An analyst... Fancy word for someone with no marketable skills. I'm impressed (yeah right). I got news for you, being an "analyst" is a built-in feature of being an engineer.
EE are not knowledgeable on anything with power. But the concepts here are RF 101. A sophomore EE could tell you you're full of it.
I don't doubt you were able to con clueless people with your pseudo-knowledge at Circuit City and make a decent living out of it (another reason I never go to Circuit City: commissioned predators). I've seen it happens in many such stores countless times. Sometimes it takes everything I got to keep a straight face when I overhear a salesman dazzling its unsuspecting prey.
Get over yourself. You know squat about phone other than what batteries to put in them and which has the shiniest box.
They don't, and people like ourself with Vonage-like services that interfaces with POTS are most definetely covered by the Do Not Call list. As far as them spamming my little VoIP box from Cisco - well, I may be a bit naive but I hope that it will only accept calls from my provider. If that feature isn't in already, I am sure it will be added days after voip spam starts.
The re-read the post you were replying to. You'd notice that frequency is ALL he was talking.
An engineer like myself has NEVER EVER needed a salesman from Circuit City other that go find the product. I avoid that place like the plague specifically because of annoying sales people that actually think they know anything at all of use. I doubt an engineer has EVER asked "how does it work?" about any phones. I think you know squat about phones considering you've probably never seen a non-display working model outside of a shrinkwrapped box (other than the one of two phones you may have bought for yourself with the employee discount). And you should know that the specs of a product written on the box rarely counts as "facts" - if they did, then you wouldn't have a zillion review sites on the net to test products to see if they meet expectations.
As far as why some 2.4GHz may have better range than the 900MHz phones - go read the rest of the posts. Frequency is only one part of the equations. 2.4GHz have better range in spite of their frequency, not because. The whole point of the thread is that frequency is a marketing ploy. It means very little.
Lovely language by the way, did that get your far at Circuit City? Just wondering - that kind of language rarely impress anyone when trying to have an argument.
I wouldn't brag about working at Circuit City as a skill or source of knowledge. No offense, but being able to repeat the marketing text written on the boxes is not that impressive. As an electrical engineer, I can vouch (from real knowledge) that he's correct about lower frequencies and range. Not to say that there aren't other benefits to the higher frequency phones, but range is not it.
In fact, a variation on that theme is being tried by SCO. Only it's about copyrights, not patents. Everybody in their right might say they tactic is silly and not likely to win - but guess what? Didn't stop them from suing end users just for FUD creation.
There is a difference though. The amount of discovery will be significantly more limited. It won't be the all out protracted fishing expedition that SCO has been trying to do with IBM. Now, SCO might try anyway - and probably will given their history - but they'll probably be slammed by the judge if they do.
It would not be unreasonable to suggest that those sites that would install such software tend to be more computer oriented and thus visited by more tech savvy visitors
Yes, it would be unreasonable. Websitestory is one of those pagecounter services (add an image at the bottom of your page kind of deal). If anything, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the sites that use it are NOT computer oriented (since a site like slashdot knows how to implement their own counters).
These service plans specifically exclude things like "negligence" (or in your cage, sabotage). Manufacturer warranties also don't. So if you're going to intentionally break something, you better do it in a very very non obvious way.
Slashdot Mirror
On certain DVD players, usually made by not very well known Chinese companies. It's not illegal to do so, but those manufacturers may have breached their contract with the DVD-Concortium (wish gives the license to make DVD players) by allowing this.
Isn't breaching a contract against the law? Maybe not a criminal offense, but nevertheless illegal.
A keyboard without the springs would be aweful. I like the concept of putting LCDs in the plastic bits, but gotta have them.
I know the difference. Have you never ever made typos in your life?
gmail doesn't have a folder/subfolder structure. They have labels, other than that mail is either in your box or in the archive. It is a bit of an adjustment.
3. yes there is, I imported all my Outlook address book into Gmail. Look again, it's a new feature (within the last two months).
4. their interface works perfectly under firefox. It is not IE only.
This is a beta service. Except improvements.
Why don't you read my post again? I do talk about market cap.
Who says Yahoo is worth its market capitalization either? But regardless, Yahoo is a different company. The only thing they really have in common is they are both internet stocks. What I am asking is to look at Google, its business model, the numbers they've published (for revenue, etc) and make the determination based on that. Those are the only numbers a smart investor will consider. Any other consideration is just gambling.
Right. I am going by the current numbers of shares they've putting out.
Do you really believe that a company like Google is worth $100+ a share? No offense to Google - I love their search engine and gmail - and it is a profitable company, but really look at their business model and tell me that it's worth tens of billions in market capitalization. If you think so you're out of your mind. Anyone getting in at those level are hoping for a short term increase (right after the IPO) to make some cash. Long term, that price has only one place to go: down.
If Mexico has all the facilities (and capacities) to host all the events (there are many, many events - including sports that most likely are not played in Mexico much if at all) and the visitors in safe and efficient way, then good for Mexico! Maybe you should apply to host the Olympics and do it on the cheap.
But I guess Greece felt they did not have adequate facilities and infrastructures. I think both you and I would be hard press to tell them otherwise.
I am aware of the corruption, it's sad. I trust they are isolated incidents and will be dealt with. I don't believe in a large conspiracy theory that the whole Olympic movement is rotten. Maybe I am naive.
It would work for me, and it seems it would make some sense (it still wouldn't be cheap though - security alone is costing more than 1 billion in Athens). Of course, oddly enough countries and city line up for the honor of hosting the Olympics in spite of the great expenses. So this proposal is not likely to receive much success.
It think it would be better if this was a distributed affair, where many country each host one event. And then one country would get the honor and prestige of hosting the opening ceremony. Just a thought. With planes it seems a bit uneccessary to concentrate the games in one country.
I have no problems with that suggestion. Let's see if the Greeks would agree with that. Even if you could reuse the stadiums over and over (which you can't, eventually you have to renovate or rebuild), it will still cost them hundreds of millions each time. Maybe each country that participate could share the costs? Doubtful considering that the US (for example) won't even pay it's UN bill on time (if at all).
It would be a bit of a shame though (I could get over it though) because part of the allure of the modern games, as a spectator, is the different city and culture every time. Makes our world feel a lot smaller than it really is (which is part of the goals of the games too).
Even if it was a no frills affaire without an opening ceremony it would still cost billions. There are more countries (and athletes) participating than ever, more sports than ever, and in our very mobile society, more visitors than ever. You can't host millions of people and not spend some serious money on stadium, security and infrastructure. That stuff is NEVER cheap - repaving half a mile of highway a few miles from where I live cost tens of millions. Plans to build a small-ish hockey arena in my city is running $250 millions... You do the math! You just can't escape it.
Should be Olympics be only 3-5 sports and only 2 people from each country should be invited? Maybe. That might bring the cost down.
Well - several reasons. First of all, there weren't 200+ countries competing in 776BC or 1896. If you want to host the Olympics you have to build stadiums, and accomodations for the athletes, coaches and visitors. And improved infrastructure to the city. There is no way around it - you can't have millions of people converge on a city at the same time and not do some serious work to handle that. There is not one city in the world capable of doing it without massive constructions (unless you want to have the Olympics in the same city over and over like in 776BC). Also, security by itself is costing upwards of $1 billion for these games. In short: your answer is time has changed.
Could some of the costs could be avoided by not putting such a fancy show on? I don't doubt it for a second. However, I don't think it will add up to much savings - in the end most of the costs is still brick and mortar (and concrete), not Bjorn's gigantic dress.
But then again, once upon a time the Olympics didn't cost 6 billion dollars to organize either. It's a sad reality, but keeping sponsors happy is the only thing that makes such an event possible nowadays.
6 billion dollars is a lot of money in any country. But it's especially a lot in a country of 10 million inhabitants.
Oooohh... An analyst... Fancy word for someone with no marketable skills. I'm impressed (yeah right). I got news for you, being an "analyst" is a built-in feature of being an engineer.
EE are not knowledgeable on anything with power. But the concepts here are RF 101. A sophomore EE could tell you you're full of it.
I don't doubt you were able to con clueless people with your pseudo-knowledge at Circuit City and make a decent living out of it (another reason I never go to Circuit City: commissioned predators). I've seen it happens in many such stores countless times. Sometimes it takes everything I got to keep a straight face when I overhear a salesman dazzling its unsuspecting prey.
Get over yourself. You know squat about phone other than what batteries to put in them and which has the shiniest box.
I will have a great day, thanks.
They don't, and people like ourself with Vonage-like services that interfaces with POTS are most definetely covered by the Do Not Call list. As far as them spamming my little VoIP box from Cisco - well, I may be a bit naive but I hope that it will only accept calls from my provider. If that feature isn't in already, I am sure it will be added days after voip spam starts.
The re-read the post you were replying to. You'd notice that frequency is ALL he was talking.
An engineer like myself has NEVER EVER needed a salesman from Circuit City other that go find the product. I avoid that place like the plague specifically because of annoying sales people that actually think they know anything at all of use. I doubt an engineer has EVER asked "how does it work?" about any phones. I think you know squat about phones considering you've probably never seen a non-display working model outside of a shrinkwrapped box (other than the one of two phones you may have bought for yourself with the employee discount). And you should know that the specs of a product written on the box rarely counts as "facts" - if they did, then you wouldn't have a zillion review sites on the net to test products to see if they meet expectations.
As far as why some 2.4GHz may have better range than the 900MHz phones - go read the rest of the posts. Frequency is only one part of the equations. 2.4GHz have better range in spite of their frequency, not because. The whole point of the thread is that frequency is a marketing ploy. It means very little.
Lovely language by the way, did that get your far at Circuit City? Just wondering - that kind of language rarely impress anyone when trying to have an argument.
I wouldn't brag about working at Circuit City as a skill or source of knowledge. No offense, but being able to repeat the marketing text written on the boxes is not that impressive. As an electrical engineer, I can vouch (from real knowledge) that he's correct about lower frequencies and range. Not to say that there aren't other benefits to the higher frequency phones, but range is not it.
In fact, a variation on that theme is being tried by SCO. Only it's about copyrights, not patents. Everybody in their right might say they tactic is silly and not likely to win - but guess what? Didn't stop them from suing end users just for FUD creation.
You can only hope. All commercials are annoying, but those are especially so.
There is a difference though. The amount of discovery will be significantly more limited. It won't be the all out protracted fishing expedition that SCO has been trying to do with IBM. Now, SCO might try anyway - and probably will given their history - but they'll probably be slammed by the judge if they do.
It would not be unreasonable to suggest that those sites that would install such software tend to be more computer oriented and thus visited by more tech savvy visitors
Yes, it would be unreasonable. Websitestory is one of those pagecounter services (add an image at the bottom of your page kind of deal). If anything, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the sites that use it are NOT computer oriented (since a site like slashdot knows how to implement their own counters).
These service plans specifically exclude things like "negligence" (or in your cage, sabotage). Manufacturer warranties also don't. So if you're going to intentionally break something, you better do it in a very very non obvious way.