Re:Sounds like a winner to me...or not
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 1
Well, with the revenue growth they're seeing, it's a lot better than the dotcoms of yesteryears. And they are undoubtedly the number 1 player in their fast growing field. Yes, they're spending a lot on marketing, and someday they'll have to pull back a bit on that to transform revenue into profit. Marketing expense is something they can control and reduce at will. I'd be more concerned if their fixed overhead (like maintaining their network, etc) was higher than their revenue.
Most of the docoms that died simply did not have a business plan that could generate a profit. It was the classical 3 step process of 1.create a dotcom 2.??? 3.Profit! - and there simply was no #2 in sight.
(of course it'd be very unwise to make investment decisions based on my personal opinion)
But it isn't... It's completely legit. In additional to the email, all the customers (myself included) got a system broadcasted voicemail. I don't think that spammers/fishers would be able to do that. The voicemail has the same information as the email did.
I also know the email is most likely legit because it was sent to a very specific email address that only Vonage knows and uses (I create a new email alias for each company I deal with. That way I can delete that email address if it gets abused by that company, or a third-party affiliate of that company).
I guess it may have been a mistake on their site to make a brand new domain name for this stuff - not sure what the reason for doing it, but in this day and age it does indeed raise flags about fishing.
List them? Ok, here it is: the supine press, the Iraq war, the WMD lies, the illegal NSA wiretapping, the unprecedented level of corruption, Katrina, global warming, and so on. I guess he must be "spot on" because you say so? The only thing that was spot on was his impersonation of a conspiracy theorist.
I hate Bush, I love Colbert and I loved his performance. But it was just that, a performance. He hasn't said anything that anybody hasn't said before (on the Tonight Show, for example). Everybody loves to make fun of Bush, makes him look like an idiot (just because he says "nucular") and incompetent. It's not original, it's not unusual, it's not newsworthy.
It was somewhat newsworthy in a sense that it takes some balls to make fun of somebody in his/her face, especially when that person is the "leader of the free world" (or something like that). I'll give you that. But it's also what was expected of him when he was hired for the gig, and the content of his act was nothing that wasn't heard before by him, or countless other comedians.
He didn't speak the "raw truth", he didn't even speak half truths. He exagerated facts, twisted them in a funny way, made up other facts to fit the theme, and collaged the whole thing into a funny piece. Don't get my wrong, it does ring true to people with a certain political inclinations (like me, and obviously you) but don't delude yourself into thinking that this was anything but a good fun piece of political satire/comedy. Other than on Slashdot, and perhaps a few other websites, it's not gonna make news other than a few lines within a larger article about the event itself.
Don't get me wrong - I love Colbert. I haven't seen too many of his new shows, but I am a huge fan of the Daily Show. I laugh my ass off when I watch that show. I largely agree with the general "liberal" overtones of the show. But it's a comedy show, and nothing but. John Stewart himself had to remind the two clowns on that Crossfire show in person (now THAT was a bit of a political statement about the press, but he was there as himself and not in character).
At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious.
You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time).
I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.
It is plaintiff to make a case, and submit proof for it (evidence).
Then the defendent gets to disprove the case (if there is one to disprove), you know, show how all the evidence is a whole lot of BS, or provide counter-evidence.
If your calculator has a 200+GB harddrive, fairly high end video and audio outputs, built-in TV tuner(s), MPEG encoding and decoding, then that's a heck of a calculator. Your comparison is nowhere near close. A PVR IS a full blown computer in a "desktop computer" sense of the word in a small factor "stereo rack" format. So no keyboard and mouse but most PVRs even have an ethernet port and/or a modem and/or USB ports. Yes, they have a custom motherboard - they don't grab an ATX motherboard off the shelf (but neither does Dell) but it's all the same stuff on that motherboard that you'll see in a PC. They don't make it easy to put your own OS on there, or customize the software, but it's been done.
I believe that you saw the device, I just don't believe the friend of yours that told you $39.
My wife used to work for a famous Taiwanese computer maker that has almost all its manufacturing in China. It's not quite that cheap to make a computer, even a low end ones (and a DVR is essentially a computer - it's got almost all the same components - and not really a low end one at that). Even if you forget about all the licensing costs, R&D, fixed overhead, distribution and marketing costs (which I am sure were not in that $39 price tag either) you won't get a DVR out the door in China for $39. Maybe some day, but not today, and certainly not yesterday.
Makes for a great story, but doesn't sound likely at all. Even a cheap chinese OEM can't put a DVR together for $39. The component costs (like a large harddrive, a must for DVRs) are higher than that - even in China.
The software costs of Tivo to the manufacturers are minimal, if not zero. Where Tivo makes its money is the subscriptions ($13/mo or whatever it's up to now) - that's their business model. They hook you on the subscriptions by actually subsidizing the costs of the hardware made by others (in the form of a mail-in rebate usually) making it free (or close to it).
Well, probably 22 years on the mainframe a few decades ago. He doesn't know a thing about anything that isn't green and black and/or involve punch cards. I see a lot of those around where I work, although most of them are smart enough to know their skills are outdated, and don't pretend to know these new(er) technologies. Not this guy apparently.
Well, I don't think anything is legally required at all. It's just something a good journalist won't do, write commentaries on companies they have a vested interest in. Some people consider disclosure a good enough ethical "loophole" to allow such behavior, others don't.
It's usually considered to be a conflict of interest. That's fine for you to do it, but generally journalist (in as much as this guy is a journalist at all, he mostly writes trash for Forbes) are supposed to refrain from it. Not required by law I don't think, just an ethical/professional thing.
Yes, I was just disputing the parent's claim that 911 is not to be used to call the police. That is a ridiculous assertion (to say the least). If you need to call the police for anything other than let's say get a new parking sticker, 911 is what you dial. If you need immediate action (such as in this case) from the police, then it's an emergency. Maybe not a life threatening emergency, but still an emergency.
911 is the right way to call the police, when there is an emergency. Emergencies don't neccessarily have to involve fires or physical injuries. The 911 center will dispatch police, fire and ambulance as needed. Most police departments also have non-emergency numbers (not neccessarily staffed 24 hours) for the mundane stuff. In my town it is the same people that answer the 911 call, but I guess it allows them to prioritize the calls.
Unfortunately for him, it also doesn't matter. Many people are still using Office 97 or earlier, and it works just fine for the them. All the stuff they've added since (UI tweaks aside, which nobody cares about - some people downright hate them) I've yet to ever use. I don't doubt there are organizations out there that use every last of the collaboration/groupware features they've added, but I think that is a very very small minority of their user-base.
So in other words, Open Office is doing just fine with its feature set. It actually the one feature Office hasn't yet offered, and that's PDF conversion. That is a feature Microsoft has puposefully chosen to ignore even though the demand for that is HUGE. I hear they will have it in the next version. It's about time.
You misread the article. Quote from the article: "Goodmail's program is 100-percent opt-in; Goodmail strictly disallows those who have not previously secured the expressed consent of consumers from signing up for Goodmail tokens."
In other words, Goodmail requires the mailers to have optained "opt-in" from the recipients. The usual "opt-out" link at the bottom of most spam is not acceptable. What's not clear to me, if how they can enforce that the recipient has indeed opted-in the mass mailing. But it's probably a pretty safe bet that spam outfits will not be able to buy "Goodmail tokens".
I have FiOS (about 8 months now) and Vonage (2 years). They work together beautifully. While it is possible that in the future Verizon may choose to block Vonage (or any other service), sadly it's a possibility will all consumer broadband providers (including Comcast, the subject of today's article). Short of laws preventing the pipe owner from doing things like that, there is just not a whole lot you can do about it, other than switching providers (who again, can, will, or does the same to begin with).
I am familiar with these laws, I actually read the document you linked to (you seem to have read it selectively, specifically forgot the long list of exempted workers) and I maintain my assertion. After this law was last revised recently by the Bush administration, almost no white colared salaried workers will get overtime, and working longer than 40 hours is ok, but often expected.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, with the revenue growth they're seeing, it's a lot better than the dotcoms of yesteryears. And they are undoubtedly the number 1 player in their fast growing field. Yes, they're spending a lot on marketing, and someday they'll have to pull back a bit on that to transform revenue into profit. Marketing expense is something they can control and reduce at will. I'd be more concerned if their fixed overhead (like maintaining their network, etc) was higher than their revenue.
Most of the docoms that died simply did not have a business plan that could generate a profit. It was the classical 3 step process of 1.create a dotcom 2.??? 3.Profit! - and there simply was no #2 in sight.
(of course it'd be very unwise to make investment decisions based on my personal opinion)
But it isn't... It's completely legit. In additional to the email, all the customers (myself included) got a system broadcasted voicemail. I don't think that spammers/fishers would be able to do that. The voicemail has the same information as the email did.
I also know the email is most likely legit because it was sent to a very specific email address that only Vonage knows and uses (I create a new email alias for each company I deal with. That way I can delete that email address if it gets abused by that company, or a third-party affiliate of that company).
I guess it may have been a mistake on their site to make a brand new domain name for this stuff - not sure what the reason for doing it, but in this day and age it does indeed raise flags about fishing.
Hmmm... I guess the moderators disagreed with you on that one.
I am perfectly relaxed. One could say serene, even.
Thanks for the mature reply. It brings a lot to the discussion.
List them? Ok, here it is: the supine press, the Iraq war, the WMD lies, the illegal NSA wiretapping, the unprecedented level of corruption, Katrina, global warming, and so on. I guess he must be "spot on" because you say so? The only thing that was spot on was his impersonation of a conspiracy theorist.
I hate Bush, I love Colbert and I loved his performance. But it was just that, a performance. He hasn't said anything that anybody hasn't said before (on the Tonight Show, for example). Everybody loves to make fun of Bush, makes him look like an idiot (just because he says "nucular") and incompetent. It's not original, it's not unusual, it's not newsworthy.
Yeah, I get it. Not funny. Unless it's the truth, then it's not really funny either (but probably newsworthy).
I heard that part, and didn't get it. Must be a real insider's joke, or just not funny. I don't know, maybe somebody can explain...
It was somewhat newsworthy in a sense that it takes some balls to make fun of somebody in his/her face, especially when that person is the "leader of the free world" (or something like that). I'll give you that. But it's also what was expected of him when he was hired for the gig, and the content of his act was nothing that wasn't heard before by him, or countless other comedians.
He didn't speak the "raw truth", he didn't even speak half truths. He exagerated facts, twisted them in a funny way, made up other facts to fit the theme, and collaged the whole thing into a funny piece. Don't get my wrong, it does ring true to people with a certain political inclinations (like me, and obviously you) but don't delude yourself into thinking that this was anything but a good fun piece of political satire/comedy. Other than on Slashdot, and perhaps a few other websites, it's not gonna make news other than a few lines within a larger article about the event itself.
Don't get me wrong - I love Colbert. I haven't seen too many of his new shows, but I am a huge fan of the Daily Show. I laugh my ass off when I watch that show. I largely agree with the general "liberal" overtones of the show. But it's a comedy show, and nothing but. John Stewart himself had to remind the two clowns on that Crossfire show in person (now THAT was a bit of a political statement about the press, but he was there as himself and not in character).
At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious.
You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time).
I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.
Thus the word disprove.
It is plaintiff to make a case, and submit proof for it (evidence).
Then the defendent gets to disprove the case (if there is one to disprove), you know, show how all the evidence is a whole lot of BS, or provide counter-evidence.
If your calculator has a 200+GB harddrive, fairly high end video and audio outputs, built-in TV tuner(s), MPEG encoding and decoding, then that's a heck of a calculator. Your comparison is nowhere near close. A PVR IS a full blown computer in a "desktop computer" sense of the word in a small factor "stereo rack" format. So no keyboard and mouse but most PVRs even have an ethernet port and/or a modem and/or USB ports. Yes, they have a custom motherboard - they don't grab an ATX motherboard off the shelf (but neither does Dell) but it's all the same stuff on that motherboard that you'll see in a PC. They don't make it easy to put your own OS on there, or customize the software, but it's been done.
I believe that you saw the device, I just don't believe the friend of yours that told you $39.
My wife used to work for a famous Taiwanese computer maker that has almost all its manufacturing in China. It's not quite that cheap to make a computer, even a low end ones (and a DVR is essentially a computer - it's got almost all the same components - and not really a low end one at that). Even if you forget about all the licensing costs, R&D, fixed overhead, distribution and marketing costs (which I am sure were not in that $39 price tag either) you won't get a DVR out the door in China for $39. Maybe some day, but not today, and certainly not yesterday.
Makes for a great story, but doesn't sound likely at all. Even a cheap chinese OEM can't put a DVR together for $39. The component costs (like a large harddrive, a must for DVRs) are higher than that - even in China.
The software costs of Tivo to the manufacturers are minimal, if not zero. Where Tivo makes its money is the subscriptions ($13/mo or whatever it's up to now) - that's their business model. They hook you on the subscriptions by actually subsidizing the costs of the hardware made by others (in the form of a mail-in rebate usually) making it free (or close to it).
Well, probably 22 years on the mainframe a few decades ago. He doesn't know a thing about anything that isn't green and black and/or involve punch cards. I see a lot of those around where I work, although most of them are smart enough to know their skills are outdated, and don't pretend to know these new(er) technologies. Not this guy apparently.
Well, I don't think anything is legally required at all. It's just something a good journalist won't do, write commentaries on companies they have a vested interest in. Some people consider disclosure a good enough ethical "loophole" to allow such behavior, others don't.
It depends on your level of "ethical-ness" I guess. Some do consider disclosure good enough.
It's usually considered to be a conflict of interest. That's fine for you to do it, but generally journalist (in as much as this guy is a journalist at all, he mostly writes trash for Forbes) are supposed to refrain from it. Not required by law I don't think, just an ethical/professional thing.
Yes, I was just disputing the parent's claim that 911 is not to be used to call the police. That is a ridiculous assertion (to say the least). If you need to call the police for anything other than let's say get a new parking sticker, 911 is what you dial. If you need immediate action (such as in this case) from the police, then it's an emergency. Maybe not a life threatening emergency, but still an emergency.
911 is the right way to call the police, when there is an emergency. Emergencies don't neccessarily have to involve fires or physical injuries. The 911 center will dispatch police, fire and ambulance as needed. Most police departments also have non-emergency numbers (not neccessarily staffed 24 hours) for the mundane stuff. In my town it is the same people that answer the 911 call, but I guess it allows them to prioritize the calls.
Unfortunately for him, it also doesn't matter. Many people are still using Office 97 or earlier, and it works just fine for the them. All the stuff they've added since (UI tweaks aside, which nobody cares about - some people downright hate them) I've yet to ever use. I don't doubt there are organizations out there that use every last of the collaboration/groupware features they've added, but I think that is a very very small minority of their user-base.
So in other words, Open Office is doing just fine with its feature set. It actually the one feature Office hasn't yet offered, and that's PDF conversion. That is a feature Microsoft has puposefully chosen to ignore even though the demand for that is HUGE. I hear they will have it in the next version. It's about time.
You misread the article. Quote from the article: "Goodmail's program is 100-percent opt-in; Goodmail strictly disallows those who have not previously secured the expressed consent of consumers from signing up for Goodmail tokens."
In other words, Goodmail requires the mailers to have optained "opt-in" from the recipients. The usual "opt-out" link at the bottom of most spam is not acceptable. What's not clear to me, if how they can enforce that the recipient has indeed opted-in the mass mailing. But it's probably a pretty safe bet that spam outfits will not be able to buy "Goodmail tokens".
I have FiOS (about 8 months now) and Vonage (2 years). They work together beautifully. While it is possible that in the future Verizon may choose to block Vonage (or any other service), sadly it's a possibility will all consumer broadband providers (including Comcast, the subject of today's article). Short of laws preventing the pipe owner from doing things like that, there is just not a whole lot you can do about it, other than switching providers (who again, can, will, or does the same to begin with).
I am familiar with these laws, I actually read the document you linked to (you seem to have read it selectively, specifically forgot the long list of exempted workers) and I maintain my assertion. After this law was last revised recently by the Bush administration, almost no white colared salaried workers will get overtime, and working longer than 40 hours is ok, but often expected.
It's actually almost never illegal (in the US) if you're a salaried employee.