Yes, the fact that regulations were such that banks were able to make those bets and get bailed out was/is bad. Without the bailout, the actual functioning of the economy would be far worse than it is right now. That's the part I'm claiming they don't understand.
So yeah, protest the bailouts, but it wasn't so simple that it was just cronies and golf buddies, every pension in the country would have vanished without those bailouts. And so freaking on.
Man, you're complaining about 2003. XP is about as fixed as it is ever going to be (and the various email clients stopped auto-executing code years ago) and Vista and Windows 7 both default to prompting the user about every system change.
Oh for fuck's sake. I saw coverage of this crap on CNN on the 18th. Two weeks ago.
The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.
And they don't even understand what they are complaining about; sure, the government bail out of the banks was a bit of a raw deal for the taxpayer (I bet the protesters don't have much to complain about there) and a bit of a terrific deal for the bank, but the thing no taxpayer wants to talk about is that their entire existence is made better by some sort of stability/existence of the dollar. The richer taxpayers really don't want to talk about all the fixed income funds of theirs that the bank bailout saved.
The part where that argument falls apart for me is that Facebook can track the behavior for a logged in cookie separately from a logged out cookie. So they can sell both the 'this is what logged in users look like' and the 'this is what users computers look like'. That they would not be using the data in the way that it is most valuable to them is basically preposterous (for a variety of reasons; they are interested in money, they have a large amount of technical talent, etc.).
I suppose they might have been misrepresenting the data to claim that they had more of it, but like you said, accuracy is more valuable than volume.
Nah, they just estimated that dealing with the backlash was going to cost them more than losing a little bit of data from the small number of people that begin logging out consistently.
I highly doubt it was because of a fundamental misunderstanding about what the logged out cookies were good for.
Trying to represent the point of view of the dimwitted caricature that you think the world needs to be fair to really isn't as interesting as you think it is.
I forgot about TV revenues. Those are probably the biggest chunk. But again, they don't require much work on the part of the actual university administration.
For comparison, the endowment at UofM is about $6.5 billion.
Your argument has a big hole in it. Big schools make their football money off of ticket sales, not hoodies. UofM charges ~$500 for the 'license' to buy many of the season tickets they sell and then another ~$500 for the ticket (they don't have to revenue share the licenses...).
The people spending ~$2,000 for 2 football tickets aren't students. Certainly, the football season is a big deal on campus during the fall and game days are a big deal (that happens when you put 100,000 in a stadium), but the university administration doesn't need to spend much time on the sports programs, they are self funding at big schools. Smaller schools do end up spending money on their sports programs, but the big schools really don't need to.
(Not all seats pay the license fee, and student tickets cost less than $50 a game, but some quick math gets you to the idea that they are pulling in $5 million for each game, just for the tickets, never mind all the other crap; they don't keep all that, but they keep a nice big chunk of it)
Right, because no software vendors ship software with disclaimers to the effect of "This software is unsuitable for any purpose".
Oh wait, they all do.
Microsoft doesn't path security vulnerabilities because they are unable to pass them off as design flaws without the help of government, they patch security vulnerabilities because they know they need to or they will face even greater user erosion.
You really think their attitude is more "See, we can run the world on coffee grounds" than it is "See, you can do all sorts of wacky things, like running a car on coffee grounds"?
No, same numbers in a literal sense. The net sales numbers that they are now reporting as revenues were clearly stated in their earlier filings.
I think the new statement is clearer/better, but not understanding the earlier reporting method would be a good reason to stay the hell away from IPOs.
It may not have been too big a deal, they are basically reporting the same numbers as before, they just aren't using the clever trick where they treat a coupon they make appear from nowhere as something that had a cost to create.
Plenty of people think he (further?) ruined the company with cuts that made for nice short term financial statements and completely ignored the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
What bias is so obvious?
Yeah, and it's all over the news.
People can complain that the coverage is short, but it is there, and it doesn't take all that long to cover their rambling message.
Believe it or not, I'm pretty okay with the idea of using dissolution to solve the problem of bad corporations.
You might frequent a page that has some problematic javascript or something.
I left the humble bundle page open a while back and memory use exploded. Closing that tab fixed it (and I was running Flashblock, so it wasn't flash).
My 10 old Firefox process is using ~400 ram and ~500 virtual. It is addressing 950 megabytes, but 400 of those are not exclusive to the process.
Yes, the fact that regulations were such that banks were able to make those bets and get bailed out was/is bad. Without the bailout, the actual functioning of the economy would be far worse than it is right now. That's the part I'm claiming they don't understand.
So yeah, protest the bailouts, but it wasn't so simple that it was just cronies and golf buddies, every pension in the country would have vanished without those bailouts. And so freaking on.
Man, you're complaining about 2003. XP is about as fixed as it is ever going to be (and the various email clients stopped auto-executing code years ago) and Vista and Windows 7 both default to prompting the user about every system change.
One of your links about major network news coverage being bad is to a major network news site.
It's like the opposite of an Ouroboros.
How about you explain what you mean instead of insinuating things.
Oh for fuck's sake. I saw coverage of this crap on CNN on the 18th. Two weeks ago.
The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.
And they don't even understand what they are complaining about; sure, the government bail out of the banks was a bit of a raw deal for the taxpayer (I bet the protesters don't have much to complain about there) and a bit of a terrific deal for the bank, but the thing no taxpayer wants to talk about is that their entire existence is made better by some sort of stability/existence of the dollar. The richer taxpayers really don't want to talk about all the fixed income funds of theirs that the bank bailout saved.
The part where that argument falls apart for me is that Facebook can track the behavior for a logged in cookie separately from a logged out cookie. So they can sell both the 'this is what logged in users look like' and the 'this is what users computers look like'. That they would not be using the data in the way that it is most valuable to them is basically preposterous (for a variety of reasons; they are interested in money, they have a large amount of technical talent, etc.).
I suppose they might have been misrepresenting the data to claim that they had more of it, but like you said, accuracy is more valuable than volume.
I tend to believe Facebook's unequivocal denial that they sell user-tracking information more than I believe your "They do so".
(It's plenty believable to me that their initiatives to put Facebook content on other sites are simply about getting people to use Facebook more...)
Nah, they just estimated that dealing with the backlash was going to cost them more than losing a little bit of data from the small number of people that begin logging out consistently.
I highly doubt it was because of a fundamental misunderstanding about what the logged out cookies were good for.
It was advice, not an offer.
Trying to represent the point of view of the dimwitted caricature that you think the world needs to be fair to really isn't as interesting as you think it is.
I forgot about TV revenues. Those are probably the biggest chunk. But again, they don't require much work on the part of the actual university administration.
For comparison, the endowment at UofM is about $6.5 billion.
Your argument has a big hole in it. Big schools make their football money off of ticket sales, not hoodies. UofM charges ~$500 for the 'license' to buy many of the season tickets they sell and then another ~$500 for the ticket (they don't have to revenue share the licenses...).
The people spending ~$2,000 for 2 football tickets aren't students. Certainly, the football season is a big deal on campus during the fall and game days are a big deal (that happens when you put 100,000 in a stadium), but the university administration doesn't need to spend much time on the sports programs, they are self funding at big schools. Smaller schools do end up spending money on their sports programs, but the big schools really don't need to.
(Not all seats pay the license fee, and student tickets cost less than $50 a game, but some quick math gets you to the idea that they are pulling in $5 million for each game, just for the tickets, never mind all the other crap; they don't keep all that, but they keep a nice big chunk of it)
Right, because no software vendors ship software with disclaimers to the effect of "This software is unsuitable for any purpose".
Oh wait, they all do.
Microsoft doesn't path security vulnerabilities because they are unable to pass them off as design flaws without the help of government, they patch security vulnerabilities because they know they need to or they will face even greater user erosion.
Uh, you is excused.
Sorry if describing part of the reality of how the board makes decision is offensive.
You really think their attitude is more "See, we can run the world on coffee grounds" than it is "See, you can do all sorts of wacky things, like running a car on coffee grounds"?
No, same numbers in a literal sense. The net sales numbers that they are now reporting as revenues were clearly stated in their earlier filings.
I think the new statement is clearer/better, but not understanding the earlier reporting method would be a good reason to stay the hell away from IPOs.
Their "profit" in the first half of 2011 was a loss of $253 million...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/000104746911008207/a2205238zs-1a.htm#toc_ce79801_1
It may not have been too big a deal, they are basically reporting the same numbers as before, they just aren't using the clever trick where they treat a coupon they make appear from nowhere as something that had a cost to create.
The perception is that the right CEO can increase profits by tens of millions of dollars a year.
This gives the 'right' candidate lots and lots of negotiating power.
Plenty of people think he (further?) ruined the company with cuts that made for nice short term financial statements and completely ignored the long term.
The summary says Dreamworks Animation, do the articles vary?
That's a much smaller catalog aimed right at the most extreme repeat viewers.
I did, but apparently I wasn't thinking very clearly. These things happen.