"The Board of Directors believes that the name change would be in the best interests of the Company because the new name better reflects the long-term growth strategy of the Company."
Yes, that's exactly what we need. Turning foliage into fuel. That'll save the Earth, as every Brazilian and Indonesian tears the rainforest apart to sell ethanol...
It's probably Brazil's fault - 420 million metric tons of sugar cane scares the 280 million metric tons of corn produced in the US per year. Gotta save our farmers from being obsolete since we can't even feed our pigs all that corn.
(Though politicians will probably blame Cuba's meager 12 million metric tons, conveniently closer to the Eastern US than the Midwest.)
Telling voters "I voted for this bill that brought gasoline down five cents a gallon" is probably more votes than $100,000 of advertising. Politicians aren't that stupid.
I think seeing a rendered boob is less commercially viable than rendered killing - since really seeing real boobs are significantly more rewarding than really killing real people. Thus, its not worth the effort to fight the ESRB over petty things like an M rating no one will ever care about.
The actual numbers for traffic, from his source, are 1.6 million man-hours and 8 million gallons of gas. The average American makes $16.49 per hour, and gas costs $2.78 per gallon. So traffic consumes $48 million dollars per day.
(Note that at 800 million gallons a day, the gas alone would cost $2.22 billion per day, or $812 billion a year - or 6.5% of GDP.)
as small does of radiation are much less lethal than small doses of humanity...
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
The company can sue the employee who leaks a "secret" but once it has been leaked to the public, it's no longer "secret" - and its permissible to be published. The company has to prove that it does take efforts to keep it a secret (NDAs, etc), and if a reporter discovers it without it being leaked, then it's corporate espionage. If its leaked, then its a breach of contract with the company.
The question is how the secret became public in the first place. Obviously, if the John Doe who runs the blog is an Apple employee, a civil case will be straight-forward. If the blogger misappropriated the "secret" (ie conducted industrial espionage), then it's a criminal case - though the standard of proving guilt is significantly higher. A criminal investigation could establish if the blogger is breaking security measures or subpoena the defendant for his sources, and possibly land the blogger in Contempt.
Also worth noting, if Apple doesn't sue, then that could be taken as evidence they aren't trying to keep their "secrets" secret, and when something important gets leaked, they're screwed.
The problem with that statement is that spending on gas is largely independent of income, while spending on cars is not. Increasing the tax uniformly would place most of the incidence of the tax on the people least able to pay. Almost all economists will tell you a gas tax is actually one of the least "fair" methods of curbing oil consumption.
Obviously you can turn the TV off. And if someone is standing on the sidewalk in front of your house with a sign you disagree with, you can go back into your house. The point isn't that you don't have an alternative - you can always shut your eyes and plug your ears.
The point is I wasn't looking for it. If an ad were as innocuous as "look at our website for more info" I wouldn't mind. I'm all about the First Amendment, I'm just tired of modern political ads. They very rarely contribute any useful information to make a civic decision from.
People need to be dragged into the political process, and advertising could/should be used for that. But I'm so tired of morally repugnant attack ads flashing on TV every ten minutes. That's why I won't be watching TV this fall.
If you choose to go to a website, that's your choice. If they have a beowulf cluster with more bandwidth than God, with 100 live video feeds 24/7 for one candidate - you're choosing to go there, and it's not intruding on you. I don't care how they raised the money for it. IMHO, it's like visiting a campaign headquarters. That's public information.
And if I see one damned ad on TV, I want tougher regulations. That's intrusive. Like all this damned political spam. One deserves to be unregulated and one deserves to be banned.
Furthermore, if the RNC wants to have its own cable TV station (*coughox*) that it pays for, and the DNC wants one too, I don't see a problem with any amount of spending on that. As long as you can block those channels to prevent your kids from watching that trash...
Yes. I remember once trying to convince people that Google was better than Yahoo. I explained that Google was even more amazing, and people listened. 6 years later, Yahoo declined a lot in the search engine arena, but I still go there every day for other features. 65 million users and growing will be worth something to someone, even when a better social networking system emerges.
The difference is that today, Google is a household name internationally, that has billions in profits. Slightly different than investing in Dr. Koop.com.
The fact that a patent is in the public domain (with obvious exception of classified patents) means that you have the right to read and understand it. If you could not know what the patent contained, then you could not, with any amount of due diligence, avoid infringing it. Thus, for it to have any legal credibility, it must be able to understand it and know it to violate it. While not knowing is no defense, not being able to know is.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Board of Directors believes that the name change would be in the best interests of the Company because the new name better reflects the long-term growth strategy of the Company."
Seems pretty straightforward: Phantom growth strategy.
Yes, but only GE's costs are listed in TFA :)
(If I thought it were Enron, I wouldn't be a shareholder.)
Make that .009%...
GE's Section 404 controls cost: $33 million .09%
.1% to ensure I don't lose 100%.
GE's Market Cap: $365 billion
Percentage of Capital spent to make sure they're honest:
As a GE stockholder, I'm happy with that. I will always be willing to pay
Blame Canada.
Now I can finally find who keeps Britney Spears in the newspapers...
If you patented points and lines, it would be a big boost to 3D development...
Yes, that's exactly what we need. Turning foliage into fuel. That'll save the Earth, as every Brazilian and Indonesian tears the rainforest apart to sell ethanol...
It's probably Brazil's fault - 420 million metric tons of sugar cane scares the 280 million metric tons of corn produced in the US per year. Gotta save our farmers from being obsolete since we can't even feed our pigs all that corn.
(Though politicians will probably blame Cuba's meager 12 million metric tons, conveniently closer to the Eastern US than the Midwest.)
Telling voters "I voted for this bill that brought gasoline down five cents a gallon" is probably more votes than $100,000 of advertising. Politicians aren't that stupid.
[13-year-old voice] LOL!!!!!!!! BBQ!!!! OMG, Sooooo kewl!!!
I think seeing a rendered boob is less commercially viable than rendered killing - since really seeing real boobs are significantly more rewarding than really killing real people. Thus, its not worth the effort to fight the ESRB over petty things like an M rating no one will ever care about.
It's mostly a demographic problem - there are a lot more old veterans dying than today's smaller miitary can accomodate.
The actual numbers for traffic, from his source, are 1.6 million man-hours and 8 million gallons of gas. The average American makes $16.49 per hour, and gas costs $2.78 per gallon. So traffic consumes $48 million dollars per day.
(Note that at 800 million gallons a day, the gas alone would cost $2.22 billion per day, or $812 billion a year - or 6.5% of GDP.)
as small does of radiation are much less lethal than small doses of humanity...
The company can sue the employee who leaks a "secret" but once it has been leaked to the public, it's no longer "secret" - and its permissible to be published. The company has to prove that it does take efforts to keep it a secret (NDAs, etc), and if a reporter discovers it without it being leaked, then it's corporate espionage. If its leaked, then its a breach of contract with the company.
The question is how the secret became public in the first place. Obviously, if the John Doe who runs the blog is an Apple employee, a civil case will be straight-forward. If the blogger misappropriated the "secret" (ie conducted industrial espionage), then it's a criminal case - though the standard of proving guilt is significantly higher. A criminal investigation could establish if the blogger is breaking security measures or subpoena the defendant for his sources, and possibly land the blogger in Contempt.
Also worth noting, if Apple doesn't sue, then that could be taken as evidence they aren't trying to keep their "secrets" secret, and when something important gets leaked, they're screwed.
The problem with that statement is that spending on gas is largely independent of income, while spending on cars is not. Increasing the tax uniformly would place most of the incidence of the tax on the people least able to pay. Almost all economists will tell you a gas tax is actually one of the least "fair" methods of curbing oil consumption.
Obviously you can turn the TV off. And if someone is standing on the sidewalk in front of your house with a sign you disagree with, you can go back into your house. The point isn't that you don't have an alternative - you can always shut your eyes and plug your ears.
The point is I wasn't looking for it. If an ad were as innocuous as "look at our website for more info" I wouldn't mind. I'm all about the First Amendment, I'm just tired of modern political ads. They very rarely contribute any useful information to make a civic decision from.
People need to be dragged into the political process, and advertising could/should be used for that. But I'm so tired of morally repugnant attack ads flashing on TV every ten minutes. That's why I won't be watching TV this fall.
And not adding in those features would result in the manager/engineer being detected and destroyed in China...
If you choose to go to a website, that's your choice. If they have a beowulf cluster with more bandwidth than God, with 100 live video feeds 24/7 for one candidate - you're choosing to go there, and it's not intruding on you. I don't care how they raised the money for it. IMHO, it's like visiting a campaign headquarters. That's public information.
And if I see one damned ad on TV, I want tougher regulations. That's intrusive. Like all this damned political spam. One deserves to be unregulated and one deserves to be banned.
Furthermore, if the RNC wants to have its own cable TV station (*coughox*) that it pays for, and the DNC wants one too, I don't see a problem with any amount of spending on that. As long as you can block those channels to prevent your kids from watching that trash...
Will MySpace be making money 5 yrs. from now?
Yes. I remember once trying to convince people that Google was better than Yahoo. I explained that Google was even more amazing, and people listened. 6 years later, Yahoo declined a lot in the search engine arena, but I still go there every day for other features. 65 million users and growing will be worth something to someone, even when a better social networking system emerges.
The Slashdot crowd trying to teach the world how to make babies? That's irony.
The difference is that today, Google is a household name internationally, that has billions in profits. Slightly different than investing in Dr. Koop.com.
Just like MSFT and INTC? NASDAQ stocks in the DJIA.
The fact that a patent is in the public domain (with obvious exception of classified patents) means that you have the right to read and understand it. If you could not know what the patent contained, then you could not, with any amount of due diligence, avoid infringing it. Thus, for it to have any legal credibility, it must be able to understand it and know it to violate it. While not knowing is no defense, not being able to know is.