Re:shareholders..
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nice non-sequiter. The parent post said nothing about the poster's feelings towards VA. In fact, I rarely see any post here saying anything positive about VA. All I see is morons like you saying "See, your company sucks too!"
Big deal. It has nothing to do with SCO, or SCO's stock price.
Now there's a book I'd buy. The problem I have is seeing all this great stuff from a bird's eye view: How would someone know how all this stuff connects and interoperates? Or even, how would one know that they DO interoperate?
Is there a book that talks about this kind of top-down view? How to Administer a Small Business Using Nothing But OSS and Your Brain.
Maybe even a "cookbook" series:
- Implementing CUPS for Sweet Printing Stuff.
- Using OpenLDAP: Why the hell you should. etc...
I'm not sure why this is an issue. The boss of the company doesn't want people he doesn't like played on his stations, so be it.
It's not like you can't get your Dixie Chicks fix somewhere else. There are far too many options... and it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it.
But wait, I thought consumer choice was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You are telling me I would be better off with no choice? I mean, if two companies want my business and I don't know about them, how can I find out? Marketing.
And gee, they need me as a customer because they need the money? I could run off to a different company if I don't like them?
Don't even goof about our (U.S.) telecom system being laissez-faire or "deregulated". It's more accurately called "re-regulated".
I think "browsers without DRM" with be over 10% for a REAL long time. Consider how many people still have old Win95 machines, all the folks who don't spend money every 2 years to upgrade, plus a slowly growing number who prefer to use Mozilla.
I still see tons of "old" IE users on the only site I bother to check. No way MS gets everyone to use DRM for/years/ and by then, the "next big thing" will have occured.
I have to admit, I'm on the same side of the wall as you. I used to collect all kinds of junk: videos, music videos, mp3's more recently. But then I find that most of it just sits and collects dust.
That said, I certainly can't argue with people who do like to "pack rat" stuff away... to each their own, and all that.
However, if the Bills ever make another Super Bowl, you can bet I'll have it recorded.:)
The writeup says it all: The friggin' movie has made 365M already! Not to mention to utter PILES of cash from all the merchandizing and cross-promotion...
I don't know what it cost to make, but to whine that "a few hundred million isn't enough, those bastards are ripping us off" doesn't leave me with a whole lot of sympathy.
How is the creation of a single broadband option through the government creating any MORE choice for the consumer?
So instead of Verizon DSL, Cable, DTV Satellite (whether or not you think it's still around), Dial-Up, plus whatever new technologies will be here in 5 years....... we'll have Government-Provided Broadband Service X.
Yep, looks like lots more choices to me.
You think this is some kind of zero-sum game, where the choices now are the maximum choices there ever will be, and they'll only lessen with time. I don't think so: I'm curious to see what kinds of Good Stuff (tm) will be available soon... Community driven wireless stuff seems pretty cool right now.
So wait, since where you live you can't get DSL currently, noone else can argue that DSL is competition? Interesting.
Also, did you ever think that perhaps the reason Comcast raised the original ATTBI rates was in response to why ATTBI was available to be bought? They're not just going to raise prices for the fun of it, they're going to raise prices so they can MAKE MONEY. ATTBI sucked (in a business sense), they got bought, the prices had to go up to cover the costs...
Tell me, if Comcast offered you everything you wanted for $15 a month, would you love em? Then what about when they go out of business because they didn't make any profit at all? Who gets to decide what's a fair price for their services?
Where I do agree with you is to eliminate monopolies where they exist. One provider with no options is no good at all...
So, a patent can tell a company to stop doing something even if they develop it themselves?
I'm curious.
If you patent A, then I come up with A on my own time, for use in my own company, you can still tell me to stop using it?
I mean, I guess Earthlink is advertising that they're going to be using a challenge/response system, but they're not selling it, are they? I don't understand how the patent system even applies here.
Read the article that you posted and consider where the "backlash" was pointed.
Their earnings rose, but it appears mainly on the strength of their business products: "high-end products appear to be well-received." "Sales of...small-business products and its services revenue rose 41 percent."
However, "sales of the company's online tax software rose 11 percent -- below some analysts' expectations".
Then, over on Extremetech, you realize their talking mostly about Turbotax, which apparently didn't do as well as expected.
Besides, like they say, it can take a month to gain a customer and 3 seconds to lose him... Bad PR is a good way to force them to change.
You claim you're not impressed, but then you admit the true goal in your second-to-last sentence. Isn't the whole point of this to be ABLE, in the future, to get out of Earth's atmosphere and go somewhere else?
These companies are setting the stepping stones that others will follow. I hope to the gods of space and exploration that they make it before I die.
As for your point #1, apparently the "need" that exists for such a trip does not outweigh the costs to get it set up. No one wants to make the investment. What can you do, other than give it a shot yourself?
Agreed. It seems like a silly, vicious cycle: Massive testing requirements (which make sense considering the potential for harm from a cure with unforeseen side effects) costs HUGE bucks. To recoup that, pharm companies need to sell the cures they find. Governments keep piling on new requirements, costs more to create new drugs, and the cycle continues.
I do, however, think patents are unfortunate. However, they are of limited duration and as long as they don't get too greedy....
While informative (thanks for the copy), I would say that such a statement in a report is an indication of fact, not a suggestion for future policy.
It's a fact: Canada's laws and regulations probably do limit the depth of an investigation. So be it. What I would say to those law enforcement officials is, "try other methods, then".
That statement does not, however, say, "We think Canadians are a bunch of libertarian boobs and they should change their laws!" I'd have to call the Canadian author a little sensitive...
What a silly thing to say: What we "do" to our poor. And why is it, exactly, that we should "do" anything to/for the poor?
You might say, "moral imperitive". Which is alright, but whose morals? Yours? Mine?
Or perhaps the government. Well, the world I want to live in leaves the choice of "what to do about the poor" up to the community. To each individual to do as s/he sees fit. Not to have a government dictate to me what I should do with my hard-earned money (well, okay, not THAT hard-earned).
This is just a classic argument of socialism vs. libertarianism, and I much prefer the latter. That hard part is, we can never just go off and try out experimental governments anywhere... Then we could see what really works or not.
Too bad the other responders to your post are nitwits. I'm no expert either and I'll reload this one a few times to see if anyone knowledgeable actually responds...
In the meantime, I've found that Hacking Linux Exposed, by Hutch, Lee and Kurtz is very cool, and O'reilly's Building Linux Firewalls is very thorough.
I've also come to realize (admin'ing my company's network for a little over a year and only getting nipped once by me foolishly leaving FTP open) that using iptables with the default door closed, shutting down services and only opening what's absolutely necessary is a pretty nice start.
Beyond that, it's my belief that our systems are in more danger from inside, and from potentially malicious employees (fortunately there's only one who knows anything other than me;)). Now if I can just get the boss to spring for some good old-fashined Master Lock security.....
You're right. We should just give up, and use whatever the "winning" format is. We should all by Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords, we should all just vote for one of the two major parties, etc. etc. etc. Heck, those Newtonion physics were pretty much good enough and the average user didn't need anything better...
What does "the average user" matter? Innovation seeks to push the boundaries, not cater to the masses.
How dare you inject some reason into the wailing and gnashing of teeth we see here daily??
Like you, I don't care enough about this "issue" to read all the related information, but it occurs to me there's nothing on the books that says DARPA has to continue funding something they don't like, don't agree with, or want more control over.
The DoD doesn't want to pay for something that will subsequently be given away to anyone who wants it. What's the problem? Should we give away all our nuclear technology? Out brand new UAV tech? JDAMs?
If I had mod points today I'd mod you up. I'm getting sick of the "The U.S. gov't is evil" crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice non-sequiter. The parent post said nothing about the poster's feelings towards VA. In fact, I rarely see any post here saying anything positive about VA. All I see is morons like you saying "See, your company sucks too!"
Big deal. It has nothing to do with SCO, or SCO's stock price.
Now there's a book I'd buy. The problem I have is seeing all this great stuff from a bird's eye view: How would someone know how all this stuff connects and interoperates? Or even, how would one know that they DO interoperate?
Is there a book that talks about this kind of top-down view? How to Administer a Small Business Using Nothing But OSS and Your Brain.
Maybe even a "cookbook" series:
- Implementing CUPS for Sweet Printing Stuff.
- Using OpenLDAP: Why the hell you should.
etc...
Anyway, just a thought.
I'm with you, and if that's the case, let's use the U.S. National Grid!
You can use more digits for more precision, and though it's "U.S." it's just based on UTM and can easily go worldwide.
Only trouble might be to get people to understand what 17TUV45635768 means....
I'm not sure why this is an issue. The boss of the company doesn't want people he doesn't like played on his stations, so be it.
It's not like you can't get your Dixie Chicks fix somewhere else. There are far too many options... and it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it.
Yeah, and look, the sky is falling.
You claim that "the truth is about to become muddier", as if everything coming out of Organization X will be exactly the same.
Last I checked, these companies are so big that there is no "single point of view" they are putting out.
For instance, WMAL here in DC is owned by Disney (ABC). They are quite obviously "right wing", with Limbaugh and Hannity in the afternoons.
I suspect they do not share the political views of Michael Eisner.
(disclaimer: I heard this on the radio this morning. It's not my original idea)
But wait, I thought consumer choice was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You are telling me I would be better off with no choice? I mean, if two companies want my business and I don't know about them, how can I find out? Marketing.
And gee, they need me as a customer because they need the money? I could run off to a different company if I don't like them?
Don't even goof about our (U.S.) telecom system being laissez-faire or "deregulated". It's more accurately called "re-regulated".
This "joke" isn't funny... it's begging for the Stupid mod category I saw on someone else's sig.
Pedantic: Zeta is a greek letter, Ms. Jones has no claim to it.
I think "browsers without DRM" with be over 10% for a REAL long time. Consider how many people still have old Win95 machines, all the folks who don't spend money every 2 years to upgrade, plus a slowly growing number who prefer to use Mozilla.
/years/ and by then, the "next big thing" will have occured.
I still see tons of "old" IE users on the only site I bother to check. No way MS gets everyone to use DRM for
I have to admit, I'm on the same side of the wall as you. I used to collect all kinds of junk: videos, music videos, mp3's more recently. But then I find that most of it just sits and collects dust.
:)
That said, I certainly can't argue with people who do like to "pack rat" stuff away... to each their own, and all that.
However, if the Bills ever make another Super Bowl, you can bet I'll have it recorded.
Why would it even have a 2 foot range? Why not set it up with about a 1 inch range?
Mobil Speedpass doesn't zap your dongle unless you wave it right in front of the thing.
The writeup says it all: The friggin' movie has made 365M already! Not to mention to utter PILES of cash from all the merchandizing and cross-promotion...
I don't know what it cost to make, but to whine that "a few hundred million isn't enough, those bastards are ripping us off" doesn't leave me with a whole lot of sympathy.
How much is enough, Hollywood?
How is the creation of a single broadband option through the government creating any MORE choice for the consumer?
.... we'll have Government-Provided Broadband Service X.
So instead of Verizon DSL, Cable, DTV Satellite (whether or not you think it's still around), Dial-Up, plus whatever new technologies will be here in 5 years...
Yep, looks like lots more choices to me.
You think this is some kind of zero-sum game, where the choices now are the maximum choices there ever will be, and they'll only lessen with time. I don't think so: I'm curious to see what kinds of Good Stuff (tm) will be available soon... Community driven wireless stuff seems pretty cool right now.
So wait, since where you live you can't get DSL currently, noone else can argue that DSL is competition? Interesting.
Also, did you ever think that perhaps the reason Comcast raised the original ATTBI rates was in response to why ATTBI was available to be bought? They're not just going to raise prices for the fun of it, they're going to raise prices so they can MAKE MONEY. ATTBI sucked (in a business sense), they got bought, the prices had to go up to cover the costs...
Tell me, if Comcast offered you everything you wanted for $15 a month, would you love em? Then what about when they go out of business because they didn't make any profit at all? Who gets to decide what's a fair price for their services?
Where I do agree with you is to eliminate monopolies where they exist. One provider with no options is no good at all...
So, a patent can tell a company to stop doing something even if they develop it themselves?
:)
I'm curious.
If you patent A, then I come up with A on my own time, for use in my own company, you can still tell me to stop using it?
I mean, I guess Earthlink is advertising that they're going to be using a challenge/response system, but they're not selling it, are they? I don't understand how the patent system even applies here.
Someone help, my head hurts.
Read the article that you posted and consider where the "backlash" was pointed.
Their earnings rose, but it appears mainly on the strength of their business products: "high-end products appear to be well-received." "Sales of...small-business products and its services revenue rose 41 percent."
However, "sales of the company's online tax software rose 11 percent -- below some analysts' expectations".
Then, over on Extremetech, you realize their talking mostly about Turbotax, which apparently didn't do as well as expected.
Besides, like they say, it can take a month to gain a customer and 3 seconds to lose him... Bad PR is a good way to force them to change.
The new ones do get removed. Ever notice that when you get money from an ATM, it's all shiny and smooth? Banks replace notes all the time.
Try to find ancient $20s now. It's possible, but they're not exactly commonplace.
You claim you're not impressed, but then you admit the true goal in your second-to-last sentence. Isn't the whole point of this to be ABLE, in the future, to get out of Earth's atmosphere and go somewhere else?
These companies are setting the stepping stones that others will follow. I hope to the gods of space and exploration that they make it before I die.
As for your point #1, apparently the "need" that exists for such a trip does not outweigh the costs to get it set up. No one wants to make the investment. What can you do, other than give it a shot yourself?
Agreed. It seems like a silly, vicious cycle: Massive testing requirements (which make sense considering the potential for harm from a cure with unforeseen side effects) costs HUGE bucks. To recoup that, pharm companies need to sell the cures they find. Governments keep piling on new requirements, costs more to create new drugs, and the cycle continues.
I do, however, think patents are unfortunate. However, they are of limited duration and as long as they don't get too greedy....
While informative (thanks for the copy), I would say that such a statement in a report is an indication of fact, not a suggestion for future policy.
It's a fact: Canada's laws and regulations probably do limit the depth of an investigation. So be it. What I would say to those law enforcement officials is, "try other methods, then".
That statement does not, however, say, "We think Canadians are a bunch of libertarian boobs and they should change their laws!" I'd have to call the Canadian author a little sensitive...
What a silly thing to say: What we "do" to our poor. And why is it, exactly, that we should "do" anything to/for the poor?
You might say, "moral imperitive". Which is alright, but whose morals? Yours? Mine?
Or perhaps the government. Well, the world I want to live in leaves the choice of "what to do about the poor" up to the community. To each individual to do as s/he sees fit. Not to have a government dictate to me what I should do with my hard-earned money (well, okay, not THAT hard-earned).
This is just a classic argument of socialism vs. libertarianism, and I much prefer the latter. That hard part is, we can never just go off and try out experimental governments anywhere... Then we could see what really works or not.
Too bad the other responders to your post are nitwits. I'm no expert either and I'll reload this one a few times to see if anyone knowledgeable actually responds...
;)). Now if I can just get the boss to spring for some good old-fashined Master Lock security.....
In the meantime, I've found that Hacking Linux Exposed, by Hutch, Lee and Kurtz is very cool, and O'reilly's Building Linux Firewalls is very thorough.
I've also come to realize (admin'ing my company's network for a little over a year and only getting nipped once by me foolishly leaving FTP open) that using iptables with the default door closed, shutting down services and only opening what's absolutely necessary is a pretty nice start.
Beyond that, it's my belief that our systems are in more danger from inside, and from potentially malicious employees (fortunately there's only one who knows anything other than me
You're right. We should just give up, and use whatever the "winning" format is. We should all by Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords, we should all just vote for one of the two major parties, etc. etc. etc. Heck, those Newtonion physics were pretty much good enough and the average user didn't need anything better...
What does "the average user" matter? Innovation seeks to push the boundaries, not cater to the masses.
And "sadly", just a few years ago noone had heard of mp3 except nerds or IT pros.
Thanks for your reasoned responses. Some people might not agree, others freak out when facts are presented. Either way, you got me as a fan.
How dare you inject some reason into the wailing and gnashing of teeth we see here daily??
Like you, I don't care enough about this "issue" to read all the related information, but it occurs to me there's nothing on the books that says DARPA has to continue funding something they don't like, don't agree with, or want more control over.
The DoD doesn't want to pay for something that will subsequently be given away to anyone who wants it. What's the problem? Should we give away all our nuclear technology? Out brand new UAV tech? JDAMs?
If I had mod points today I'd mod you up. I'm getting sick of the "The U.S. gov't is evil" crowd.