Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. From a management perspective, it leaves more options on the table.
I don't know much about the politics of public companies, but it seems to me that if Google goes ahead with a policy that was specifically voted down by shareholders, then the shareholders are likely to accuse them of not fulfilling their responsibility.
The shareholders can accuse them all they want - but those accusations are meaningless. Why? Because of an evil hidden in plain sight in Google's stock offering from day one.
Google's stock is structured into two tiers - but only one tier has any real rights to corporate control, dividends, etc... etc... Guess which tier what offered to the public, and which tier is very closely held.
All this employee protection crap is bull shit. An employer should be able to hire/fire anyone they want without having to go through a bunch of red tape.
At least in goverment service - this would mean a return to the Bad Old Days of the patronage system. There's a reason why the 'red tape' is there. (One could argue the red tape is excessive, etc... etc..., but the reason for its existence is a valid one.)
Remember, evidence of prior bad acts is generally inadmissible in court!
Do keep in mind that what constitutes admissible evidence varies greatly by the nature of the 'court'. Civil court, for example, has somewhat looser standards than criminal court. Adminstrative pseudo courts are bound mainly by the manual and statute establishing them, and to an extent by legal decisions like the one in the TFA.
Try being (mumble) feet under the North Atlantic and:
Having a tech transfer an electrical bus from the primary to the alternate - without starting the alternate! _blink_ Down goes missile fire control, a good chunk of missile monitoring - and large chunks of the navigation, sonar, and ship control systems.
Or the time a tech turned a switch to simulate an alarm (for a test) - and it went past 'simulate' into 'activate'. _blink_ Reactor Scram. Worse yet, the detent that failed and let the switch turn too far now held it in the activated position - which mean't we couldn't restart the reactor. Not until we'd powered down the panel, broke out the spare, discovered the switch inside the box didn't match the label, and rigged a set of jumpers around the failed switch. Four hours on the snorkel in the middle of a winter storm that one took to repair.
Corporate networks down? Phone systems down? Pffft. Pikers and wankers.
I don't know who coined that term "neo-libertarian" (I'm guessing you) but we already have a word for someone who wants to entwine corporations with government: "fascist." Don't make up some grabage term just because you don't like libertarians.
I wouldn't take him to task for making up/misusing a word - since you have no idea what facist means.
Sure, I find many informative pages on the subject - all from people with a vested interest in convincing you that solar power is a good idea, (either because of their politics or because they want to sell the systems to you).
How about challenging the math, instead of the people? Ie, using legitimate debate tactics, instead of engaging in ad hominem?
Pointing out a potential flaw or bias in a source of data is, in and of itself, a legitimate debate tactic. (And you might look up the meaning of ad hominem - it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.)
Citizendium has its issues too, like that it hasn't fully articulated its desire to have authoritative processes in concrete terms that aren't couched in Larry Sanger's own degree-oriented biases, but at least it's trying.
And, sadly, it probably won't ever do so - so long as Larry has anything to do with the project. I ceased my participation in Citizendium when I realized how deeply Larry's control over the project goes - and the extent to which his ego and biases drive the project.
Not only do you get a net out of nearly double what you put in, you are also paying less for what you put in that you would if you used that power normally during the day, add a few solar panels and you are laughing.
So claims your handwaving calculations (backed up by a healthy dose of unsupported assumptions). Do you have real numbers and actual equipment?
The math with current photovoltaics will not come out in favour until the fossil fuel rises by a factor of at least 10 times. Does not matter what, how, who, where. They are simply too expensive to provide a reasonable ROI. They also have a very high environmental cost to produce so people who buy them are not doing a lot of good to the environment.
This is a myth often repeated. I'm going to simply point to a google search that will net many informative results. You'll find numerous calculations which all come to similar conclusions: solar panels have an "energy payback" of a few months to a few years, and their warranties extend well beyond the point where they become a source of income for the owner.
Sure, I find many informative pages on the subject - all from people with a vested interest in convincing you that solar power is a good idea, (either because of their politics or because they want to sell the systems to you).
TV, like magazines, newspapers, and radio are financed through ads and sponsors.
Huh? Let me be more clear... TV (over the airwaves) is financed through ads and sponsors. What about Cable TV, which I pay for? Why do I have to watch ads on those channels?
Because paying for cable is paying for the the cable system - not the content. This is no different than buying software for your computer or gas for your car.
1. I think it's fairly obvious now that the retail box is to pay for the time and effort of developing the client and the monthly fees are to cover bandwith and server maintenance.
The fee for the client is mostly to encourage subscriptions, IMO. Once someone has invested $50, they're not likely to subscribe for a month and then drop it, or they'll have wasted $60, not $10.
Which makes no sense whatsoever. If someone doesn't like or enjoy a game - they aren't going to play it or continue to pay for it. Period.
I think the pricing is determined by how to maximize revenue, not how to cover specific costs -- though it's important that subscription revenues are greater than bandwidth/server costs.
Again, this makes no sense. When a business sits down and makes it's business plan - item #1 on the list is whether or not they can recoup costs. This is critically important when you have two such very different cost centers as MMO's do.
Allowing you to sell your account leads to the sale of high level accounts which denies them money for having that same player buy the box new and level on his own.
I think the parent was talking about selling the license, not a character account.
Once the license is registered, the two (license, account) are the same thing. I am unaware of a game that seperates the two.
This touches back on my last point -- if you don't pay $50 for the box/license, you're less likely to maintain a subscription.
There are several games that do quite well - without requiring the purchase of a box. And, as I pointed out above, the claim that making them pay for the box increases the chance of creating a subscriber is nonsense.
the trick is to get them invested in their character(s) enough that they're hooked.
True - and whether or not they pay for a box is utterly irrelevant to this.
"Wondering why the RIAA hasn't been hit with racketeering charges over its shady legal fight against file-sharing?"
Nope, I'm not wondering at all. But then, I understand the law and don't hurl charges (that I don't understand) against organizations protecting their rights. Heck, unlike most here on Slashdot I appluad organizations trying to uphold the law - even when I don't agree with the law.
You must not remember $0.25/min long distance in 1980 dollars, with no alternative carriers and no other options.
Something that was corrected well before AT&T broke up - with the rise of Sprint and other such long distance calling plan providers.
And if yo udon't remember that, you certainly don't remmeber having to lease a phone - never owning it - in perpetuity becuase if you didn't lesae one you didn't get service.
Something that ended in the early 1970's, again - well before AT&T was broken up.
Only 20% of the price of each pill goes toward future research and development... Marketing & administrative costs are double that.
Welcome to the real world, it works like that. It doesn't matter if you are IBM, or Merck. Though the tinfoil hat crown would like to convince that is wrong (in some unspecified way).
Considering its a global company, They should have taken Brazils offer and looked to Europe and N.America to recover costs.
Huh? Why should Europe and North America pay Brazil's bills? Why should my insurance company pay more for anti-AIDS drugs so that the goverment of Brazil can pay less?
Merk proposed a reduction in price - and rather than negotiate, the goverment of Brazil decided to ignore it's own laws and take what it wanted. This is a net loss for humanity. The end does not justify the means.
Why is he not still an aerospace engineer? The bean counting MBA parasite that "downsized" him is the one who should be collecting unemployment!
And of course the massive (and steady) shrinkage of the aerospace industry over the past 10-15 years has nothing to do with it? TFA implies that he hasn't been an aerospace engineer in quite a while - in fact the job he's currently unemployed from is 'director of a community service organization', not 'aerospace engineer'. This cached page from Google suggests he was already out of the aerospace industry by the mid-late 90's. Indeed, it could be interpeted as saying that even though his degree is aerospace engineering - he's only briefly been a practicing aerospace engineer.
Do the 'rithemtic and read the 'riting on the wall: he's middle-aged, talented, so he earns more than a new-grad junior engineer.
Once I take my tinfoil hat and bias blinders off - I find it far more likely that his entire division was downsized, without replacement, a very common story in aerospace across the 1990's.
There have been people (here on Slashdot) asking that very question ever since the OLPC project was announced. We have been repeatedly told to 'shut up' because it was 'obvious' that giving people acess to technology was a good thing.
Re:Wally Shirra was an Old School Astronaught bada
on
Wally Schirra Dead at 84
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We've definitely gone from the days when our astronauts were national heroes, and space flights were major news items, to relatively anonymous folks risking their lives to put the next communications satellite in orbit for our corporate masters.
I hate to put facts up against your rant - but commercial flights on the Shuttle ended back in the 1980's after the loss of Challenger.
Honestly, does anyone here know the name of a current astronaut off the top of their head without doing a search?
Sure - but then I don't rely on 'corporate masters' for my information. I get off my ass and find out news on what I am interested in myself.
Some of you may remember Schirra's commercials on Actifed in the 1970s (which he had to use on Apollo 7 when the astronauts caught a sniffle). I think that was one of the very few astronaut commercials (Sally Ride and Buzz Aldrin have done some, I believe).
Frank Borman did quite a few in his capacity as CEO of Eastern Airlines. Another astronaut did commercials for Eveready right before they started the Bunny campaign, (though this may have been Schirra). I think Pete Conrad did a couple as well.
Let's not get too nostalgic. The whole point of the space race was as a proxy for the Americans and Soviets to one-up each other in their nuclear delivery capacity.
This is a common meme - but there isn't a shred of truth in it. The technologies for (notionally) peaceful boosters and ICBM's diverged right from the start of the space race - and never rejoined. The race was a proxy for technological prowess, granted, but it has little directly to do with nuclear delivery.
Reminds me that, for some decades, civilians (rich civilians, of course), could cross the north atlantic in less than for hours, and now, well, only the military can do it that fast.
So? Civilians (of any station) could only do it because it was heavily subsidized by a goverment.
Note that as you don't spin a Dyson Sphere, net gravity is very low. About half that of the Sun's from the distance of the Earth. This makes ponds, lakes & seas possible (if not probable, and probably temporary), but quite dangerous. Rivers, however, are not going to occur.
If you have gravity enough to hold water in place - then you'll have water seeking it's own level, I.E. rivers.
Slashdot Mirror
The shareholders can accuse them all they want - but those accusations are meaningless. Why? Because of an evil hidden in plain sight in Google's stock offering from day one.
Google's stock is structured into two tiers - but only one tier has any real rights to corporate control, dividends, etc... etc... Guess which tier what offered to the public, and which tier is very closely held.
(And yes, it's legal.)
At least in goverment service - this would mean a return to the Bad Old Days of the patronage system. There's a reason why the 'red tape' is there. (One could argue the red tape is excessive, etc... etc..., but the reason for its existence is a valid one.)
Do keep in mind that what constitutes admissible evidence varies greatly by the nature of the 'court'. Civil court, for example, has somewhat looser standards than criminal court. Adminstrative pseudo courts are bound mainly by the manual and statute establishing them, and to an extent by legal decisions like the one in the TFA.
Corporate networks down? Phone systems down? Pffft. Pikers and wankers.
I wouldn't take him to task for making up/misusing a word - since you have no idea what facist means.
Pointing out a potential flaw or bias in a source of data is, in and of itself, a legitimate debate tactic. (And you might look up the meaning of ad hominem - it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.)
And, sadly, it probably won't ever do so - so long as Larry has anything to do with the project. I ceased my participation in Citizendium when I realized how deeply Larry's control over the project goes - and the extent to which his ego and biases drive the project.
So claims your handwaving calculations (backed up by a healthy dose of unsupported assumptions). Do you have real numbers and actual equipment?
Sure, I find many informative pages on the subject - all from people with a vested interest in convincing you that solar power is a good idea, (either because of their politics or because they want to sell the systems to you).
Because paying for cable is paying for the the cable system - not the content. This is no different than buying software for your computer or gas for your car.
Whether or not there is something illegal about their tactics is utterly irrelevant to my understanding the law.
Again, a statement by you that has nothing to do with my statement.
Which makes no sense whatsoever. If someone doesn't like or enjoy a game - they aren't going to play it or continue to pay for it. Period.
Again, this makes no sense. When a business sits down and makes it's business plan - item #1 on the list is whether or not they can recoup costs. This is critically important when you have two such very different cost centers as MMO's do.
Once the license is registered, the two (license, account) are the same thing. I am unaware of a game that seperates the two.
There are several games that do quite well - without requiring the purchase of a box. And, as I pointed out above, the claim that making them pay for the box increases the chance of creating a subscriber is nonsense.
True - and whether or not they pay for a box is utterly irrelevant to this.
"Wondering why the RIAA hasn't been hit with racketeering charges over its shady legal fight against file-sharing?"
Nope, I'm not wondering at all. But then, I understand the law and don't hurl charges (that I don't understand) against organizations protecting their rights. Heck, unlike most here on Slashdot I appluad organizations trying to uphold the law - even when I don't agree with the law.
Something that was corrected well before AT&T broke up - with the rise of Sprint and other such long distance calling plan providers.
Something that ended in the early 1970's, again - well before AT&T was broken up.
Welcome to the real world, it works like that. It doesn't matter if you are IBM, or Merck. Though the tinfoil hat crown would like to convince that is wrong (in some unspecified way).
Huh? Why should Europe and North America pay Brazil's bills? Why should my insurance company pay more for anti-AIDS drugs so that the goverment of Brazil can pay less?
Merk proposed a reduction in price - and rather than negotiate, the goverment of Brazil decided to ignore it's own laws and take what it wanted. This is a net loss for humanity. The end does not justify the means.
And of course the massive (and steady) shrinkage of the aerospace industry over the past 10-15 years has nothing to do with it? TFA implies that he hasn't been an aerospace engineer in quite a while - in fact the job he's currently unemployed from is 'director of a community service organization', not 'aerospace engineer'. This cached page from Google suggests he was already out of the aerospace industry by the mid-late 90's. Indeed, it could be interpeted as saying that even though his degree is aerospace engineering - he's only briefly been a practicing aerospace engineer.
Once I take my tinfoil hat and bias blinders off - I find it far more likely that his entire division was downsized, without replacement, a very common story in aerospace across the 1990's.
There have been people (here on Slashdot) asking that very question ever since the OLPC project was announced. We have been repeatedly told to 'shut up' because it was 'obvious' that giving people acess to technology was a good thing.
I hate to put facts up against your rant - but commercial flights on the Shuttle ended back in the 1980's after the loss of Challenger.
Sure - but then I don't rely on 'corporate masters' for my information. I get off my ass and find out news on what I am interested in myself.
Frank Borman did quite a few in his capacity as CEO of Eastern Airlines. Another astronaut did commercials for Eveready right before they started the Bunny campaign, (though this may have been Schirra). I think Pete Conrad did a couple as well.
This is a common meme - but there isn't a shred of truth in it. The technologies for (notionally) peaceful boosters and ICBM's diverged right from the start of the space race - and never rejoined. The race was a proxy for technological prowess, granted, but it has little directly to do with nuclear delivery.
So? Civilians (of any station) could only do it because it was heavily subsidized by a goverment.
The same with Cook's Illustrated. (And I believe they publish an ad free crafting magazine as well.)
If you have gravity enough to hold water in place - then you'll have water seeking it's own level, I.E. rivers.