The moment MS has the bad sense to sue Red Hat (Ubuntu is a non issue at the moment, since they don't have a big commercial presence in the US) they have to disclose what are the patents they are claiming are being violated.
Once that is done, each patent can only follow 2 paths really:
-It is declared invalid, Red Hat continues business as usual, MS reputation is badly damaged (as if they have any good reputation left) and reminds us thy kind of bully they really are.
-The patent is declared valid by the clueless US legal system. Red Hat then removes the features "tainted" and markets a bastardized version of its products in the US (in the rest of the world, where software patents are not valid, people continue to laugh at MS's desperate attempt to remain technologically relevant) Mild inconvenience since in all likelihood the core services for which you have a Red Hat box in a datacentre (Web server, DB server, etc) are not encumbered by patents (unless MS claims they invented the http protocol, databases, sendmail, or some other bizarre claim which, as things stand, would not be beyond them, but I digress).
At the end, Red Hat Linux offerings will be clean from MS claims and FUD.
As for interoperability, I see no issue. MS has integrated reluctantly many open standards on their wares, and Red Hat makes their money in the server market anyway, where the machines needing to inter operate are Windows ones, not Linux or UNIX ones.
If MS tries to touch OpenOffice, Sun protects that. If they try Samba, good luck with that (they copied CIF from somewhere else).
In synthesis you are full of it, but thanks for playing.
Whenever somebody goes on holiday, the first half day back is spent waiting for Outlook to open the Inbox.
I have no idea what the heck it is doing since I am not a Windows expert, the only think I can say is that an old Netscape email client in Solaris does a better job at handling those messages. What I used to do was to open first with Netscape, remove the fluff and then allows Outlook to deal with the cleaned Inbox.
since then I have changed my email habits to ensure the Inbox does not grow beyond certain limits, but it still takes quite sometime to start and be usable.
It used to be that investors would materialize a return on investment based in the company's performance via the dividends.
Now "investors" (I called them gamblers, pure semantics) expect a "return on investment" based on the share price.
What you are advocating is simply the economics of the bell curve, in which there are always winners and losers all shaped along the curve, and if you pull some from one side, then you have to add them in the other side.
If people were actually obtaining ROI based on dividends then all could be winners. But lets keep gambling, it is far more exciting.
So your anecdotal evidence in one (yes, one) laptop you want us to believe is better than the anecdotal evidence of quite a number of people on the site.
It would be almost funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
"A key member of Yahoo!'s executive team, Susan L. Decker is the head of the Advertiser and Publisher Group (APG). As the head of APG, Decker is a key participant in determining Yahoo!'s business strategy and is focused on transforming how advertisers connect with their target customers on the Internet. Decker's APG organization includes direct and online sales channels, the publisher channel, marketing products, and Local Markets and Commerce. Prior to her APG role, Decker was executive vice president and chief financial officer from June 2000 - June 2007, managing all aspects of the company's financial and administrative direction within key functional areas, including finance, facilities, investor relations (and human resources and legal through December 2006). Decker reports to chairman and chief executive officer, Terry Semel.
Prior to joining Yahoo! in June 2000, Decker was with Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette (DLJ) for 14 years. Most recently, she served as the global director of equity research, a $300 million operation, where, among other things, she was responsible for building and staffing a non-U.S. research product based on global sector teams. Before serving as DLJ's global and domestic head of research, she spent 12 years as an equity research analyst, providing coverage to institutional investors on more than 30 media, publishing, and advertising stocks. In this capacity, she received recognition by Institutional Investor magazine as a top rated analyst for ten consecutive years.
Decker holds a bachelor of science degree from Tufts University, with a double major in computer science and economics, and a master of business administration degree from Harvard Business School. She also received the designation of Chartered Financial Analyst in 1989 and served on the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council (FASAC) for a four-year term, from January 2000 to January 2004. Decker served on the board of directors of Pixar Animation Studios from June 2004 to May 2006, until its sale to Disney and The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) from March 2005 to May 2007. Decker currently serves on the board of directors for Berkshire Hathaway, Intel Corporation and Costco Wholesale.
One should throw away things only if they don't work or if you are getting something substantially better (and even then you may want to check if your old item is of use to anybody else).
To attract the women I like, I do a job that pays well.
To help children in need, I do a job that pays well ($100 is not much to me, check around what that could do in poor countries, or even poor localities in developed countries).
To travel, to go to any restaurant I want, too see any show I wish, I do a job that pays well.
Neither do the Germans, Brits, Spanish. Italians. Austrians. Poles.
Or even Thais, Malaysian or Singaporean. Or Turks (which request a visa from us dirty Mexicans, but they do not care where you go, except close to the border with the country the us is helping to destroy).
Namibians do, but they are a bit looney.
Vietnamese did, but hey, they are a Socialist Republic.
So no, there is no excuse for what you are doing, in any case it is your country, it is my tourist money.
The matter of fact is that all this regulations are still in place and keep being proposed or put in place, progressive and sane people in the US are not doing enough to denounce the irrational climate of fear in your country.
Where are the massive demonstrations denouncing this?
Where are the massive political backslashes against the fear mongers?
I have seen how US authorities treat Chinese people in LAX. People that were actually in transit to Mexico City.
And as for us Mexicans, well, appalling just starts to describe the way we were treated.
They tried to pull the same one on me to which I replied that it was none of their business what I was doing in Mexico, since it is my country.
A very risk way of doing things, even pre 9-11, but there is a point when enough is enough frankly, so consider yourself lucky, many other people do not have it that easy on that airport.
As anyone with enough idle time can check, I make no bones about my chances to travel regularly abroad.
I have been to many countries, and the only one that ever demanded to know my whereabouts was, tan-tara-ran, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. And they did not finger print me I think (or maybe they did, but hey, it is a totalitarian regime still). Nevertheless I just had to give a Hotel address and I was pretty much free to come and go as I pleased.
The more advanced and democratic a country is, the less impediments it puts to travel. Canada does not demand visas for us Mexicans. EU countries gives us visas for 6 months on arrival. No fingerprinting.
Now again, give me a good reason why I should go to the US?
I have plenty of disposable income but it will be spent where I am welcomed. I am going as far as to avoid US based airlines, even if they are cheaper. The US wants to finger print me and take a mug shot just for the privilege of spending 2 hours in a transit area of an airport. No fucking way.
Which is a real pity, because I want to see more of the US than what I have seen so far, I have not been to NY for crying out loud!
It is a shameful indictment of people like you that foreigners know and understand better the letter and spirit of your own Constitution. Citizenry has nothing to do with the rule of law, save very special circumstances, but for 99% of cases, the law applies the same to all.
Many people in oppressed lands used to look at you as a beacon of freedom since they took what they knew aobut your country at face value. Guantanamo, the first election win of Mr Bush showed the world the reality hidden behind the nice empty rethoric.
When so many USians sprout so much nonsense as you did (in two sentences, for bunnies sakes) you do a tremendous deservice to your own country and its values.
Greenpeace powerful? Really? And what is their ultimate ends in this little conspiracy theory of yours?
Or Al Gore? Fur bunnies sakes, he could not even beat Bush. If he wanted power he would be campaigning for the White House, where the real power is, not for an issue that so many people have problems with because it will affect the way they do things.
There are plenty of studies in Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and many other countries that haves usbtantial amounts of forests. We also have satellite pictures for several decades.
Claiming that worrying about the destruction of rain forests is "alarmist" is irresponsible, ignorant and can't be understood as anything but as an intentional attempt to mislead.
"However, the study does identify other regions, such as the western tropical Pacific, where global warming does cause the environment to become more favorable for hurricanes."
Very often they are less flexible when it comes to working hours, have less benefits, demand far more of you (which impacts your work-life balance situation) and in general are less reasonable because every mistake impacts much more heavily the bottom line.
Small companies are nice to learn the trade, but you wanna move out of there as soon as time allows....
People are telling you there is an area of concern, the company tries to improve things, but as always there are people whose glass is eternally empty, even when it is overflowing.
Let put it this way for you, since obviously you lack a sense of basic reasoning: see it as a bribe from an awful institution to a group of people that otherwise would not work there. That may smash the moraloid qualms you have while explaining why people would actually be satisfied to be there.
I am willing to take a cut on my pay for many other factors: location, atmosphere of the area where the office is (it really weighs you down to go to the office day in day out in the middle of an industrial dump or a neighborhood with no amenities or unsafe), kind of work.
The money does a lot of the talking, but should by no means be the only thing whispering on you ear.
I do agree about not caring about who people I work with, but I don't agree about working with unpleasant people. If there is somebody rude, loud or smelly either they change or one of us has to go. As simple as that (and since I am more senior, the few times this has happened it wasn't me doing the walking. Morale for you newbies: be polite, take a shower every day and you'll have the old farts in your side).
Slashdot Mirror
The moment MS has the bad sense to sue Red Hat (Ubuntu is a non issue at the moment, since they don't have a big commercial presence in the US) they have to disclose what are the patents they are claiming are being violated.
Once that is done, each patent can only follow 2 paths really:
-It is declared invalid, Red Hat continues business as usual, MS reputation is badly damaged (as if they have any good reputation left) and reminds us thy kind of bully they really are.
-The patent is declared valid by the clueless US legal system. Red Hat then removes the features "tainted" and markets a bastardized version of its products in the US (in the rest of the world, where software patents are not valid, people continue to laugh at MS's desperate attempt to remain technologically relevant) Mild inconvenience since in all likelihood the core services for which you have a Red Hat box in a datacentre (Web server, DB server, etc) are not encumbered by patents (unless MS claims they invented the http protocol, databases, sendmail, or some other bizarre claim which, as things stand, would not be beyond them, but I digress).
At the end, Red Hat Linux offerings will be clean from MS claims and FUD.
As for interoperability, I see no issue. MS has integrated reluctantly many open standards on their wares, and Red Hat makes their money in the server market anyway, where the machines needing to inter operate are Windows ones, not Linux or UNIX ones.
If MS tries to touch OpenOffice, Sun protects that. If they try Samba, good luck with that (they copied CIF from somewhere else).
In synthesis you are full of it, but thanks for playing.
Whenever somebody goes on holiday, the first half day back is spent waiting for Outlook to open the Inbox.
I have no idea what the heck it is doing since I am not a Windows expert, the only think I can say is that an old Netscape email client in Solaris does a better job at handling those messages. What I used to do was to open first with Netscape, remove the fluff and then allows Outlook to deal with the cleaned Inbox.
since then I have changed my email habits to ensure the Inbox does not grow beyond certain limits, but it still takes quite sometime to start and be usable.
1980s are coming back!
It used to be that investors would materialize a return on investment based in the company's performance via the dividends.
Now "investors" (I called them gamblers, pure semantics) expect a "return on investment" based on the share price.
What you are advocating is simply the economics of the bell curve, in which there are always winners and losers all shaped along the curve, and if you pull some from one side, then you have to add them in the other side.
If people were actually obtaining ROI based on dividends then all could be winners. But lets keep gambling, it is far more exciting.
So your anecdotal evidence in one (yes, one) laptop you want us to believe is better than the anecdotal evidence of quite a number of people on the site.
It would be almost funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
The assertion of the AC is ludicrous, one does not need Warren Buffet to recognize that woman has some serious brains.
From Yahoo's website:
"A key member of Yahoo!'s executive team, Susan L. Decker is the head of the Advertiser and Publisher Group (APG). As the head of APG, Decker is a key participant in determining Yahoo!'s business strategy and is focused on transforming how advertisers connect with their target customers on the Internet. Decker's APG organization includes direct and online sales channels, the publisher channel, marketing products, and Local Markets and Commerce. Prior to her APG role, Decker was executive vice president and chief financial officer from June 2000 - June 2007, managing all aspects of the company's financial and administrative direction within key functional areas, including finance, facilities, investor relations (and human resources and legal through December 2006). Decker reports to chairman and chief executive officer, Terry Semel.
Prior to joining Yahoo! in June 2000, Decker was with Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette (DLJ) for 14 years. Most recently, she served as the global director of equity research, a $300 million operation, where, among other things, she was responsible for building and staffing a non-U.S. research product based on global sector teams. Before serving as DLJ's global and domestic head of research, she spent 12 years as an equity research analyst, providing coverage to institutional investors on more than 30 media, publishing, and advertising stocks. In this capacity, she received recognition by Institutional Investor magazine as a top rated analyst for ten consecutive years.
Decker holds a bachelor of science degree from Tufts University, with a double major in computer science and economics, and a master of business administration degree from Harvard Business School. She also received the designation of Chartered Financial Analyst in 1989 and served on the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council (FASAC) for a four-year term, from January 2000 to January 2004. Decker served on the board of directors of Pixar Animation Studios from June 2004 to May 2006, until its sale to Disney and The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) from March 2005 to May 2007. Decker currently serves on the board of directors for Berkshire Hathaway, Intel Corporation and Costco Wholesale.
"
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenceo1.html
.... you are not doing as much as a business person.
I have used the same keyboard for 12 years.
One should throw away things only if they don't work or if you are getting something substantially better (and even then you may want to check if your old item is of use to anybody else).
To attract the women I like, I do a job that pays well.
To help children in need, I do a job that pays well ($100 is not much to me, check around what that could do in poor countries, or even poor localities in developed countries).
To travel, to go to any restaurant I want, too see any show I wish, I do a job that pays well.
Give me the money man, I'll put it to good use.
Neither do the Germans, Brits, Spanish. Italians. Austrians. Poles.
Or even Thais, Malaysian or Singaporean. Or Turks (which request a visa from us dirty Mexicans, but they do not care where you go, except close to the border with the country the us is helping to destroy).
Namibians do, but they are a bit looney.
Vietnamese did, but hey, they are a Socialist Republic.
So no, there is no excuse for what you are doing, in any case it is your country, it is my tourist money.
The matter of fact is that all this regulations are still in place and keep being proposed or put in place, progressive and sane people in the US are not doing enough to denounce the irrational climate of fear in your country.
Where are the massive demonstrations denouncing this?
Where are the massive political backslashes against the fear mongers?
I have seen how US authorities treat Chinese people in LAX. People that were actually in transit to Mexico City.
And as for us Mexicans, well, appalling just starts to describe the way we were treated.
They tried to pull the same one on me to which I replied that it was none of their business what I was doing in Mexico, since it is my country.
A very risk way of doing things, even pre 9-11, but there is a point when enough is enough frankly, so consider yourself lucky, many other people do not have it that easy on that airport.
As anyone with enough idle time can check, I make no bones about my chances to travel regularly abroad.
I have been to many countries, and the only one that ever demanded to know my whereabouts was, tan-tara-ran, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. And they did not finger print me I think (or maybe they did, but hey, it is a totalitarian regime still). Nevertheless I just had to give a Hotel address and I was pretty much free to come and go as I pleased.
The more advanced and democratic a country is, the less impediments it puts to travel. Canada does not demand visas for us Mexicans. EU countries gives us visas for 6 months on arrival. No fingerprinting.
Now again, give me a good reason why I should go to the US?
I have plenty of disposable income but it will be spent where I am welcomed. I am going as far as to avoid US based airlines, even if they are cheaper. The US wants to finger print me and take a mug shot just for the privilege of spending 2 hours in a transit area of an airport. No fucking way.
Which is a real pity, because I want to see more of the US than what I have seen so far, I have not been to NY for crying out loud!
US's loss as far as I am concerned.
It is a shameful indictment of people like you that foreigners know and understand better the letter and spirit of your own Constitution. Citizenry has nothing to do with the rule of law, save very special circumstances, but for 99% of cases, the law applies the same to all.
Many people in oppressed lands used to look at you as a beacon of freedom since they took what they knew aobut your country at face value. Guantanamo, the first election win of Mr Bush showed the world the reality hidden behind the nice empty rethoric.
When so many USians sprout so much nonsense as you did (in two sentences, for bunnies sakes) you do a tremendous deservice to your own country and its values.
You frankly are trying to pull a fast one on us.
Greenpeace powerful? Really? And what is their ultimate ends in this little conspiracy theory of yours?
Or Al Gore? Fur bunnies sakes, he could not even beat Bush. If he wanted power he would be campaigning for the White House, where the real power is, not for an issue that so many people have problems with because it will affect the way they do things.
And should be moderated as such.
There are plenty of studies in Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and many other countries that haves usbtantial amounts of forests. We also have satellite pictures for several decades.
Claiming that worrying about the destruction of rain forests is "alarmist" is irresponsible, ignorant and can't be understood as anything but as an intentional attempt to mislead.
In other words, you are vulgar liar.
"However, the study does identify other regions, such as the western tropical Pacific, where global warming does cause the environment to become more favorable for hurricanes."
Talking to a crystal ball?
If they had foreseen this they would have made the correct implementation.
It is clearly something they did not think about, so the more potential costumers let them know, the faster they will react to this.
Some people here act like if Google was infallible and all powerful and knowing. Disturbing.
Very often they are less flexible when it comes to working hours, have less benefits, demand far more of you (which impacts your work-life balance situation) and in general are less reasonable because every mistake impacts much more heavily the bottom line.
Small companies are nice to learn the trade, but you wanna move out of there as soon as time allows....
.... that is what makes /. priceless.
How will you decide who is the top 1% talent in any given company?
So if that hypothetical 1% are happy, but the other 99% live in abject misery, then everything is fine. Are you brain damaged or what?
People are telling you there is an area of concern, the company tries to improve things, but as always there are people whose glass is eternally empty, even when it is overflowing.
Let put it this way for you, since obviously you lack a sense of basic reasoning: see it as a bribe from an awful institution to a group of people that otherwise would not work there. That may smash the moraloid qualms you have while explaining why people would actually be satisfied to be there.
I am willing to take a cut on my pay for many other factors: location, atmosphere of the area where the office is (it really weighs you down to go to the office day in day out in the middle of an industrial dump or a neighborhood with no amenities or unsafe), kind of work.
The money does a lot of the talking, but should by no means be the only thing whispering on you ear.
I do agree about not caring about who people I work with, but I don't agree about working with unpleasant people. If there is somebody rude, loud or smelly either they change or one of us has to go. As simple as that (and since I am more senior, the few times this has happened it wasn't me doing the walking. Morale for you newbies: be polite, take a shower every day and you'll have the old farts in your side).