Amazon has about the same revenue as Best Buy (50b).. but BBY made 1.28b in net profits.
Even when comparing Amazon to retail companies of similar size.. it doesn't perform well.
Let me rephrase.. even when comparing Amazon to failing retails giants.. Amazon does not perform well.
Lowe's.. 50b.. 1.8b net profits Staples.. 25b.. 0.88b net profits
Did you know foot locker makes 278m on 5.6b in revenue.... 2/3rd the profits on 1/10th the revenue compared to amazon.
Point is... there's no indication that amazon will destroy B&M retail. So far they have not been able to show the profit margin or even just net profit that traditional retailers have been able to.
When I was 13/14 and used win9x and wanted to learn to program, there was no visual studio express at all. Only paid tools costing hundreds of dollars.
So you know what I did?
Switched to Linux.
Even today, I have no idea how to write a Windows program (managed to write a DLL I needed a few years ago though.. using Visual studio express C++).. but I've been writing Linux/BSD software in C for 15 years.
Point is, Visual Studio express may be crap.. but if they had it 15 years ago.. I'm sure I would have learned to program in Windows instead. Might never have switched to Linux at all.
So IMO, it's a smart/critical piece of software from MS. It's a bit much to expect people who are learning to program to immediately spend hundreds of dollars.
Run the Google Toolbar, and it’s strikingly easy to activate “Enhanced Features” -- transmitting to Google the full URL of every page-view, including searches at competing search engines.
Let me rephrase what happened in reality: A google employee noticed that the bing toolbar reports search terms back to bing -- just like the google toolbar does.. and Google decided score some easy points, and make Bing look like a copycat.
You're a customer of the advertising agency? or the sites displaying ads? really? How much did you pay them last year?
Their REAL customers... you know -- the companies that buy ads.. they love targeted ads because they are effective, and they love companies that implement them like Google.
So more like -- fuck you free website visitor.. because our customers (THE ADVERTISERS) love our product (AD SPACE)
In fantasy land, this would work. They might only earn $1 off your visits for a year.. but if you had to pay, the bill would be more like $50/year.. because 49 other people would have refused to pay anything.
Of course, then you would say, $50/year is outrageous, and you're not going to pay
So in REALITY, the site would have 0 customers, and would be shutdown.
So the question is.. if you don't like the ads on the site.. WHY DO YOU GO THERE?
WHY are you here on slashdot for example? And I noticed you chose not to pay for a slashdot subscription either.
Way to stand up for your hard line against advertising.
Do Not Track is not a problem.. because it will never seriously be implemented. It's just a request, and it will be ignored by every advertising company there is.
1) it's a $300 billion industry 2) targeted ads are more effective. so 3) if your ad company implements DNT, you will be less effective, and your clients will go where their ads (and $) are more effective -- which is where DNT is not implemented.
No one is going to give up billions (or their jobs) to implement DNT.. any ad company that does will be out-competed by their competitors and die.
And NO consumer is going to pay to have DNT. If consumers REALLY cared about targeted ads, they wouldn't happily post every details of their lives on facebook.
I agree with you.. but there are people who think it is far worse. There's an entire movement behind a move to sugar instead HFCS. It's those people I was addressing in my post.
this debate, eh? I've already tried it. You can probably just keep your facts to yourself. It won't convince them that HFCS isn't bad.
They are looking for an easy scapegoat for their obesity problem.
That's my theory anyway.
In a can of soda with 39g of sugar.. HFCS would have 2g more fructose. Imagine someone with 40+ lbs of extra fat and thinking the soda with 39g of sugar is OK.. but that 2g of fructose is terrible.
glusterfs is used in red hat storage and other RH products. RH storage is exactly the same as glusterFS, and the entirety of glusterFS is what TP is claiming infringes their patent. RH earns actual revenue from it, and if found infringing, TP will have real damages, proven by the revenue of RH storage & other products.
mount is a free utility, included in TPs implementation of mirrorFS. It has no revenue, is not sold separately, or even a primary feature of mirrorFS. RH makes no revenue or profits from it.. damages would be $0 or maybe a small portion of TPs revenue from mirrorFS.
How in the world you twisted this into TP has more to lose than RH... I have no idea.
Looks like RH grasped to the only straw they could find.
So here's an ex-google exec saying Yahoo employees can use a bunch of android phones or a currently-unavailable iphone. Didn't a certain Nokia exec do something similar recently.. hmm
So Yahoo thinks it should discard RIM... When was the last time Yahoo got much of anything right? How do we know this isn't yet another miss-step? Aren't there some BB users that use Yahoo? Wouldn't it be better if Yahoo employees used ALL of the common smartphones?
You forgot "IANAL"... which you obviously aren't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Notably, Congress made no provision in the Act for awards of punitive damages. "The language is clear, unambiguous, and exclusive: these are the alternatives available to a copyright plaintiff, and punitive damages are not provided by either of them."... The Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals long ago stated explicitly that "[p]unitive damages are not available in statutory copyright actions."
Slashdot Mirror
he can't give you a link.. because it's not true. here's an article from 2009 that says a mall opened in 2006, and another was scheduled to open later that year (2009)
http://theweek.com/article/index/94691/the-vanishing-shopping-mall
Amazon has about the same revenue as Best Buy (50b).. but BBY made 1.28b in net profits.
Even when comparing Amazon to retail companies of similar size.. it doesn't perform well.
Let me rephrase.. even when comparing Amazon to failing retails giants.. Amazon does not perform well.
Lowe's.. 50b.. 1.8b net profits
Staples.. 25b.. 0.88b net profits
Did you know foot locker makes 278m on 5.6b in revenue.... 2/3rd the profits on 1/10th the revenue compared to amazon.
Point is... there's no indication that amazon will destroy B&M retail. So far they have not been able to show the profit margin or even just net profit that traditional retailers have been able to.
Revenue:
Walmart: 460b
Target: 71b
Amazon: 54b
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Revenue
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Target_(TGT)/Data/Revenue
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenue
Net profit:
Walmart: 16.4b
Target: 2.9b
Amazon: 0.38b
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Net_Income/2012
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Target_(TGT)/Data/Net_Income
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Net_Income
So Walmart is 10x larger by revenue.. and 43x more profitable.
Target is 1.5x larger by revenue.. and 7x more profitable.
Amazon has a long way to go.
When I was 13/14 and used win9x and wanted to learn to program, there was no visual studio express at all. Only paid tools costing hundreds of dollars.
So you know what I did?
Switched to Linux.
Even today, I have no idea how to write a Windows program (managed to write a DLL I needed a few years ago though.. using Visual studio express C++).. but I've been writing Linux/BSD software in C for 15 years.
Point is, Visual Studio express may be crap.. but if they had it 15 years ago.. I'm sure I would have learned to program in Windows instead. Might never have switched to Linux at all.
So IMO, it's a smart/critical piece of software from MS. It's a bit much to expect people who are learning to program to immediately spend hundreds of dollars.
why do you reply to comments you havent read? The links I posted EXPLICITLY SAID google tracks searches on OTHER search engines.
what is the difference between what Bing did and what google does?
http://www.benedelman.org/news/012610-1.html
Run the Google Toolbar, and it’s strikingly easy to activate “Enhanced Features” -- transmitting to Google the full URL of every page-view, including searches at competing search engines.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/187670/Google_Toolbar_Tracks_You_Even_After_Being_Disabled.html
Let me rephrase what happened in reality: A google employee noticed that the bing toolbar reports search terms back to bing -- just like the google toolbar does.. and Google decided score some easy points, and make Bing look like a copycat.
Wow.. this is definitely news. A competitor of MS made a mistake, and they're attempting to gain an advantage from it.
It's like... they're competing or something.
More stories like this /.
This is groundbreaking stuff
You're a customer of the advertising agency? or the sites displaying ads? really? How much did you pay them last year?
Their REAL customers... you know -- the companies that buy ads.. they love targeted ads because they are effective, and they love companies that implement them like Google.
So more like -- fuck you free website visitor.. because our customers (THE ADVERTISERS) love our product (AD SPACE)
Which is why a very small percent others use proxies, noscript, ghostery, and other blockers
FTFY
1% use blockers.. 1% opt-out (by not using the site), and 98% are busy posting what they ate for breakfast on facebook.
Charge me a buck a month or something.
In fantasy land, this would work. They might only earn $1 off your visits for a year.. but if you had to pay, the bill would be more like $50/year.. because 49 other people would have refused to pay anything.
Of course, then you would say, $50/year is outrageous, and you're not going to pay
So in REALITY, the site would have 0 customers, and would be shutdown.
So the question is.. if you don't like the ads on the site.. WHY DO YOU GO THERE?
WHY are you here on slashdot for example? And I noticed you chose not to pay for a slashdot subscription either.
Way to stand up for your hard line against advertising.
Do Not Track is not a problem.. because it will never seriously be implemented. It's just a request, and it will be ignored by every advertising company there is.
1) it's a $300 billion industry
2) targeted ads are more effective.
so 3) if your ad company implements DNT, you will be less effective, and your clients will go where their ads (and $) are more effective -- which is where DNT is not implemented.
No one is going to give up billions (or their jobs) to implement DNT.. any ad company that does will be out-competed by their competitors and die.
And NO consumer is going to pay to have DNT. If consumers REALLY cared about targeted ads, they wouldn't happily post every details of their lives on facebook.
I agree with you.. but there are people who think it is far worse. There's an entire movement behind a move to sugar instead HFCS. It's those people I was addressing in my post.
this debate, eh? I've already tried it. You can probably just keep your facts to yourself. It won't convince them that HFCS isn't bad.
They are looking for an easy scapegoat for their obesity problem.
That's my theory anyway.
In a can of soda with 39g of sugar.. HFCS would have 2g more fructose. Imagine someone with 40+ lbs of extra fat and thinking the soda with 39g of sugar is OK.. but that 2g of fructose is terrible.
Amazing.
it's mount. It's not a revolutionary app. They'll rewrite it in a day.. before the ink on the injunction is even dry.
glusterfs is used in red hat storage and other RH products. RH storage is exactly the same as glusterFS, and the entirety of glusterFS is what TP is claiming infringes their patent. RH earns actual revenue from it, and if found infringing, TP will have real damages, proven by the revenue of RH storage & other products.
mount is a free utility, included in TPs implementation of mirrorFS. It has no revenue, is not sold separately, or even a primary feature of mirrorFS. RH makes no revenue or profits from it.. damages would be $0 or maybe a small portion of TPs revenue from mirrorFS.
How in the world you twisted this into TP has more to lose than RH... I have no idea.
Looks like RH grasped to the only straw they could find.
do you think the "and earlier" versions that are also vulnerable might be on XP?
iPhone accounts for the majority of mobile internet traffic. But it's marketshare is ~25%
Right.. and I'm sure there are no Yahoo employees that already own a 4S.
% of mobile traffic != % of smartphone marketshare
That's one way of interpreting it.
So here's an ex-google exec saying Yahoo employees can use a bunch of android phones or a currently-unavailable iphone. Didn't a certain Nokia exec do something similar recently.. hmm
So Yahoo thinks it should discard RIM... When was the last time Yahoo got much of anything right? How do we know this isn't yet another miss-step? Aren't there some BB users that use Yahoo? Wouldn't it be better if Yahoo employees used ALL of the common smartphones?
You forgot "IANAL"... which you obviously aren't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Notably, Congress made no provision in the Act for awards of punitive damages. "The language is clear, unambiguous, and exclusive: these are the alternatives available to a copyright plaintiff, and punitive damages are not provided by either of them." ... The Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals long ago stated explicitly that "[p]unitive damages are not available in statutory copyright actions."
http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/are-punitive-damages-available-under-the-copyright-act.html
How does that help anyone in this case. Twin Peaks uses their patent. Here's a link to the product on their website:
http://twinpeaksoft.com/clustering%20plus.html
Red Hat just wants to call them a patent troll to try to turn public opinion against them.
Then they just have to convince the court that the damage from their actions is much smaller than the damage by RH
This is a good point.. what are the damages to RH for a utility they give away for free?
The patent suit brought by Twin Peaks is on the Mirror Filesystem.
Twin Peaks provides an implementation of it that includes a mount utility.
Red Hat is saying portions of Twin Peaks' mount utility was copied from mount, which RH owns the copyright to.
Even if Red Hat wins their copyright claim, they could still lose on the patent infringement claim.
They haven't made ANYTHING. Forget about 100%... right now it's at 0% ROI