"Were" is correct - if we consider James Bond in the present - as a going concern. But come on - when we think of James Bond, we think of Connery or Moore - that is, in the past. Even if we give Brosnan the nod, he's only as current as the last Bond film - which takes place circa 2002. Therefore "had been" is really the right call.
The key element here is the size of the venture capital firms' stake in Google. The only numbers I've been able to track down indicate that Sequoia and Kleiner invested $25 million for a combined stake of 40 percent. So that's not enough to force Brin, Page and Schmidt to go public or sell out if they don't want to. Of course, if the V.C.s could win one of those guys over to the go-public cause, it would tip the balance...
Anyone read this guy's complaint? He has no idea what an apostrophe is for, and he repeatedly refers to "Kanoodle, Google and Overture" as a single entity, like a law firm or something:
Kanoodle, Goodle and Overture actively assists competitors of PW...
Kanoodle, Goodle and Overture does not explicitly or fairly advise users of its search engine...
I wonder if it's possible for a lawsuit to be thrown out for featuring grammar and syntax so shoddy they render the complaint meaningless.
The $3 mil bid was from a guy in Chicago whose previous 5 eBay purchases were auto parts for $16.50 and under. Most likely a joke, like all the other multi-million-dollar bids. Read the story here. I wrote it. He told me he was feeling sentimental about the site.
XXX
Just between us girls, there's a story about the Amiga/Transmeta thang in the issue of Forbes that will hit the stands next week (8/9 cover date), so it should be on the Forbes website come Monday.
Another continuity problem: the photo shoot Gates does. "It's for the Wall Street Journal," his assistant says. In fact, "Staff Photographer for the Wall Street Journal" is a *classic* no-op job title.
Here's how it works with analysts like Card: they get paid partly according to how many times their names (and their company's) appear in news stories. So it's more profitable for someone like Card to say something brash like "It's a really dumb idea," a very quotable comment, than to really consider the question. From the writer's point of view: Shankland needs a source, in a hurry, with a title suggesting industry knowledge. Jupiter and its ilk (Forrester, Gartner, IDG, Meta, etc.) are supposed to be specialists in tech. From experience, I can say they're better informed and more accessible than the Wall Street equity analysts.
Card should know better, and maybe Shankland could have dug a little more under Card's hasty assertion, but that's how the press/analyst machine works.
In retrospect, the more interesting topic will be Linux's effect on commercialism. How far will the "open" and/or "free" approaches to projects and products eventually reach into the mainstream marketplace?
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody mod this up - it's funny!
Dartmouth is packing:
Wired story from 2001. Dig it.
"Were" is correct - if we consider James Bond in the present - as a going concern. But come on - when we think of James Bond, we think of Connery or Moore - that is, in the past. Even if we give Brosnan the nod, he's only as current as the last Bond film - which takes place circa 2002. Therefore "had been" is really the right call.
The key element here is the size of the venture capital firms' stake in Google. The only numbers I've been able to track down indicate that Sequoia and Kleiner invested $25 million for a combined stake of 40 percent. So that's not enough to force Brin, Page and Schmidt to go public or sell out if they don't want to. Of course, if the V.C.s could win one of those guys over to the go-public cause, it would tip the balance...
Anyone read this guy's complaint? He has no idea what an apostrophe is for, and he repeatedly refers to "Kanoodle, Google and Overture" as a single entity, like a law firm or something:
Kanoodle, Goodle and Overture actively assists competitors of PW...
Kanoodle, Goodle and Overture does not explicitly or fairly advise users of its search engine...
I wonder if it's possible for a lawsuit to be thrown out for featuring grammar and syntax so shoddy they render the complaint meaningless.
I know that Dartmouth, in Hanover, is completely covered by 802.11b.
The $3 mil bid was from a guy in Chicago whose previous 5 eBay purchases were auto parts for $16.50 and under. Most likely a joke, like all the other multi-million-dollar bids. Read the story here. I wrote it. He told me he was feeling sentimental about the site. XXX
Just between us girls, there's a story about the Amiga/Transmeta thang in the issue of Forbes that will hit the stands next week (8/9 cover date), so it should be on the Forbes website come Monday.
Another continuity problem: the photo shoot Gates does. "It's for the Wall Street Journal," his assistant says.
In fact, "Staff Photographer for the Wall Street Journal" is a *classic* no-op job title.
Hey now, It's not totally hopeless.
I think I got the hacker/cracker thing right in a story I wrote last summer.
True, there are few reporters that care enough to make the distinction, but our numbers are, I think, growing.
-Josh McHugh
Here's how it works with analysts like Card: they get paid partly according to how many times their names (and their company's) appear in news stories.
So it's more profitable for someone like Card to say something brash like "It's a really dumb idea," a very quotable comment, than to really consider the question.
From the writer's point of view: Shankland needs a source, in a hurry, with a title suggesting industry knowledge. Jupiter and its ilk (Forrester, Gartner, IDG, Meta, etc.) are supposed to be specialists in tech. From experience, I can say they're better informed and more accessible than the Wall Street equity analysts.
Card should know better, and maybe Shankland could have dug a little more under Card's hasty assertion, but that's how the press/analyst machine works.
In retrospect, the more interesting topic will be Linux's effect on commercialism.
How far will the "open" and/or "free" approaches to projects and products eventually reach into the mainstream marketplace?