Not really, anymore. I think that's the old school definition.
Now it's more an indicator on a company's balance sheet of how much it has overpaid for something, or overvalued something. For example, if they have paid huge dot-com money for some new start up, but the financials of that start up are nowhere near the value the company paid for it, the difference must be put on the acquiring company's balance sheet as goodwill. Because balance sheets always have to net out to 0, when you pay more for something than it's worth, they have to put something in there to balance it out. Goodwill.
I was always taught we are a republic because the Constitution serves as a check on the elected representatives. That is, let's say they wanted to vote to allow racial discrimination, they couldn't do it (anymore), because the constitution says so. It is true that they have the power to change the Constitution, but that's really a different matter. That's not about passing a law, but about changing our entire form of government, or making modifications to the form (via amendment).
Unless they can even prove it works in the Northeast corridor, where it most likely has the most benefit, why bother with anything else?
It's not exactly high speed rail. It's better than regular speed. But not dramatically. I think there are all sorts of right-of-way issues. Unless the country says: "I don't care what these issues are, just make them go away, and make this work", I don't think we should spend another penny.
I haven't thought about this too much but what if they took out some seats and charged more. would you pay?
Let's say it costs $500 for each passenger retail for some flight. Let's say there are 25 rows of 6 seats each (150 passengers). That's 75,000 of revenue.
Now, let's say you take out 5 rows, or 30 seats. That would take a 33" pitch up to something like 40". it would also reduce revenue to 60,000. To get back to the 75,000, the passengers would have to pay 625.
I'd pay it in a heart beat.
Of course, you'd have to ensure all airlines did it, or else no one would. So, let's require 40" seat pitch for all airlines.
It was all to just get a start. They knew they couldn't build them cheap, but they wanted to get started. So why not build them where price is almost no object.
Seems like a decent idea. At least it's more realistic than saying they are going to take over the world.
Doesn't someone need to be harmed in order to sue? And in order to prove you were harmed, you'd need to have access to state secrets, which can't happen in the new America. Therefore, no harm, no standing to sue, no case.
I don't think you can sue for a general affront to the Constitution.
Any of these ideas of improvement are not new. But neither are they working. And the internet as we know it is working quite well. Far beyond what anyone would have predicted.
Are there things to be fixed? Sure, around every corner. But I'm not going to listen to some guy from some wicked kewl startup in SFO tell me how to do it.
How many other 'facts' about things in the universe might merely be tainted observations?
So many times I read the most fantastical things astronmers have discovered a billion light-years away, and I think, how do they really know that? When there's that much distance, couldn't there be something out there fooling with their observation?
Seems like it does happen.
and I don't believe it is just the public mis-interpreting something that the scientists said was 'probable'. A lot of these guys pass off their discoveries as facts.
What have they excelled at?
on
Google Apps Hacks
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Search/ads, obviously.
What else?
As the world moves online, and online advertising becomes the main advertising medium, I can safely say they will continue to grow and be successful, but they will just be one of many successful online advertisers.
You could fire 1/2 of their employees and still have all the success they have.
By the way, when was the last time you clicked on a adword link?
I always laugh at these policies. It makes people in the organization feel like they are 'doing the right thing.' But, as it seems in this case, it's the wrong thing. And in so many cases it's the wrong thing.
Just because a few terminations have caused someone to screw up networks, does it necessarily follow that these kinds of policies make sense? Especially when the employee is the one giving notice?
Someone prove to me that in all the cases of internal 'IT sabotage', the soon-to-be-gone employee is a big risk. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that currently-employed-and-anonymous employee is the biggest risk by far. SO why don't we just remove access from everyone? That would solve the problem, wouldn't it?
I'm guessing that if you read/., you are fairly technical, and actually enjoy it. If not, don't bother reading the rest of this.
If you are technically oriented and enjoy it, then I wouldn't necessarily recommend becoming an IT manager. It all depends on the size of the business.
That is, if your company is of any decent size (say > 250 employees), you're truly managing, and it's boring (to me). Your people skills count far more than anything else.
If, on the other hand, you can get a job as the IT manager for a smaller firm, you get 2 great things: 1) at your age, you're more likely to get the job and be given the benefit of the doubt on your age, and 2) you'll still get to be fairly technical.
RANT: IMHO, IT at large companies sucks. It's filled with loser careerists who aren't even sure why they are in the jobs they are in.
If you enjoy getting things done, you will find it next to impossible. Things that you know should really take a day or two to solve end up taking months or years. And all the people involved seem to be perfectly fine with it. Oh, they'll say, "so much is riding on our systems, we have to do all this process stuff or else calamity will befall us!" I say BS. It's all about control. Nothing more, nothing less.
No matter how much petro wealth is created, a nation conceived from a lie can not do great things. At best, they can copy. Even then, poorly.
I had always hoped that when George Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes, and found someone he could trust, he would force a copy of a biography of George Washington into his hands. It would have given him a recipe to follow.
Sadly, it was not to be. The Russians are beyond salvation.
I've always told my guys if ever asked to perform and audit, of IF someone ever shows up at the door, NEVER allow it. NEVER allow the guy into the building without a court order. I think that's still legit in the US (GWB may have stopped this, I'm not sure, because it's classified).
While not technically BSA-related, my company gets calls regularly (twice a year) from big software companies asking us to do an audit. I politely decline. Then I tell them we are covered under our parent company's volume agreement, and the phone practically goes dead on the other end. These are sales-initiated calls. Once they realize they won't get any money, they move on, just like a telemarketer.
But, I do think there is something to this glycemic index stuff.
I wouldn't be so quick to say it's calories in - calories out only. The/. community seems to think that everything should follow simple math.
Maybe the kinds of calories in affect the calories out? (metabolic rate)
I can feel the rush of carbs into my body if I eat a high carb meal. it wouldn't surprise me to learn it affected chemical processes related to weight gain.
Yes, yes: "they serve at the pleasure of the President."
Fine, fire them all because it's raining out. Or even fire them for political reasons, like they didn't donate enough money to your campaign. I'll give Bush the right to fire them for whatever reason, political or otherwise.
But, don't you think we have at least the right to know whether people were fired because they wouldn't investigate democrats in the months leading up to elections? Don't we at least have the right to know that people are being selectively prosecuted because of their party affiliations? Don't we at least have the right to know that justice is being meted out fairly?
Just because they are political appointments, doesn't mean that once appointed, the appointees are the stooges of the White House. They still have to follow the law. And it would be interesting to know if they were being fired for not being stooges.
And if you don't think the Congress has the right (nay, duty) to investigate such things, you're smoking crack.
IANAL but, doesn't the guy have to show real harm in order to sue? Assuming his battery doesn't yet need to be replaced, isn't this all just theoretical? Who knows, maybe it never needs to be replaced (not likely, but who knows?).
IIRC, there are many scary things in the drug laws that allow various agencies to sieze your property even without a finding of guilt in a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, here. If I hear one more time it's Obama's job to 'fix the economy' (or Bush's for that matter, I don't care) I think I'll puke.
Guess I'll be puking a lot.
Not really, anymore. I think that's the old school definition.
Now it's more an indicator on a company's balance sheet of how much it has overpaid for something, or overvalued something. For example, if they have paid huge dot-com money for some new start up, but the financials of that start up are nowhere near the value the company paid for it, the difference must be put on the acquiring company's balance sheet as goodwill. Because balance sheets always have to net out to 0, when you pay more for something than it's worth, they have to put something in there to balance it out. Goodwill.
So, I've always looked at it as a negative.
thank you for your crisp analysis.
Your statement is pretty much the whole point of this article, no?
I was always taught we are a republic because the Constitution serves as a check on the elected representatives. That is, let's say they wanted to vote to allow racial discrimination, they couldn't do it (anymore), because the constitution says so. It is true that they have the power to change the Constitution, but that's really a different matter. That's not about passing a law, but about changing our entire form of government, or making modifications to the form (via amendment).
Unless they can even prove it works in the Northeast corridor, where it most likely has the most benefit, why bother with anything else?
It's not exactly high speed rail. It's better than regular speed. But not dramatically. I think there are all sorts of right-of-way issues. Unless the country says: "I don't care what these issues are, just make them go away, and make this work", I don't think we should spend another penny.
I haven't thought about this too much but what if they took out some seats and charged more. would you pay?
Let's say it costs $500 for each passenger retail for some flight. Let's say there are 25 rows of 6 seats each (150 passengers). That's 75,000 of revenue.
Now, let's say you take out 5 rows, or 30 seats. That would take a 33" pitch up to something like 40". it would also reduce revenue to 60,000. To get back to the 75,000, the passengers would have to pay 625.
I'd pay it in a heart beat.
Of course, you'd have to ensure all airlines did it, or else no one would. So, let's require 40" seat pitch for all airlines.
It was all to just get a start. They knew they couldn't build them cheap, but they wanted to get started. So why not build them where price is almost no object.
Seems like a decent idea. At least it's more realistic than saying they are going to take over the world.
Doesn't someone need to be harmed in order to sue? And in order to prove you were harmed, you'd need to have access to state secrets, which can't happen in the new America. Therefore, no harm, no standing to sue, no case.
I don't think you can sue for a general affront to the Constitution.
I'm not usually politically correct, but that sig is pretty tasteless, isn't it?
On the shoulders of giants we stand.
Any of these ideas of improvement are not new. But neither are they working. And the internet as we know it is working quite well. Far beyond what anyone would have predicted.
Are there things to be fixed? Sure, around every corner. But I'm not going to listen to some guy from some wicked kewl startup in SFO tell me how to do it.
when you can't legally get at the evidence?
The plaintiff's need to prove they were harmed in some way. And proving they were harmed will require divulging state secrets.
Case dismissed.
How many other 'facts' about things in the universe might merely be tainted observations?
So many times I read the most fantastical things astronmers have discovered a billion light-years away, and I think, how do they really know that? When there's that much distance, couldn't there be something out there fooling with their observation?
Seems like it does happen.
and I don't believe it is just the public mis-interpreting something that the scientists said was 'probable'. A lot of these guys pass off their discoveries as facts.
You won't be using in a year.
Search/ads, obviously.
What else?
As the world moves online, and online advertising becomes the main advertising medium, I can safely say they will continue to grow and be successful, but they will just be one of many successful online advertisers.
You could fire 1/2 of their employees and still have all the success they have.
By the way, when was the last time you clicked on a adword link?
I've lurked a bit in the opensolaris forums, and there's a whole bunch of scary things with this FS. Like the RAM requirements for starters.
I always laugh at these policies. It makes people in the organization feel like they are 'doing the right thing.' But, as it seems in this case, it's the wrong thing. And in so many cases it's the wrong thing.
Just because a few terminations have caused someone to screw up networks, does it necessarily follow that these kinds of policies make sense? Especially when the employee is the one giving notice?
Someone prove to me that in all the cases of internal 'IT sabotage', the soon-to-be-gone employee is a big risk. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that currently-employed-and-anonymous employee is the biggest risk by far. SO why don't we just remove access from everyone? That would solve the problem, wouldn't it?
I'm guessing that if you read /., you are fairly technical, and actually enjoy it. If not, don't bother reading the rest of this.
If you are technically oriented and enjoy it, then I wouldn't necessarily recommend becoming an IT manager. It all depends on the size of the business.
That is, if your company is of any decent size (say > 250 employees), you're truly managing, and it's boring (to me). Your people skills count far more than anything else.
If, on the other hand, you can get a job as the IT manager for a smaller firm, you get 2 great things: 1) at your age, you're more likely to get the job and be given the benefit of the doubt on your age, and 2) you'll still get to be fairly technical.
RANT:
IMHO, IT at large companies sucks. It's filled with loser careerists who aren't even sure why they are in the jobs they are in.
If you enjoy getting things done, you will find it next to impossible. Things that you know should really take a day or two to solve end up taking months or years. And all the people involved seem to be perfectly fine with it. Oh, they'll say, "so much is riding on our systems, we have to do all this process stuff or else calamity will befall us!" I say BS. It's all about control. Nothing more, nothing less.
No matter how much petro wealth is created, a nation conceived from a lie can not do great things. At best, they can copy. Even then, poorly.
I had always hoped that when George Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes, and found someone he could trust, he would force a copy of a biography of George Washington into his hands. It would have given him a recipe to follow.
Sadly, it was not to be. The Russians are beyond salvation.
I wish them the best (really, I do).
At first I thought it was part of some charitable work. and maybe it is. But, the press release was issued by Google Inc.
When does it end?
I don't care if they own their own 767. You can't just hire a few people and get into all these different markets (e.g. cell phones).
Absolutely correct!!
I've always told my guys if ever asked to perform and audit, of IF someone ever shows up at the door, NEVER allow it. NEVER allow the guy into the building without a court order. I think that's still legit in the US (GWB may have stopped this, I'm not sure, because it's classified).
While not technically BSA-related, my company gets calls regularly (twice a year) from big software companies asking us to do an audit. I politely decline. Then I tell them we are covered under our parent company's volume agreement, and the phone practically goes dead on the other end. These are sales-initiated calls. Once they realize they won't get any money, they move on, just like a telemarketer.
I tend to agree with the simple formula
/. community seems to think that everything should follow simple math.
But, I do think there is something to this glycemic index stuff.
I wouldn't be so quick to say it's calories in - calories out only. The
Maybe the kinds of calories in affect the calories out? (metabolic rate)
I can feel the rush of carbs into my body if I eat a high carb meal. it wouldn't surprise me to learn it affected chemical processes related to weight gain.
Probably nothing, legally.
Yes, yes: "they serve at the pleasure of the President."
Fine, fire them all because it's raining out. Or even fire them for political reasons, like they didn't donate enough money to your campaign. I'll give Bush the right to fire them for whatever reason, political or otherwise.
But, don't you think we have at least the right to know whether people were fired because they wouldn't investigate democrats in the months leading up to elections? Don't we at least have the right to know that people are being selectively prosecuted because of their party affiliations? Don't we at least have the right to know that justice is being meted out fairly?
Just because they are political appointments, doesn't mean that once appointed, the appointees are the stooges of the White House. They still have to follow the law. And it would be interesting to know if they were being fired for not being stooges.
And if you don't think the Congress has the right (nay, duty) to investigate such things, you're smoking crack.
This is the guy who testified to the Senate that the right to habeas corpus is not guaranteed to US Citizens.
What a strange 6 years we have lived through since 9/11. I'm hoping it will be over soon. At least the Gonzalez chapter is.
IANAL but,
doesn't the guy have to show real harm in order to sue? Assuming his battery doesn't yet need to be replaced, isn't this all just theoretical? Who knows, maybe it never needs to be replaced (not likely, but who knows?).
IIRC, there are many scary things in the drug laws that allow various agencies to sieze your property even without a finding of guilt in a court of law.