I'm not sure that this is ignorance on the part of stockholders. A company's valuation includes future earnings -- and many investors (I am not currently a stockholder in RHAT) believe that the company's current valuation of $7.004 billion well represents the company's future. I haven't sat down and looked at all the numbers myself, and my gut is that that figure is a little high, but it seems to me to be a safe bet that RedHat will eventually be profitable.
Deals like these reinforce my opinion that RedHat is firmly set on making a profit -- and despite much of the rhetoric on/., that's a fine thing to do, as long as it's balanced, and I think they've shown that they're planning on staying true to their Open Source roots for a long time. I think a lot of investors have been or still are waiting to see if Linux will be truly commercially viable (I know, I know, but don't preach to the choir!) and these jumps are typically people who are finally convinced, to whatever degree, that RedHat might actually someday make a profit.
Moderators: Send this to 5! Maybe Rob will see it... Here's a vote for getting SLASH in whatever state it's in. This is THE site for the Open Source community; it's a travesty that it itself is not OS.
RHAT gained about $1.24 billion in market valuation yesterday. But MSFT lost a little more than $6 billion. Obviously, as a percentage of total valuation (MSFT is around $460 billion), RH gained much more, but as far as money shifting, a lot more left MSFT yesterday than went into RHAT.
That's what ipchains is missing. Checkpoint is one of the few (only?) FW companies that understands what it is to have to manage 100+ firewalls, and their concept of a "management console" is outstanding. I won't lie and say there are no bugs in it, but hands down, nobody else comes close.
Now that they're porting it to Linux, looks like I'll be throwing ipchains out the window for home use and in some small installations. We primarily run it on Solaris, but Linux will have its place as well, I believe.
You are correct, I have not. But my point is that money is never worth death. Although you don't explicitly state that that happened to you, if it did, I'm sorry. But gambles and risks are part of business. You still have your brains -- go out and do it again!
One setback does not kill you. A bullet does. There are crimes for which I think death is an acceptable punishment. No business practice is worth it.
These juvenile sentiments bring no credit to the/. community.
"...Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways..."
Dude, calm down. It's just business. That attitude is what got Microsoft where it is today.;>
Bill Gates didn't kill anybody. He hasn't prevented you from living your life, nor expressing yourself. His business/ethical decisions, while perhaps not to the standards we would like, are a far cry from murder, child abuse, or other crimes that might in fact be worthy of the death penalty.
Face it, capitalism doesn't solve everything. The disabled are not a large enough market share to matter to someone like AOL, or a large number of other corporations either.
This, in fact, is what the government IS for.
We make a lot out of the fact that we don't want the government running our lives, telling us how to run our own business, etc. Fine. But it does have a place, and that's to protect those that need it. If the Internet is as big a part of the future as every/.er believes, then yes, the blind (and the deaf, and many other people with disabilities) have a right to be part of it.
But there's simply not enough of them to make noise with their dollars. Folks, money ain't everything. Sometimes there are things that should be required because it's the right thing to do. There are a number of situations where we MUST rely on the government -- pollution, for example.
So all you/.ers who think the market should solve it: Get real. The market is great for many, many problems, but there are times when society as a whole has to protect what it believes in. I believe in freedom for everyone.
Once again, we run into those pesky ol' fair use issues. Just like with software and music, I can make copies of content that I own. If I want to burn myself a copy of every game or audio CD I buy, I have that ability -- and right, as long as I don't distribute it. Same goes for movies.
So don't restrict the technology. Protect your IP legally if you want, but just remember that fair use is exactly that: FAIR.
Another "wow, I'm *totally* shocked.. NOT!" story. You mean somebody was sloppy in how they implemented their encryption? And that led to exploiting a design flaw? WOW...:)
In all seriousness, I have no problem with copy-protecting DVD's. All the new-age zealotry regarding IP aside, as it stands moviemakers and DVD producers have the right to profit from their efforts. If they stop profiting, they stop making movies, and poof! no more "Matrix"-quality films.
OTOH, kudos to the hackers (in the traditional sense) who broke it. This is a rare case of white-hat hacking being beneficial. The original designers should probably be held liable somehow, and future efforts in this regard will be MUCH more careful.
Most Americans understand that the Constitution only guarantees freedom from government censorship. However, there is then an emotional attachment that permeates our perspective. I personally feel strongly that while there is no legal guarantee of free speech, there are ethical issues involved.
Previous posters have hit the nail on the head: By choosing to regulate some of the posts, Yahoo! is now legally responsible for all of them. Users then feel that they are restricted in their expression, which is the real hot-button issue. Yahoo! should make clear why certain posts are deleted. Is that information illegal to be public (ie classified defense information, given that this is Lockheed Martin), or simply not beneficial to LM? If the former, explain that. If the latter, then the ethical issues really become paramount.
Don't assume that because Americans believe in free expression at all times that we don't understand what we are guaranteed. Our deeply held values aren't all guaranteed by the Constitution, and we know it. That's why society != government.
It's not just Silicon Valley; it's the entire community/industry represented there. I have no idea in what part of the world you are, and vice versa -- and it doesn't matter. At least to some extent,/.ers are by and large a central (perhaps even vocal) portion of this techie population, and our physical location is (nearly) irrelevant.
It seems to me that the techie community is "liberal" -- in the classical sense. IOW, not part of the currently chic liberal/conservative dichotomy, but in favor of classical freedom and enlightenment. The article makes a subtle point that I've long held: the tech community/industry tends to favor a sort of neo-Jeffersonian outlook, much more laissez-faire and "get the hell out of my business". This is the real sea change. Crypto, immigration, privacy, censorhip, &c. are all part and parcel with that issue.
So what we have is a decentralized, economically powerful, fairly intelligent community that passionately believes in freedom. Pretty good place to be, I think.
that a phone with this chip can support all these standards? IOW, will I be able to switch from a TDMA to CDMA provider and back again? Or does it just simplify matters for the phone manufacturers? The press release leaves me somewhat confused on this point. Having that ability would be really sweet.
They went out of business. Belly up. And good thing, too -- DVD is much better, since no one is going to know how much I watch, or even what I watch. If I want to buy a DVD, then I want to own it.
ObOnTopic: I'm interested how many folks actually watch DVD's on their computer vs. how many watch it on a regular TV as part of their entertainment system. I'm in the second category. Anybody else?
That equipment is not so "weird"... It's actually a pretty common setup. 3Com Total Control and Ascend Max boxes are heavily used throughout the dialup world.
Trademark infringement is already illegal. The only real new thing here is that if a company can't find the infringer, they can still kill the registration. This may not stand up in court, as it seems to me that it denies due process (a constitutional guarantee).
But IANAL, so someone else may be able to point out that the above is a bunch of bull.
But you pointed out the best reason for NSI to not be liable: they shouldn't make the decisions. NSI does not have the legal purview (sp?) to make any trademark decisions, even "obvious" ones.
They are not an arm of the government, and even though (or perhaps "especially since") the data gathered is under a government contract (from the executive branch, I might add), it is not their responsibility to adjudicate trademark disputes, but rather that of the judicial system. Whether or not the courts can handle the load is a different matter entirely, but NSI shouldn't be acting in the role of the judicial branch, since they are affiliated with the Dept of Commerce.
Besides, considering how much else they screw up, let's not suffer from the delusion that they're anywhere near capable enough to handle trademark disputes.
You already have it. This is supposed to prevent children (who, under the law, are not considered capable of making binding decisions) from revealing information that their parents feel they should not. If you are 18 or older, you are presumed capable of making that decision. Then again, that could be a flawed assumption as well.
Well, while I won't go so far as to defend the FTC and FCC -- everyone is entitled to their own opinions about the government -- I think it's worth pointing out that FCC commissioners go through an approval process by the legislature. (I can't say from my own knowledge that the FTC works exactly the same, but the head of the FTC must be approved). So there, representatives elected directly by the people no more than 6 years ago (the length of a Senate term) are approving each appointment.
Further, as a general rule, these commissions can only make rules for which they have the authority to do so. The FCC can't suddenly decide that it wants to regulate the price of hay, for example, nor can it (currently) mandate less comedy and more news on TV. It doesn't have the statutory authority to do so. While that's not to say that bureaucracies never overstep their bounds, the judicial branch (see? checks and balances, just like we learned in school!) has the power to strike down regulations for which a commission has no power to create.
IOW, according to the law and even the Constitution, everything matches the original theory. Legislative branch makes the laws, executive branch implements them, judicial branch interprets them.
More pop psychology fluff -- and this stuff is way off the mark. Sure, if every intelligent, educated technical-minded person were, say, Marty McFly, this might be true. But how many of us actually are? And even for those of use with cowlicks and glasses (yes, I'm guilty, though I don't wear bow ties nor pocket protectors), that doesn't mean we don't have a chance with beautiful women. Granted, if a guy gets a date and shows her his stamp collection then wants to play Nintendo, he may not be the best catch. But just because I'm a networking geek and get off on mathematics doesn't mean my life ends there. Like a lot of other techies out there, I can dance, appreciate music, have a good time with people from other walks of life (gasp! shock!) In fact, I'm just one of many well-adjusted geeks. This is the most ridiculous piece of dating advice I've seen in a long time.
Disclaimer: I recently married a sexy Latina (hehehe jealous ain't ya?;> ) and so I don't have to worry about the dating scene anymore. My opinions may therefore be altered by this. 'Course, I just think it makes me more objective...
Slashdot Mirror
Deals like these reinforce my opinion that RedHat is firmly set on making a profit -- and despite much of the rhetoric on /., that's a fine thing to do, as long as it's balanced, and I think they've shown that they're planning on staying true to their Open Source roots for a long time. I think a lot of investors have been or still are waiting to see if Linux will be truly commercially viable (I know, I know, but don't preach to the choir!) and these jumps are typically people who are finally convinced, to whatever degree, that RedHat might actually someday make a profit.
BTW, I meant send the original suggestion to 5... not being selfish!
Moderators: Send this to 5! Maybe Rob will see it... Here's a vote for getting SLASH in whatever state it's in. This is THE site for the Open Source community; it's a travesty that it itself is not OS.
Why would I want Sun-purple bikes? I mean, geek kids are that big of a market? C'mon...
RHAT gained about $1.24 billion in market valuation yesterday. But MSFT lost a little more than $6 billion. Obviously, as a percentage of total valuation (MSFT is around $460 billion), RH gained much more, but as far as money shifting, a lot more left MSFT yesterday than went into RHAT.
That's what ipchains is missing. Checkpoint is one of the few (only?) FW companies that understands what it is to have to manage 100+ firewalls, and their concept of a "management console" is outstanding. I won't lie and say there are no bugs in it, but hands down, nobody else comes close.
Now that they're porting it to Linux, looks like I'll be throwing ipchains out the window for home use and in some small installations. We primarily run it on Solaris, but Linux will have its place as well, I believe.
Try Nokia.
You are correct, I have not. But my point is that money is never worth death. Although you don't explicitly state that that happened to you, if it did, I'm sorry. But gambles and risks are part of business. You still have your brains -- go out and do it again!
/. community.
One setback does not kill you. A bullet does. There are crimes for which I think death is an acceptable punishment. No business practice is worth it.
These juvenile sentiments bring no credit to the
"...Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways..."
;>
Dude, calm down. It's just business. That attitude is what got Microsoft where it is today.
Bill Gates didn't kill anybody. He hasn't prevented you from living your life, nor expressing yourself. His business/ethical decisions, while perhaps not to the standards we would like, are a far cry from murder, child abuse, or other crimes that might in fact be worthy of the death penalty.
Grow up.
Um, I don't know where you live, but here in the US, the government belongs to the people. In theory, anyway. That's called democracy.
So it's not "my" money, it's "our" money.
Face it, capitalism doesn't solve everything. The disabled are not a large enough market share to matter to someone like AOL, or a large number of other corporations either.
/.er believes, then yes, the blind (and the deaf, and many other people with disabilities) have a right to be part of it.
/.ers who think the market should solve it: Get real. The market is great for many, many problems, but there are times when society as a whole has to protect what it believes in. I believe in freedom for everyone.
This, in fact, is what the government IS for.
We make a lot out of the fact that we don't want the government running our lives, telling us how to run our own business, etc. Fine. But it does have a place, and that's to protect those that need it. If the Internet is as big a part of the future as every
But there's simply not enough of them to make noise with their dollars. Folks, money ain't everything. Sometimes there are things that should be required because it's the right thing to do. There are a number of situations where we MUST rely on the government -- pollution, for example.
So all you
Don't you?
Once again, we run into those pesky ol' fair use issues. Just like with software and music, I can make copies of content that I own. If I want to burn myself a copy of every game or audio CD I buy, I have that ability -- and right, as long as I don't distribute it. Same goes for movies.
So don't restrict the technology. Protect your IP legally if you want, but just remember that fair use is exactly that: FAIR.
The article points out that this radiation is not exactly the same as cell-phone radiation; I'd be interested in seeing what the differences are.
Let's also not get too worked up about one study; the results of just one study are not definitive (in either direction).
Another "wow, I'm *totally* shocked.. NOT!" story. You mean somebody was sloppy in how they implemented their encryption? And that led to exploiting a design flaw? WOW... :)
In all seriousness, I have no problem with copy-protecting DVD's. All the new-age zealotry regarding IP aside, as it stands moviemakers and DVD producers have the right to profit from their efforts. If they stop profiting, they stop making movies, and poof! no more "Matrix"-quality films.
OTOH, kudos to the hackers (in the traditional sense) who broke it. This is a rare case of white-hat hacking being beneficial. The original designers should probably be held liable somehow, and future efforts in this regard will be MUCH more careful.
Most Americans understand that the Constitution only guarantees freedom from government censorship. However, there is then an emotional attachment that permeates our perspective. I personally feel strongly that while there is no legal guarantee of free speech, there are ethical issues involved.
Previous posters have hit the nail on the head: By choosing to regulate some of the posts, Yahoo! is now legally responsible for all of them. Users then feel that they are restricted in their expression, which is the real hot-button issue. Yahoo! should make clear why certain posts are deleted. Is that information illegal to be public (ie classified defense information, given that this is Lockheed Martin), or simply not beneficial to LM? If the former, explain that. If the latter, then the ethical issues really become paramount.
Don't assume that because Americans believe in free expression at all times that we don't understand what we are guaranteed. Our deeply held values aren't all guaranteed by the Constitution, and we know it. That's why society != government.
It's not just Silicon Valley; it's the entire community/industry represented there. I have no idea in what part of the world you are, and vice versa -- and it doesn't matter. At least to some extent, /.ers are by and large a central (perhaps even vocal) portion of this techie population, and our physical location is (nearly) irrelevant.
It seems to me that the techie community is "liberal" -- in the classical sense. IOW, not part of the currently chic liberal/conservative dichotomy, but in favor of classical freedom and enlightenment. The article makes a subtle point that I've long held: the tech community/industry tends to favor a sort of neo-Jeffersonian outlook, much more laissez-faire and "get the hell out of my business". This is the real sea change. Crypto, immigration, privacy, censorhip, &c. are all part and parcel with that issue.
So what we have is a decentralized, economically powerful, fairly intelligent community that passionately believes in freedom. Pretty good place to be, I think.
that a phone with this chip can support all these standards? IOW, will I be able to switch from a TDMA to CDMA provider and back again? Or does it just simplify matters for the phone manufacturers? The press release leaves me somewhat confused on this point. Having that ability would be really sweet.
They went out of business. Belly up. And good thing, too -- DVD is much better, since no one is going to know how much I watch, or even what I watch. If I want to buy a DVD, then I want to own it.
ObOnTopic: I'm interested how many folks actually watch DVD's on their computer vs. how many watch it on a regular TV as part of their entertainment system. I'm in the second category. Anybody else?
That equipment is not so "weird"... It's actually a pretty common setup. 3Com Total Control and Ascend Max boxes are heavily used throughout the dialup world.
Trademark infringement is already illegal. The only real new thing here is that if a company can't find the infringer, they can still kill the registration. This may not stand up in court, as it seems to me that it denies due process (a constitutional guarantee).
But IANAL, so someone else may be able to point out that the above is a bunch of bull.
But you pointed out the best reason for NSI to not be liable: they shouldn't make the decisions. NSI does not have the legal purview (sp?) to make any trademark decisions, even "obvious" ones.
They are not an arm of the government, and even though (or perhaps "especially since") the data gathered is under a government contract (from the executive branch, I might add), it is not their responsibility to adjudicate trademark disputes, but rather that of the judicial system. Whether or not the courts can handle the load is a different matter entirely, but NSI shouldn't be acting in the role of the judicial branch, since they are affiliated with the Dept of Commerce.
Besides, considering how much else they screw up, let's not suffer from the delusion that they're anywhere near capable enough to handle trademark disputes.
0wned would work as well... :)
You already have it. This is supposed to prevent children (who, under the law, are not considered capable of making binding decisions) from revealing information that their parents feel they should not. If you are 18 or older, you are presumed capable of making that decision. Then again, that could be a flawed assumption as well.
Well, while I won't go so far as to defend the FTC and FCC -- everyone is entitled to their own opinions about the government -- I think it's worth pointing out that FCC commissioners go through an approval process by the legislature. (I can't say from my own knowledge that the FTC works exactly the same, but the head of the FTC must be approved). So there, representatives elected directly by the people no more than 6 years ago (the length of a Senate term) are approving each appointment.
Further, as a general rule, these commissions can only make rules for which they have the authority to do so. The FCC can't suddenly decide that it wants to regulate the price of hay, for example, nor can it (currently) mandate less comedy and more news on TV. It doesn't have the statutory authority to do so. While that's not to say that bureaucracies never overstep their bounds, the judicial branch (see? checks and balances, just like we learned in school!) has the power to strike down regulations for which a commission has no power to create.
IOW, according to the law and even the Constitution, everything matches the original theory. Legislative branch makes the laws, executive branch implements them, judicial branch interprets them.
Of course, IANAL.
More pop psychology fluff -- and this stuff is way off the mark. Sure, if every intelligent, educated technical-minded person were, say, Marty McFly , this might be true. But how many of us actually are? And even for those of use with cowlicks and glasses (yes, I'm guilty, though I don't wear bow ties nor pocket protectors), that doesn't mean we don't have a chance with beautiful women. Granted, if a guy gets a date and shows her his stamp collection then wants to play Nintendo, he may not be the best catch. But just because I'm a networking geek and get off on mathematics doesn't mean my life ends there. Like a lot of other techies out there, I can dance, appreciate music, have a good time with people from other walks of life (gasp! shock!) In fact, I'm just one of many well-adjusted geeks. This is the most ridiculous piece of dating advice I've seen in a long time.
;> ) and so I don't have to worry about the dating scene anymore. My opinions may therefore be altered by this. 'Course, I just think it makes me more objective...
Disclaimer: I recently married a sexy Latina (hehehe jealous ain't ya?