If there's no growth, then there's not much reason to invest in them. Basically, you'd get dividends, but the stock would not be expected to increase in value. And one of the prime reasons to own a stock is that you think it will increase in value more than other investments.
The best way to compare relative stock prices is the PEG ratio - price/earnings/growth. I.e. Google should have a growth rate 3 times higher than other companies, if its PE is 3 times higher. The rule of thumb is that a PEG should be about 1 or 2. So Google should be growing at 35-70% over the past couple years, and expected to grow at that same rate for the next 5-10 years.
I would definitely prefer that Solaris have the GNU versions of most of the command-line utilities. I have a hard time going back to the "old" versions that Solaris has, which are often missing functionality that the GNU versions have. Just the ability to put options to commands after the filename arguments would make me happy.
I would also suggest that he is not a "pirate". A pirate is one who uses physical force to take things away from people, leaving the people without those items. And likely leaving them without their life. The person in the story, while still committing a crime, did not deprive anyone from use of any item, and did not use any physical force or threats.
I have a bigger problem with the word "trick" in the headline. It implies that he wouldn't have committed the crime otherwise. And sting operations are fairly standard procedure in crime fighting.
I was myself wondering what a non-privileged user with admin rights was. But a few more reads finds that it means that the exploit gives admin rights to non-priveleged users.
I agree -- Google doesn't have enough leverage to go in and say "we're going to operate here without your censorship, and there's nothing you can do about it."
Another way to look at it (or state it) is whether the Chinese people would be "more free" with a censored Google, or no Google at all. I think the answer is that even a censored Google will help them to gain more awareness of the situation. For one thing, censorship is an enumerating badness type of deal; the government is always going to miss things. Another improvement is that after Google is in the market for some time, they will gain some leverage to be able to loosen some of the censorship restrictions.
I honestly can't think of any way in which the Chinese people are worse off with a censored Google than no Google at all. Hence, no evil. QED.
Looking more closely at the War Powers Resolution sections in question, it actually says it goes into effect if Congress authorizes force or declares war. Thus, it clearly makes a distinction between the 2. And Congress clearly authorized force.
As a white person who tries to do the right thing, that makes me sad. Sad for the poster, who has to live with seeing this every day. Sad for our society, that we hurt ourselves with this kind of stuff. Sad that our efforts to reduce racism aren't working. And probably sad to realize that racism still exists more than I like to admit, and more than I see.
I still don't think this is any different than commercial software though. If you claim that you own all the IP involved with a computer program, and it has portions licensed from someone else, you're in the same boat. The same with using someone else's code without following their license.
The GPL really isn't very different than commercial licenses. In fact, in many ways it's actually simpler. Either you follow the terms and may copy/modify/distribute it, or you don't agree to the terms, and you may not copy/modify/distribute it without breaking copyright law. One nice thing about the GPL is it does not restrict anyone's right to use the software, even if they don't agree to the terms.
The incremental cost of putting software onto a system is close to $0. At least for code they wrote themselves. Licensed code will have a small incremental cost.
Note that the article only covered incremental costs, i.e. the amount it costs to make a machine out of raw materials and labor. Software costs are almost entirely based on development costs. Development costs are of course real, but a lot harder for outsiders to estimate. Note that they didn't even attempt it for the hardware side. But development costs can be divided amogst all the many items sold; incremental costs apply to each item sold.
Does he really think that Microsoft owns all the "intellectual property" in Windows? They sub-license a ton of stuff. For example, IE was based on licensed code from Spyglass. The "About" panel for IE also lists NCSA, UIUC, RSA, Independent JPEG Group, Intel, and Mainsoft. And that's just a single program within the OS. And what about all the submarine patents on the stuff in Windows? How about all the copyrighted stuff in all the malware that's probably running on some of their Windows systems? How about the BSD copyright on the TCP/IP code used by Windows? How are companies expected to find all that information?
I think the problem may be that the author of TFA hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I suspect that the law says that companies have to disclose what "intellectual property" they own, not what they use. Or perhaps I'm mistaken, and it's Congress that hasn't a clue; that's a distinct possibility. But even then, I'm sure it would follow the spirit of the law to worry about what the company owns, instead of what they use.
Um, even if the EU were to buy more computers than the US, how could you interpret that as them being better than the US? Sounds like an exceedingly consumerist mentality. And even if they bought more computers, they have a larger population than the US, so they didn't buy more per capita. Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.
I'd like to know how Microsoft would respond to the Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security. Especially #3, "Penetrate and Patch". It seem like they're trying to address the symptoms, without addressing the architectural issues. At least, I've not seen them make any architectural changes in the (what is it now, 5?) years since they decided to "concentrate" on security.
There is this weird sense that the Internet is broken because it lets people
make easy copies.... The Internet is a machine for making copies, and
artists need to come to grips with that.
-- Cory Doctorow
Incorrect. User-defined styles are defaults, and are overriden by any server-specified style. User-defined styles actually have the lowest precedence (aside from user-agent default styles), unless you add !important, in which case they have the highest precedence. See the first 2 paragraphs of section 6.4.2 of the CSS2 spec. Section 6.4.1 is also helpful.
Is this something new, or a description of a previous major change in the nature of television? If it's something new, I would think it would be called TV 5.0 or something. I can think of several significant events that changed the nature of TV:
Intel did end up re-using the 860 moniker. It was first used for a line of CPUs, the i860. They were RISC chips, I suppose related to the x68 family, but with a different instruction set and architecture. A couple years ago, they released a motherboard chipset also called the 860.
Bytes and bits might not have SI-defined abbreviations, but the IT/computer/tech industry is quite consistent in using 'b' for bits and 'B' for bytes. I actually see the SI prefixes used incorrectly (i.e. mbps for Mega-bits per second) much more than 'b' and 'B' mixed up.
if [ ! -z "$NEWPACKAGES" ] then
mail -a "From: $MAILFROM" -s "New Packages for $HOSTNAME" $MAILTO <<EOF There are new Packages available for $HOSTNAME:
Slashdot Mirror
If there's no growth, then there's not much reason to invest in them. Basically, you'd get dividends, but the stock would not be expected to increase in value. And one of the prime reasons to own a stock is that you think it will increase in value more than other investments.
The best way to compare relative stock prices is the PEG ratio - price/earnings/growth. I.e. Google should have a growth rate 3 times higher than other companies, if its PE is 3 times higher. The rule of thumb is that a PEG should be about 1 or 2. So Google should be growing at 35-70% over the past couple years, and expected to grow at that same rate for the next 5-10 years.
I would definitely prefer that Solaris have the GNU versions of most of the command-line utilities. I have a hard time going back to the "old" versions that Solaris has, which are often missing functionality that the GNU versions have. Just the ability to put options to commands after the filename arguments would make me happy.
I would also suggest that he is not a "pirate". A pirate is one who uses physical force to take things away from people, leaving the people without those items. And likely leaving them without their life. The person in the story, while still committing a crime, did not deprive anyone from use of any item, and did not use any physical force or threats.
I have a bigger problem with the word "trick" in the headline. It implies that he wouldn't have committed the crime otherwise. And sting operations are fairly standard procedure in crime fighting.
I was myself wondering what a non-privileged user with admin rights was. But a few more reads finds that it means that the exploit gives admin rights to non-priveleged users.
I'm just curious how he knows what kind of code auditing they do.
I agree -- Google doesn't have enough leverage to go in and say "we're going to operate here without your censorship, and there's nothing you can do about it."
Another way to look at it (or state it) is whether the Chinese people would be "more free" with a censored Google, or no Google at all. I think the answer is that even a censored Google will help them to gain more awareness of the situation. For one thing, censorship is an enumerating badness type of deal; the government is always going to miss things. Another improvement is that after Google is in the market for some time, they will gain some leverage to be able to loosen some of the censorship restrictions.
I honestly can't think of any way in which the Chinese people are worse off with a censored Google than no Google at all. Hence, no evil. QED.
Stallman has become an impatient utopianist
Become? I'd suggest he's pretty much always been that way.
Looking more closely at the War Powers Resolution sections in question, it actually says it goes into effect if Congress authorizes force or declares war. Thus, it clearly makes a distinction between the 2. And Congress clearly authorized force.
Has anyone successfully run a Darwin kernel in OS X?
As a white person who tries to do the right thing, that makes me sad. Sad for the poster, who has to live with seeing this every day. Sad for our society, that we hurt ourselves with this kind of stuff. Sad that our efforts to reduce racism aren't working. And probably sad to realize that racism still exists more than I like to admit, and more than I see.
Thank you for an excellent analysis!
I still don't think this is any different than commercial software though. If you claim that you own all the IP involved with a computer program, and it has portions licensed from someone else, you're in the same boat. The same with using someone else's code without following their license.
The GPL really isn't very different than commercial licenses. In fact, in many ways it's actually simpler. Either you follow the terms and may copy/modify/distribute it, or you don't agree to the terms, and you may not copy/modify/distribute it without breaking copyright law. One nice thing about the GPL is it does not restrict anyone's right to use the software, even if they don't agree to the terms.
The incremental cost of putting software onto a system is close to $0. At least for code they wrote themselves. Licensed code will have a small incremental cost.
Note that the article only covered incremental costs, i.e. the amount it costs to make a machine out of raw materials and labor. Software costs are almost entirely based on development costs. Development costs are of course real, but a lot harder for outsiders to estimate. Note that they didn't even attempt it for the hardware side. But development costs can be divided amogst all the many items sold; incremental costs apply to each item sold.
Does he really think that Microsoft owns all the "intellectual property" in Windows? They sub-license a ton of stuff. For example, IE was based on licensed code from Spyglass. The "About" panel for IE also lists NCSA, UIUC, RSA, Independent JPEG Group, Intel, and Mainsoft. And that's just a single program within the OS. And what about all the submarine patents on the stuff in Windows? How about all the copyrighted stuff in all the malware that's probably running on some of their Windows systems? How about the BSD copyright on the TCP/IP code used by Windows? How are companies expected to find all that information?
I think the problem may be that the author of TFA hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I suspect that the law says that companies have to disclose what "intellectual property" they own, not what they use. Or perhaps I'm mistaken, and it's Congress that hasn't a clue; that's a distinct possibility. But even then, I'm sure it would follow the spirit of the law to worry about what the company owns, instead of what they use.
Um, even if the EU were to buy more computers than the US, how could you interpret that as them being better than the US? Sounds like an exceedingly consumerist mentality. And even if they bought more computers, they have a larger population than the US, so they didn't buy more per capita. Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.
Since we're talking about Firefox, CSS2 applies here.
A better question (as far as likelihood of a truthful answer) might be: "Which non-Microsoft OS is .... ?"
I'd like to know how Microsoft would respond to the Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security. Especially #3, "Penetrate and Patch". It seem like they're trying to address the symptoms, without addressing the architectural issues. At least, I've not seen them make any architectural changes in the (what is it now, 5?) years since they decided to "concentrate" on security.
Incorrect. See my other reply, to a sibling post.
Incorrect. User-defined styles are defaults, and are overriden by any server-specified style. User-defined styles actually have the lowest precedence (aside from user-agent default styles), unless you add !important, in which case they have the highest precedence. See the first 2 paragraphs of section 6.4.2 of the CSS2 spec. Section 6.4.1 is also helpful.
Intel did end up re-using the 860 moniker. It was first used for a line of CPUs, the i860. They were RISC chips, I suppose related to the x68 family, but with a different instruction set and architecture. A couple years ago, they released a motherboard chipset also called the 860.
Bytes and bits might not have SI-defined abbreviations, but the IT/computer/tech industry is quite consistent in using 'b' for bits and 'B' for bytes. I actually see the SI prefixes used incorrectly (i.e. mbps for Mega-bits per second) much more than 'b' and 'B' mixed up.