You know this is a perfect example of the follow-the-crowd-MS bashing that gets modded up.
1. When MS delays, its because they are corrupt to the core, even though there is no indication of that. See your comment on management. 2. If MS didn't delay and these issues were still outstanding, MS would get bashed. See your comment on how late in the development cycle this is being discovered. If you knew anything about a decent sized enterprise level piece of software you would have realized that it happens. 3. If it was Linus had announced and then slipped a released date, MS would still get bashed. "Oh, better than M$ that sends out buggy code that we all suffer for. Delaying takes guts and is the right thing to do for all of mankind."
What I don't think people realize is that comments like this doesn't attack MS, the corporation. It attacks MS, the developers. "Your programming sucks!"
I don't work for MS but as a professional computer-programmer, I would never say anything about anyone else's program/work (like scheduling) that I haven't seen first-hand. If I did, it would say more about me than say anything about the program.
>I can't tell if I'm just biased, but to me it seems like there are more criticisms
It means that you've been reading slashdot too much.
>and chronic delays and fewer real usable features that are coming with Microsoft's latest and greatest.
Considering its slashdot, either you will get it (the latest tech toy!) or you will never get it (Its M$!). Either way, delays or features shouldn't matter.
(Extra points for you for addressing the GP point about the M$ bashing by including a M$ bash!)
The value of an individual's donated time would not qualify|similar to the way charitable contributions are treated. However, out-of-pocket costs, such as fees for web hosting, the depreciated cost of capital expenses such as computers, travel to development-related conferences, and other expenses would qualify for a 20 percent refundable tax credit. We chose 20 percent as the amount of the credit after an examination of the literature surrounding the historical value of the Federal Research Tax credit....
There is no formal, systematic evidence on the amount of out-of-pocket expenses by individuals for open source development. Informal evidence suggests that half of all developers have no out-of-pocket costs; and for the remaining half, the expenses average $500.21
What a stupid idea. Lets make the tax system even more complex, for what?
3.21. Can I be forced to reveal my pass phrase in any legal proceedings?
Gary Edstrom reported the following in earlier versions of this FAQ:
- ----- The following information applies only to citizens of the United States in U.S. Courts. The laws in other countries may vary. Please see the disclaimer at the top of part 1.
There have been several threads on Internet concerning the question of whether or not the fifth amendment right about not being forced to give testimony against yourself can be applied to the subject of being forced to reveal your pass phrase. Not wanting to settle for the many conflicting opinions of armchair lawyers on usenet, I asked for input from individuals who were more qualified in the area. The results were somewhat mixed. There apparently has NOT been much case history to set precedence in this area. So if you find yourself in this situation, you should be prepared for a long and costly legal fight on the matter. Do you have the time and money for such a fight? Also remember that judges have great freedom in the use of "Contempt of Court". They might choose to lock you up until you decide to reveal the pass phrase and it could take your lawyer some time to get you out. (If only you just had a poor memory!)
>Québec language laws have nothing to do with censorship.
Ok, thats fine. I should have bolded and underlined the "maybe" part of my post.
I know that different people in different areas of Canada have differing views on the laws. I do listen and try and understand each side. My only opinion is that its a shame that Québec (yes I should have used the é, ironic isn't it) feels that they need to pass have these laws.
>They, like many other smaller publicly owned companies
How in the world is Google considered "small"?
>are just not willing to put their balls on the chopping block in return for investment by pension funds and the like and why should they?
1. Google's orginial investors, before the IPO, are the sort of people who are interested in the bottom-line, ie-putting balls on the chopping block. (see:Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital) So I guess Google are interested in investments from pension funds and the like.
2. A pension fund or a individual investor, does it make a difference how Google should act? Why shouldn't they act like they have their balls on their chopping block? Who's money is it anyways? What do you have against a pension fund?
You seem to be hanging on to the "no guidance" issue like its a new thing that Google invented. It isn't, lots of companies don't do this.
Seriously, forget about your hate against "big institutions with lots of money" and "Wall-Street games". Look how Google it is communicating to its investors (its easy just read the article!) and ask if its a professional way to act. Is it acting like a serious business or like some hobby run by a bunch of high-school kids?
>I have not yet found any other country that has the same robust protection on freedom of expression as the US. And I am profoundly grateful for my citizenship in this great republic.
How do you feel about McCarthyism or some of the insane libel laws that powerful entities use to quiet people?
(I think that Canada doesn't even have anything close to these two, except maybe Quebec language laws.)
But I think the Canadians are just not as hung up on defending freedom of speech to the death, like some Americans.
There has been cases where the messy questions with freedom of speech get raised. (see: Ernst Zundel, what happened recently in Canada with "those" cartoons.) But even then there isn't that much drama in them.
This is one of the big differences between Americans and Canadians; The US fought for their independence, we Canadians sat down with the Queen for tea and crumpets.
>Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.
Do the two modes have different liabilities/recourses for fraud?
According to the agreements, my credit card I'm libel for up the the first $50. My debit card, which is a different physical card and company, I'm libel for it all.
>Which makes it quite likely that the bank will make the business decision to refund his money,
I don't think so.
If they pay one person, they will be more inclinded to pay others with the exact same case. Or at least encourage others to followup more.
Its cheaper in the long run for them to have it known that; "Don't mess with banks, they will throw expensive lawyers at you." than "Just get a lawyer to send a letter and the banks will do what ever you say, regardless of any existing legal contracts."
>The price of the shares skyrocketed after the IPO, ask yourself, why did that happen if google "doesn't do forecasts"?
Fear and greed? Investors are stupid and irrational? Bubble-mania?
>Google won't play the "markets" game and at the moment it is cashed up and doesn't need to.
If that is true, that would piss me even more as a long-term investor. What happens when Google needs to go back to the market in the future? Don't you think that the people they upset now will make it painful for the company in the future?
>Forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on and can get you into deep shit.
You got to get over this whole "Financial Analysts are all crap!" thing, this is not the point. Look at Google's actions that they are pointing out. Is their actions professional and responsible? Are they communicating to you, as owners, as you would like them to, in a clear and accurate way?
>The shairholders walked into this FULLY INFORMED,
Read the parent post again.
there are tons of folks and organzations that invest other folks money that are also "investors" and they are being just as irked and feel like Google is not operating is a straight forward manner.
I would be too. $90 million dollar settlement is at least noteworthy and should be professionally communicated to the shareholders. Comments like "Guess if I'm talking about revenue or market capitalization" from one of the CEOs is just being arrogant.
I'm not sure where the IPO document Google said that they would act in an irresponsible way to people who hold their shares.
>What's really going on here is that because of this, Wall Street is getting its collective panties in a bind.
I really don't think that Wall Street cares either way.
There are loads of companies that don't "play by Wall Street" rules. Sometimes its because the company doesn't think that guidance is worthwhile to the long-term care of the shareholders, other times it because they don't give a flying-crap about anyone including the shareholders.
If Google wanted to not "play by Wall Street" why do they have Google Analyst Days?
>The auto-trip flag for this is that when a large payment comes in that's many multiples of the payee's normal history, the credit card company will hold the payment until the check clears, which is within 10 days at the outside.
Why isn't it compaired to what the current balance on the card is? (That fraud can't happen if there is that much money owing on it). Why not just call the credit card holder and ask him instead of waiting the 10 days?
>If you're climbing a garden fence they might ask what you're doing. If you then explain you locked your side gate, and you go in and prove you're not breaking and entering, you go on your way, they go on their way, and you know the world is a little bit safer for their efforts. This is the EXACT SAME THING.
Exactly how moving a large amount of money from my bank account to my JCPenney Platinum MasterCard be an indication of what potential crime?
>antibiotics are notorious for their short usage profile, because they are almost always used to treat acute conditions.
So are many over the counter pain-killers like Tylenol, which are mainly used to treat an acute condition. There are 7.3 billion adult Tylenol tablets sold a year. Don't you think that this drug that mainly treats acute conditions is profitable?
>Why sell ten pills when you can sell one hundred?
Viagra: At most half the world's population and only those with a particular condition. Not used by those under, say 30. Really only needed in the first-world (I can't see a third-world person choosing this over food). Government would never stockpile this.
New antibiotic: Potential customer base of 100% of the world's population for more than one condition. Potentially for all ages. Is a "needed" drug (you wouldn't choose this over food if you could die from it). If particularly effective against the "scary disease of the month" could have governments buying them by the millions.
Now what drug sounds like you would be selling more of?
>And this is exactly why there are no more antibiotics on the horizon -- much more profit in Viagra.
Look how popular Tamiflu is due to the threat of avian flu. Private individuals and governments are stockpiling it in large quantities. I believe the company can't make it fast enough to meet the demand right now, and it hasn't even hit. I'm quite sure that alot of companies would love to be in the same shoes and therefore there is a business/profit need for new antibiotics.
"How much do you value an erection" justifies Vigara. "How much do you value you and your family's life" justifies new and stronger antibiotics. Profit in both of these things.
>Yes, it is. Whatever bank loaned that person the money has made an investment, for which they receive interest accrued monthly, annually, or at some other interval.
No it isn't. If the person is in too much debt, and then wants more debt, its stops becoming an investment and starts becoming a gamble. "Will he pay it back, with interest, before he defaults?" (With the US its a bit of a different gamble, since they print their own money.)
>"Junk bond" and "low interest rate" simply don't belong in the same sentance.
Thats because the risk/reward is not worth it and therefore its not an investment. Lottery tickets have a horrible risk/reward and therefore are not considered investments. Its gambling.
As the US gets more in debt, the risk of them defaulting or doing something funny (see below) becomes greater, and others will start asking/demanding for better rewards (higher interest) for their investment. The US can work their way out of it, but its like studying last minute for an exam or trying to lose 20 lbs in a week.
(But the US can print their own money, so it becomes an rising inflation issue or a rising interest rate issue, either of one is not so good for you, as the US taxpayer/currency holder.)
Slashdot Mirror
You know this is a perfect example of the follow-the-crowd-MS bashing that gets modded up.
1. When MS delays, its because they are corrupt to the core, even though there is no indication of that. See your comment on management.
2. If MS didn't delay and these issues were still outstanding, MS would get bashed. See your comment on how late in the development cycle this is being discovered. If you knew anything about a decent sized enterprise level piece of software you would have realized that it happens.
3. If it was Linus had announced and then slipped a released date, MS would still get bashed. "Oh, better than M$ that sends out buggy code that we all suffer for. Delaying takes guts and is the right thing to do for all of mankind."
What I don't think people realize is that comments like this doesn't attack MS, the corporation. It attacks MS, the developers. "Your programming sucks!"
I don't work for MS but as a professional computer-programmer, I would never say anything about anyone else's program/work (like scheduling) that I haven't seen first-hand. If I did, it would say more about me than say anything about the program.
>I can't tell if I'm just biased, but to me it seems like there are more criticisms
It means that you've been reading slashdot too much.
>and chronic delays and fewer real usable features that are coming with Microsoft's latest and greatest.
Considering its slashdot, either you will get it (the latest tech toy!) or you will never get it (Its M$!). Either way, delays or features shouldn't matter.
(Extra points for you for addressing the GP point about the M$ bashing by including a M$ bash!)
Try TSE:CM
Whats sad is that you can't have non-US stocks in your portfolio. Have no idea why, beta or non-beta.
The value of an individual's donated time would not qualify|similar to the way charitable contributions are treated. However, out-of-pocket costs, such as fees for web hosting, the depreciated cost of capital expenses such as computers, travel to development-related conferences, and other expenses would qualify for a 20 percent refundable tax credit. We chose 20 percent as the amount of the credit after an examination of the literature surrounding the historical value of the Federal Research Tax credit. ...
There is no formal, systematic evidence on the amount of out-of-pocket expenses by individuals for open source development. Informal evidence suggests that half of all developers have no out-of-pocket costs; and for the remaining half, the expenses average $500.21
What a stupid idea. Lets make the tax system even more complex, for what?
http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#su bpoena
and
from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pgp-faq/part2/
3.21. Can I be forced to reveal my pass phrase in any legal
proceedings?
Gary Edstrom reported the following in earlier versions of this FAQ:
- -----
The following information applies only to citizens of the United
States in U.S. Courts. The laws in other countries may vary. Please
see the disclaimer at the top of part 1.
There have been several threads on Internet concerning the question of
whether or not the fifth amendment right about not being forced to
give testimony against yourself can be applied to the subject of being
forced to reveal your pass phrase. Not wanting to settle for the many
conflicting opinions of armchair lawyers on usenet, I asked for input
from individuals who were more qualified in the area. The results
were somewhat mixed. There apparently has NOT been much case history
to set precedence in this area. So if you find yourself in this
situation, you should be prepared for a long and costly legal fight on
the matter. Do you have the time and money for such a fight? Also
remember that judges have great freedom in the use of "Contempt of
Court". They might choose to lock you up until you decide to reveal
the pass phrase and it could take your lawyer some time to get you
out. (If only you just had a poor memory!)
>Oracle.
Exactly what product does Oracle require this permission?
>Québec language laws have nothing to do with censorship.
Ok, thats fine. I should have bolded and underlined the "maybe" part of my post.
I know that different people in different areas of Canada have differing views on the laws. I do listen and try and understand each side. My only opinion is that its a shame that Québec (yes I should have used the é, ironic isn't it) feels that they need to pass have these laws.
>They, like many other smaller publicly owned companies
How in the world is Google considered "small"?
>are just not willing to put their balls on the chopping block in return for investment by pension funds and the like and why should they?
1. Google's orginial investors, before the IPO, are the sort of people who are interested in the bottom-line, ie-putting balls on the chopping block. (see:Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital) So I guess Google are interested in investments from pension funds and the like.
2. A pension fund or a individual investor, does it make a difference how Google should act? Why shouldn't they act like they have their balls on their chopping block? Who's money is it anyways? What do you have against a pension fund?
You seem to be hanging on to the "no guidance" issue like its a new thing that Google invented. It isn't, lots of companies don't do this.
Seriously, forget about your hate against "big institutions with lots of money" and "Wall-Street games". Look how Google it is communicating to its investors (its easy just read the article!) and ask if its a professional way to act. Is it acting like a serious business or like some hobby run by a bunch of high-school kids?
>I have not yet found any other country that has the same robust protection on freedom of expression as the US. And I am profoundly grateful for my citizenship in this great republic.
How do you feel about McCarthyism or some of the insane libel laws that powerful entities use to quiet people?
(I think that Canada doesn't even have anything close to these two, except maybe Quebec language laws.)
Well, here is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it specifies freedom of speech.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes
But I think the Canadians are just not as hung up on defending freedom of speech to the death, like some Americans.
There has been cases where the messy questions with freedom of speech get raised. (see: Ernst Zundel, what happened recently in Canada with "those" cartoons.) But even then there isn't that much drama in them.
This is one of the big differences between Americans and Canadians; The US fought for their independence, we Canadians sat down with the Queen for tea and crumpets.
>How about third party predictions?
v es/2006/03/08/google-accidentally-reveals-revenue- prediction/
Umm.... its alot more complex than that.
>Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.
Google doesn't predict revenue?
http://google.blognewschannel.com/index.php/archi
Our ads business... projected to grow from $6bn this year to $9.5bn next year based purely on trends in traffic and monetization growth.
And also the comments from the CFO regarding future growth that Google had to "clarify" afterwards.
Do the two modes have different liabilities/recourses for fraud?
According to the agreements, my credit card I'm libel for up the the first $50. My debit card, which is a different physical card and company, I'm libel for it all.
>Which makes it quite likely that the bank will make the business decision to refund his money,
I don't think so.
If they pay one person, they will be more inclinded to pay others with the exact same case. Or at least encourage others to followup more.
Its cheaper in the long run for them to have it known that;
"Don't mess with banks, they will throw expensive lawyers at you." than
"Just get a lawyer to send a letter and the banks will do what ever you say, regardless of any existing legal contracts."
>The price of the shares skyrocketed after the IPO, ask yourself, why did that happen if google "doesn't do forecasts"?
Fear and greed? Investors are stupid and irrational? Bubble-mania?
>Google won't play the "markets" game and at the moment it is cashed up and doesn't need to.
If that is true, that would piss me even more as a long-term investor. What happens when Google needs to go back to the market in the future? Don't you think that the people they upset now will make it painful for the company in the future?
>Forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on and can get you into deep shit.
You got to get over this whole "Financial Analysts are all crap!" thing, this is not the point. Look at Google's actions that they are pointing out. Is their actions professional and responsible? Are they communicating to you, as owners, as you would like them to, in a clear and accurate way?
>The shairholders walked into this FULLY INFORMED,
Read the parent post again.
there are tons of folks and organzations that invest other folks money that are also "investors" and they are being just as irked and feel like Google is not operating is a straight forward manner.
I would be too. $90 million dollar settlement is at least noteworthy and should be professionally communicated to the shareholders. Comments like "Guess if I'm talking about revenue or market capitalization" from one of the CEOs is just being arrogant.
I'm not sure where the IPO document Google said that they would act in an irresponsible way to people who hold their shares.
>What's really going on here is that because of this, Wall Street is getting its collective panties in a bind.
I really don't think that Wall Street cares either way.
There are loads of companies that don't "play by Wall Street" rules. Sometimes its because the company doesn't think that guidance is worthwhile to the long-term care of the shareholders, other times it because they don't give a flying-crap about anyone including the shareholders.
If Google wanted to not "play by Wall Street" why do they have Google Analyst Days?
These NASA cuts are just the tip of what coming up.
i d=amz.HoNLRL_0&refer=us
Americans have spent way too much money;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&s
>The auto-trip flag for this is that when a large payment comes in that's many multiples of the payee's normal history, the credit card company will hold the payment until the check clears, which is within 10 days at the outside.
Why isn't it compaired to what the current balance on the card is? (That fraud can't happen if there is that much money owing on it). Why not just call the credit card holder and ask him instead of waiting the 10 days?
>If you're climbing a garden fence they might ask what you're doing. If you then explain you locked your side gate, and you go in and prove you're not breaking and entering, you go on your way, they go on their way, and you know the world is a little bit safer for their efforts. This is the EXACT SAME THING.
Exactly how moving a large amount of money from my bank account to my JCPenney Platinum MasterCard be an indication of what potential crime?
>antibiotics are notorious for their short usage profile, because they are almost always used to treat acute conditions.
So are many over the counter pain-killers like Tylenol, which are mainly used to treat an acute condition. There are 7.3 billion adult Tylenol tablets sold a year. Don't you think that this drug that mainly treats acute conditions is profitable?
>Why sell ten pills when you can sell one hundred?
Viagra: At most half the world's population and only those with a particular condition. Not used by those under, say 30. Really only needed in the first-world (I can't see a third-world person choosing this over food). Government would never stockpile this.
New antibiotic: Potential customer base of 100% of the world's population for more than one condition. Potentially for all ages. Is a "needed" drug (you wouldn't choose this over food if you could die from it). If particularly effective against the "scary disease of the month" could have governments buying them by the millions.
Now what drug sounds like you would be selling more of?
>And this is exactly why there are no more antibiotics on the horizon -- much more profit in Viagra.
Look how popular Tamiflu is due to the threat of avian flu. Private individuals and governments are stockpiling it in large quantities. I believe the company can't make it fast enough to meet the demand right now, and it hasn't even hit. I'm quite sure that alot of companies would love to be in the same shoes and therefore there is a business/profit need for new antibiotics.
"How much do you value an erection" justifies Vigara. "How much do you value you and your family's life" justifies new and stronger antibiotics. Profit in both of these things.
Bartering or precious metal coins.
Build a macro or some kind of simple code to check FOR you!
I did one in LISP; I'm still trying to find an unmatched (.
For those of you like me and have never worked with this language, some sample code is here
I think I would have been driven nuts trying to find the unmatched ' in my code.
>Yes, it is. Whatever bank loaned that person the money has made an investment, for which they receive interest accrued monthly, annually, or at some other interval.
No it isn't. If the person is in too much debt, and then wants more debt, its stops becoming an investment and starts becoming a gamble. "Will he pay it back, with interest, before he defaults?" (With the US its a bit of a different gamble, since they print their own money.)
>"Junk bond" and "low interest rate" simply don't belong in the same sentance.
Thats because the risk/reward is not worth it and therefore its not an investment. Lottery tickets have a horrible risk/reward and therefore are not considered investments. Its gambling.
As the US gets more in debt, the risk of them defaulting or doing something funny (see below) becomes greater, and others will start asking/demanding for better rewards (higher interest) for their investment. The US can work their way out of it, but its like studying last minute for an exam or trying to lose 20 lbs in a week.
(But the US can print their own money, so it becomes an rising inflation issue or a rising interest rate issue, either of one is not so good for you, as the US taxpayer/currency holder.)