The company expect a cost near $1.53 per peak watt and an energy return on energy in in about one year. This comes from scale and producing their own silicon.
Except it is difficult to secure cheap long term purchase agreements for the raw silicon they need - where are their purchase agreements?
This works really well in North Carolina where http://www.ncgreenpower.org/ pays a very high premium for solar power. You could probably realize a 10% return. Elsewhere, it is an inflation tracking investment.
The problem long term is companies pay a premium for solar because it is scarce - and the fed's give credits to us renewable power supplies and some states have renewable targets so companies buy it to for political, not economic, reasons.
If solar becomes more common place then there is no need to pay a premium since your renewable mix is met, and the fed's won't have give credits to encourage its use. Of course, an industry will have been built up around the credits and will lobby to keep them in place - like we have for ethanol - since no one likes to give up getting our tax money.
If this really is viable long term utilities would start doing it - and they have the engineers and cash to invest should they decide to do so; and they like subsidies as much as the next person. Why would they do it since it is cheaper than the current power? Well, if they put enough in they can avoid building a new plant; plus it allows them to load manage - it essentially gives them a non-spinning reserve they can tap to keep from having to use real expensive gas units to makeup for peaks.
Another issue is - who maintains it and disposes of it - especially if the company fails? How much will it cost to remove it and repair the roof? What happens if it gets ripped off in a storm - who's liable for any damage? The homeowner? The solar panel owner? The ecopreneur? I'm sure the neighbor who is selling these has gotten rock solid legal advice to avoid putting their assets at risk if something goes south.
As far as being an inflation tracking asset, you're only getting income growth from whatever excess power is produced (and then only if the PUC allows it) and at some point it would become economically viable for the homeowner to install devices to use the excess solar generation to store energy at times it would be selling to the grid. For example, add a large electric water heater to store hot water so you don't need to heat water during higher use periods, or even use storage batteries to shift the load. Once the economic incentives are large enough the grid sales will disappear; and since you are helping the utility lower a peak they may even help with such solutions (and as a bonus get to stick it to the solar company).
s a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.
Under Wiki's license shouldn't everything, including edits, be available to anyone? If not then you have a loophole that others can exploit to avoid complying with the license.
Here in Europe there are organizations that keep the playing field level, by forcing mobile service providers to do just what Skype asks. Here it doesn't really matter which provider you chose; the're all good because they all have to compete in the same playing field. Why should it matter for a provider what 'type' of data is sent over their network, and by what device this data is sent? Data is data, and the more bits they transport the more money they get. Apparently in America this isn't so. Amazing.
And Europeans generally pay more than Americans for that level playing field. You can call almost anywhere in the US to anywhere else for one flat monthly fee and don't have to worry about going from Georgia to Texas and getting hit with roaming charges; plus your fee includes the phone so you don't have to buy it seperately.
Is it "better" - no ; just different. I prefer lower rates to portability. I alos like no roaming rather than worrying what I will be charged if I use my Portuguese carrier's phone in Germany or having to buy a new SIM to get local rates.
Since US carriers offer cheap unlimited data plans Skye could make a decent client for PalmOS and Windows Mobile based phones; but they don't. I used their client on my WM Treo and it was less than impressive; plus since my service already allows me to call anywhere in the US without a surcharge it offered no advantages other than being able to make international calls for a lot less.
Skype should focus on making decent software rather than forcing the government to help them out when they fail in the marketplace.
BA Lufthansa? Have you travelled back in time to make your prediction of consolidation among European carriers, or did I just miss the memo?
No, just taht I think those three will be the winners - along with the discount carriers - and I realize that the idea of consolidation amongst EU carriers is not a new idea; I also think that a major US carrier will wind up as part of a more global single carrier - only this time it will pass teh regulator's scrutiny.
SwissAir 111 went down because the in-flight entertainment & gambling system had been rushed into service, and due to its design overheated and burned down the plane in-flight. This was its design: a separate computer for each seat. The computers (presumably single cards) were located in the ceiling near the front of the passenger compartment. So were the avionics wires. The entertainment/gambling devices overheated, caught fire and the plane crashed near Nova Scotia.
Yes, the wiring insulation burned and brought down the plane. A friend's wife was on that plane, so I have an interest beyond the technical.
Another interesting event was the crash of an Airbus flight control system, resulting in an inflight rebooting message; the pilots flew on in manual.
Greed. SwissAir is no more.
Yes, but it was due to them overpaying their employees and not controlling other expenses as well - a problem many European state run airlines have. Look at Alitalia for example - they could lease planes with crews for less than it costs to fly their own. Europe's carriers are heading towards teh same consolidation and liquidation taht US ones have expereineced and only a handful will survive. I think BA Lufthansa and Air France will probably be the last standing.
moral qualms digital effects people have over performing these manipulations
Movies aren't real? We can't do warp speed and squirrels can't fly?
Cinema, like theatre, involves teh willing suspension of disbelief; and directors use the tools available to create the illusion they desire - wether it's via camera angles, mats, blue screens, computer graphics or what have you. That's why we have special effects artists, foley artists, makeup artists, etc - to create a mood and help tell a story.
Unless a scene is being presented as a fact, there should be no moral qualms about using available technology to create whatever you want on screen.
and the steps actors are taking to protect their digital assets
Wherever you stick your digit it should be protected.
Seriously, no doubt digital rights will be a negotiation point; I can see it prevent release of movies that have been enhanced on teh grounds thsoe rights were not paid for initially. While we may not agree with that position it is consistant with the move to create and sell (or license) seperately every possible permutation of digital creations.
Youtube is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Most of the pageviews on there are for stolen content. That's even worse than GFDL content. But nobody cares. They were bought for exactly the same thing that makes Wikipedia valuable. Users, traffic, inbound links, and brand.
The legality of much of YouTube's content aside; it's the inability of someone to replicate it exactly that give sit value - people go there because there is a lot of stuff (the network affect); a competitor can't recreate that overnight as they can with Wiki's material.
And a google or yahoo could easily replicate the network effect by linking first to their data rather than a competitors; once wikepedia.org ceases to exist people will have no choice but to use another site (or forgo it entirely).
Yes, if handled well. People do vast amounts of free work for commercial sites like Flickr, YouTube, IMDB, Yelp, and... Slashdot. There are plenty of companies getting VC money right now based on the Tom Sawyer model. Because it has been proven to work.
Yes, but those sites control access to the aggregation of their content - I can't d/l all of slashdot and recreate it even though they don't own any individual post.
Remember the firestorm over the free DC database a while back when it went commercial? And the attempts to replicate a free version? When you don't control the information you can't limit competition - which diminishes the commercial value of the information.
hope it doesn't happen, by the way. But as somebody soaking in the internet startup community, I'm confident that there would be buyers at prices above $100m.
I have never doubted the stupidity of some VCs; just the value of what they will be buying. Is wikipedia.com and.org worth $100 million? Not when Yahoo or Google can create a stronger competitor overnight.
This just doesn't matter. The big lesson of Wikipedia is that information is now effectively free. The largest user of their content is tiny in comparison. And that's with some added value; the pure clone sites are much further down.
Right now there is no reason to use a competitor when you have the real thing.
The question is how can you retain the value for something that a competitor could easily recreate?
The asset is not the content, it's the vast user base kept there through network effects.
Yes, and I believe that is the asset least likely to survive a purchase and the one most easily created without a purchase.
Do you really think Google couldn't create a similar network, given their visibility? Or they couldn't improve on the quality of the content, if only by building in links to appropriate and relevant sites?
That doesn't mean someone won't buy it; nor that there is no value in the name; but I do believe the idea it is a valauble commodity simply becasue of the network effects is mistaken.
Any purchaser still faces the challenge of maintaining the serves that handle the traffic that supports the network - is a big risk when a competitor who already has the infrastructure can mirror your business for very little marginal cost and drive people to their site over yours.
The real thing to consider is if you are going to pay $100 million how fast can you turn it into a $500 or $1000 million company based on ad revenue alone?
Wikipedia has massive traffic, massive inbound linking, a massive community, and a well-known brand. Those are huge intangible assets in the sale of any online property. If you compare other recent sales on those metrics, we're talking in the hundreds of millions, easy.
Recent sales are of sites with a very different business model. Their content is not easily obtained and most off their users are not interested in such things as Creative Commons or GNU licenses and their impact on how we view ownership and use rights. YouTube's, for example, community isn't going to go away simply because the ownership changed, nor can anyone replicate YouTube by simply copying it's content and having a server farm. Wiki's content is easily duplicated - so in and off itself it has no value.
The domain name and links would have some value but how much is the question. If it was to the point of a sale to survive or going away simply letting it die would force the traffic to a new site - and organizations such as Google or Yahoo certainly have the brand name and money to go far beyond what Wiki is today.
I'd venture to say most of the users (versus contributers) simply want a free and easily accessible source of information. If a Google or Yahoo added their reputation to it they'd be more likely to use it than another.
Yes, it's a little touchier to sell Wikipedia than your average web site, as the current community is relatively anti-commerce.
That's the crux of the problem - you're valuable because people work for free - will the still do that if you were a commercial enterprise? Plus, everything you add to it's database has to be made available for free - so your competitors can simply mirror your work without your consent. In essence, your betting that a.com and.org url is, and will remain, a valuable address since everything else will not be owned by you.
It's position is defensible simply because the contributors won't do the same for a commercial mirror and the site provides a non-commercial resting place for their contributions - take away the site and people, if they want a wiki, will have to go to a commercial alternative - which you can easily create without buying the domain name.
But if it's a choice between shutting it down and putting it under, say, Google's protective wing, with just a modest set of Google ads down the side, enough would go along to keep it a viable property. And if the Wikimedia Foundation were willing to sell it for below market to get special terms, there are all sorts of other plausible homes for it.
Again, why buy it? All the info is yours for free, and if the Wikimedia Foundation goes under even the domain name will be up for grabs; and if they stay barely afloat but not able to grow or handle the load then the name will diminish in value as time passes and fewer people visit it.
That doesn't mean that someone won't come in and help them as a philanthropic gesture; but it also doesn't mean that it has any great worth as others have claimed.
While the article claims Wiki's assets are valuable, I doubt that. Anyone that could buy it and host the files could simply d/l the files and build their infrastructure. So, Wiki's probably worth exactly the resale value of its servers; plus perhaps a little for the url. Since it is essentially duplicatable by anyone with server space to host it there is no value to the intangibles, i.e. the content. Adding to the risk is that all the people who edit and submit today because it is a free, non-ad supported service may decide not to support it if it is bought by someone.
To me, the fact that he took the fall for it is an ironic sign of good leadership. Not many at the top would allow themselves to be taken out over an incident like this. It probably means that he is a good leader, and understands responsiblity, and stepped up to take the heat.
You are correct, despite the idiotic AC (but I'm redundant) follow-ups. He sounds like the type who actually made decisions and took the heat for them; which results in loyalty and a willingness on the part of subordinates to be creative and take chances because they know they won't be sacrificed for an honest failure. For a network that means they'll be more likely to have hits and be viewed as cutting edge; which brings in viewers and ad revenue.
The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.
I suspect he will quickly show up elsewhere (assuming he wants to); I doubt a network will hold this against him. They'll probably see it as a chance to grab a star. The entertainment industry is very forgiving *if* you deliver hits. I'd bet that failure at the box office or TV is the only unforgivable sin an executive can commit.
In any case, the original suggestion took the words right our of my mouth. We submariners are the closest to representing people with an appropriate personality type for an extended mission in cramped quarters. NASA should definitely do extended observations and psych evaluations of sub crews on patrols and such.
Yea. right. Prussian Blue on the growler earpiece. Contests to see who can tighten the vice the most on their thumbs. Long multi-watch arguments over anything, the more obscure the better. Taking the blowing sanitary sign off the aft head. Forward pukes vs the nukes.
What would be the space equivalent of King Neptune?
I'd love to have had a shrink on one of our cruises; but I want a low number in the pool on how long he goes before *he* wants off.
Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. 17 U.S.C. sec 101
No, since they are not your employees; and the contract typically does not assign you the rights. The copyrights should be owned by the person who paid the photographer
It can, but that generally costs more than just prints w/o copyright. You, in essence, pay only for what you want. If you want the rights you pay extra for them. The photographer is balancing future print profits vs a one time fee if you get the copyrights so the one time fee will be higher.
Novel is still free to distribute gplV2 software; the article states that they haven't decided what to do and the ban would only apply to V3 licensed versions:
"f the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March."
Which means Novell would be free to fork v2 and keep anything they do under v2 as well as prevent it from being incorporated in any v3 licensed version; since they could limit it to v2 and earlier licenses.
In addition, the ban would only apply to FSF's copyrighted code; since they can't release other's v2 code only under v3 without violating v2's license provision.
While MS probably doesn't want to take on the FSF for PR reasons, they could bury them with lawsuits if they wanted to - so even if the FSF wins in the end they could very well be litigated out of existence. More likely; MS could help Novell fork the code significantly and develop programs (such as office for Linux) that would only run on the forked code; since the changes would be under a V2 they could preclude them from being incorporated in any v3 licensed versions, marginalizing v3.
While I understand the FSF wants to avoid such a scenario, picking a fight with MS/Novell is probably not the way to do it.
Interestingly enough, someone owns the copyright to that picture - and I f=doubt the consumerist web site has teh owner's permission to use it. So independent of how you feel about the issue they are still subject to copyright rules and "fair use" isn't exactly applicable - they are not commenting on or criticizing the photograph; nor is it parody; nor did they use a small portion since they took the entire paragraph.
I'm surprised no one has played the copyright card yet. In theory the original photographer could sue for damages.
I don't understand why "under the table" cash is even necessary. Why do that if they can just get a discount? Do public filings even show which company is getting Dell's money? I don't think they are broken down that far.
Well, while I think such a payment should be used to reduce the cost of the components and as a result widen the profit margin (and hence the taxes paid) Dell may want to account for it differently. They could, for example, be offering copay money to advertise Intel chips; which would be a different accounting treatment.
In addition, if Intel discounts then they will have to offer the same discount to any other company that they have a "best price" contract in place; so a discount will cost more than just what they give Dell. Therefor, they sell at list and pay cash to lower the price without offering a "discount."
No, if it was they'd have to submit all of the UPCs and receipts; and then get an email denying the rebate because they forgot to send in the left bottom flap from all of the boxes.
lawsuit. If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry (much as McDonald's does with Mc in fast food). OTOH, if they work out a license agreement then that risk is gone.
If they lose, then they need to rename the iPhone; with all the attendant costs.
Seems to me that an agreement is less risky than a lawsuit.
Possibly because you're not legally allowed to say anything bad about a former employee when acting as a reference. You can either say something good, or refuse to comment.
While that is not technically correct; many companies, in the US at least, have policies against saying anything and will merely verify employment. They don't want to be sued, whether it is by an ex-employee who has a different interpretation of the "facts" or by another company who hired someone you said was great but turns out to be a criminal. It's simply safer to say nothing in the US' litigious society.
In practice, the stricter of the two applies. Thus, if your state's minimum wage is lower than the federal, you must pay at least the federal minimum. If, however, the opposite is true and you pay exactly the federal minimum, you're still in violation of state law.
True, because you can meet both by meeting one; however the GA law appears to conflict with federal law so the federal law would trump state law.
While I don't think the law is a good one it seems to me a workaround for the federal law saying only an account creator can have access is to only allow minors to create pages on accounts their parent creates.
I believe federal law trumps state law. The fine state senator in GA should be aware of that; someone from Ohio drove home that point a while ago.
And if shill bidders drive the price above what you want to pay, just move along and wait for the next time that item comes up - they ALWAYS do!
Or watch the item and snipe in at the last second - that way you limit the impact of shills on your price. While a shill may already have raised the price you at least get a shot at seeing if the price is close to what you want to pay.
I also always turn down second chance offers - unless they will sell at my very first accepted bid. None have, but that's not my problem.
My guess is that their are enough people who checkout eBay for potential bargains, bid up an item to what they still think is a steal, then drop out - which really isn't shilling but has the same effect of driving up a price (the whole purpose of auctions). I've done that myself for art and camera stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
The company expect a cost near $1.53 per peak watt and an energy return on energy in in about one year. This comes from scale and producing their own silicon.
Except it is difficult to secure cheap long term purchase agreements for the raw silicon they need - where are their purchase agreements?
This works really well in North Carolina where http://www.ncgreenpower.org/ pays a very high premium for solar power. You could probably realize a 10% return. Elsewhere, it is an inflation tracking investment.
The problem long term is companies pay a premium for solar because it is scarce - and the fed's give credits to us renewable power supplies and some states have renewable targets so companies buy it to for political, not economic, reasons.
If solar becomes more common place then there is no need to pay a premium since your renewable mix is met, and the fed's won't have give credits to encourage its use. Of course, an industry will have been built up around the credits and will lobby to keep them in place - like we have for ethanol - since no one likes to give up getting our tax money.
If this really is viable long term utilities would start doing it - and they have the engineers and cash to invest should they decide to do so; and they like subsidies as much as the next person. Why would they do it since it is cheaper than the current power? Well, if they put enough in they can avoid building a new plant; plus it allows them to load manage - it essentially gives them a non-spinning reserve they can tap to keep from having to use real expensive gas units to makeup for peaks.
Another issue is - who maintains it and disposes of it - especially if the company fails? How much will it cost to remove it and repair the roof? What happens if it gets ripped off in a storm - who's liable for any damage? The homeowner? The solar panel owner? The ecopreneur? I'm sure the neighbor who is selling these has gotten rock solid legal advice to avoid putting their assets at risk if something goes south.
As far as being an inflation tracking asset, you're only getting income growth from whatever excess power is produced (and then only if the PUC allows it) and at some point it would become economically viable for the homeowner to install devices to use the excess solar generation to store energy at times it would be selling to the grid. For example, add a large electric water heater to store hot water so you don't need to heat water during higher use periods, or even use storage batteries to shift the load. Once the economic incentives are large enough the grid sales will disappear; and since you are helping the utility lower a peak they may even help with such solutions (and as a bonus get to stick it to the solar company).
s a Wikibook administratos I can tell you that the WikiMedia software never deletes anything - it is just hidden from the general public. If you have a legitimate reason to look at deleted entries you can ask an Administrator to make the data available to you.
Under Wiki's license shouldn't everything, including edits, be available to anyone? If not then you have a loophole that others can exploit to avoid complying with the license.
?huh
Here in Europe there are organizations that keep the playing field level, by forcing mobile service providers to do just what Skype asks. Here it doesn't really matter which provider you chose; the're all good because they all have to compete in the same playing field. Why should it matter for a provider what 'type' of data is sent over their network, and by what device this data is sent? Data is data, and the more bits they transport the more money they get. Apparently in America this isn't so. Amazing.
And Europeans generally pay more than Americans for that level playing field. You can call almost anywhere in the US to anywhere else for one flat monthly fee and don't have to worry about going from Georgia to Texas and getting hit with roaming charges; plus your fee includes the phone so you don't have to buy it seperately.
Is it "better" - no ; just different. I prefer lower rates to portability. I alos like no roaming rather than worrying what I will be charged if I use my Portuguese carrier's phone in Germany or having to buy a new SIM to get local rates.
Since US carriers offer cheap unlimited data plans Skye could make a decent client for PalmOS and Windows Mobile based phones; but they don't. I used their client on my WM Treo and it was less than impressive; plus since my service already allows me to call anywhere in the US without a surcharge it offered no advantages other than being able to make international calls for a lot less.
Skype should focus on making decent software rather than forcing the government to help them out when they fail in the marketplace.
BA Lufthansa? Have you travelled back in time to make your prediction of consolidation among European carriers, or did I just miss the memo?
No, just taht I think those three will be the winners - along with the discount carriers - and I realize that the idea of consolidation amongst EU carriers is not a new idea; I also think that a major US carrier will wind up as part of a more global single carrier - only this time it will pass teh regulator's scrutiny.
SwissAir 111 went down because the in-flight entertainment & gambling system had been rushed into service, and due to its design overheated and burned down the plane in-flight. This was its design: a separate computer for each seat. The computers (presumably single cards) were located in the ceiling near the front of the passenger compartment. So were the avionics wires. The entertainment/gambling devices overheated, caught fire and the plane crashed near Nova Scotia.
Yes, the wiring insulation burned and brought down the plane. A friend's wife was on that plane, so I have an interest beyond the technical.
Another interesting event was the crash of an Airbus flight control system, resulting in an inflight rebooting message; the pilots flew on in manual.
Greed. SwissAir is no more.
Yes, but it was due to them overpaying their employees and not controlling other expenses as well - a problem many European state run airlines have. Look at Alitalia for example - they could lease planes with crews for less than it costs to fly their own. Europe's carriers are heading towards teh same consolidation and liquidation taht US ones have expereineced and only a handful will survive. I think BA Lufthansa and Air France will probably be the last standing.
moral qualms digital effects people have over performing these manipulations
Movies aren't real? We can't do warp speed and squirrels can't fly?
Cinema, like theatre, involves teh willing suspension of disbelief; and directors use the tools available to create the illusion they desire - wether it's via camera angles, mats, blue screens, computer graphics or what have you. That's why we have special effects artists, foley artists, makeup artists, etc - to create a mood and help tell a story.
Unless a scene is being presented as a fact, there should be no moral qualms about using available technology to create whatever you want on screen.
and the steps actors are taking to protect their digital assets
Wherever you stick your digit it should be protected.
Seriously, no doubt digital rights will be a negotiation point; I can see it prevent release of movies that have been enhanced on teh grounds thsoe rights were not paid for initially. While we may not agree with that position it is consistant with the move to create and sell (or license) seperately every possible permutation of digital creations.
Youtube is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Most of the pageviews on there are for stolen content. That's even worse than GFDL content. But nobody cares. They were bought for exactly the same thing that makes Wikipedia valuable. Users, traffic, inbound links, and brand.
.org worth $100 million? Not when Yahoo or Google can create a stronger competitor overnight.
The legality of much of YouTube's content aside; it's the inability of someone to replicate it exactly that give sit value - people go there because there is a lot of stuff (the network affect); a competitor can't recreate that overnight as they can with Wiki's material.
And a google or yahoo could easily replicate the network effect by linking first to their data rather than a competitors; once wikepedia.org ceases to exist people will have no choice but to use another site (or forgo it entirely).
Yes, if handled well. People do vast amounts of free work for commercial sites like Flickr, YouTube, IMDB, Yelp, and... Slashdot. There are plenty of companies getting VC money right now based on the Tom Sawyer model. Because it has been proven to work.
Yes, but those sites control access to the aggregation of their content - I can't d/l all of slashdot and recreate it even though they don't own any individual post.
Remember the firestorm over the free DC database a while back when it went commercial? And the attempts to replicate a free version? When you don't control the information you can't limit competition - which diminishes the commercial value of the information.
hope it doesn't happen, by the way. But as somebody soaking in the internet startup community, I'm confident that there would be buyers at prices above $100m.
I have never doubted the stupidity of some VCs; just the value of what they will be buying. Is wikipedia.com and
This just doesn't matter. The big lesson of Wikipedia is that information is now effectively free. The largest user of their content is tiny in comparison. And that's with some added value; the pure clone sites are much further down.
Right now there is no reason to use a competitor when you have the real thing.
The question is how can you retain the value for something that a competitor could easily recreate?
The asset is not the content, it's the vast user base kept there through network effects.
Yes, and I believe that is the asset least likely to survive a purchase and the one most easily created without a purchase.
Do you really think Google couldn't create a similar network, given their visibility? Or they couldn't improve on the quality of the content, if only by building in links to appropriate and relevant sites?
That doesn't mean someone won't buy it; nor that there is no value in the name; but I do believe the idea it is a valauble commodity simply becasue of the network effects is mistaken.
Any purchaser still faces the challenge of maintaining the serves that handle the traffic that supports the network - is a big risk when a competitor who already has the infrastructure can mirror your business for very little marginal cost and drive people to their site over yours.
The real thing to consider is if you are going to pay $100 million how fast can you turn it into a $500 or $1000 million company based on ad revenue alone?
Wikipedia has massive traffic, massive inbound linking, a massive community, and a well-known brand. Those are huge intangible assets in the sale of any online property. If you compare other recent sales on those metrics, we're talking in the hundreds of millions, easy.
.com and .org url is, and will remain, a valuable address since everything else will not be owned by you.
Recent sales are of sites with a very different business model. Their content is not easily obtained and most off their users are not interested in such things as Creative Commons or GNU licenses and their impact on how we view ownership and use rights.
YouTube's, for example, community isn't going to go away simply because the ownership changed, nor can anyone replicate YouTube by simply copying it's content and having a server farm. Wiki's content is easily duplicated - so in and off itself it has no value.
The domain name and links would have some value but how much is the question. If it was to the point of a sale to survive or going away simply letting it die would force the traffic to a new site - and organizations such as Google or Yahoo certainly have the brand name and money to go far beyond what Wiki is today.
I'd venture to say most of the users (versus contributers) simply want a free and easily accessible source of information. If a Google or Yahoo added their reputation to it they'd be more likely to use it than another.
Yes, it's a little touchier to sell Wikipedia than your average web site, as the current community is relatively anti-commerce.
That's the crux of the problem - you're valuable because people work for free - will the still do that if you were a commercial enterprise? Plus, everything you add to it's database has to be made available for free - so your competitors can simply mirror your work without your consent. In essence, your betting that a
It's position is defensible simply because the contributors won't do the same for a commercial mirror and the site provides a non-commercial resting place for their contributions - take away the site and people, if they want a wiki, will have to go to a commercial alternative - which you can easily create without buying the domain name.
But if it's a choice between shutting it down and putting it under, say, Google's protective wing, with just a modest set of Google ads down the side, enough would go along to keep it a viable property. And if the Wikimedia Foundation were willing to sell it for below market to get special terms, there are all sorts of other plausible homes for it.
Again, why buy it? All the info is yours for free, and if the Wikimedia Foundation goes under even the domain name will be up for grabs; and if they stay barely afloat but not able to grow or handle the load then the name will diminish in value as time passes and fewer people visit it.
That doesn't mean that someone won't come in and help them as a philanthropic gesture; but it also doesn't mean that it has any great worth as others have claimed.
While the article claims Wiki's assets are valuable, I doubt that. Anyone that could buy it and host the files could simply d/l the files and build their infrastructure. So, Wiki's probably worth exactly the resale value of its servers; plus perhaps a little for the url. Since it is essentially duplicatable by anyone with server space to host it there is no value to the intangibles, i.e. the content. Adding to the risk is that all the people who edit and submit today because it is a free, non-ad supported service may decide not to support it if it is bought by someone.
To me, the fact that he took the fall for it is an ironic sign of good leadership. Not many at the top would allow themselves to be taken out over an incident like this. It probably means that he is a good leader, and understands responsiblity, and stepped up to take the heat.
You are correct, despite the idiotic AC (but I'm redundant) follow-ups. He sounds like the type who actually made decisions and took the heat for them; which results in loyalty and a willingness on the part of subordinates to be creative and take chances because they know they won't be sacrificed for an honest failure. For a network that means they'll be more likely to have hits and be viewed as cutting edge; which brings in viewers and ad revenue.
The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.
I suspect he will quickly show up elsewhere (assuming he wants to); I doubt a network will hold this against him. They'll probably see it as a chance to grab a star. The entertainment industry is very forgiving *if* you deliver hits. I'd bet that failure at the box office or TV is the only unforgivable sin an executive can commit.
In any case, the original suggestion took the words right our of my mouth. We submariners are the closest to representing people with an appropriate personality type for an extended mission in cramped quarters. NASA should definitely do extended observations and psych evaluations of sub crews on patrols and such.
Yea. right. Prussian Blue on the growler earpiece. Contests to see who can tighten the vice the most on their thumbs. Long multi-watch arguments over anything, the more obscure the better. Taking the blowing sanitary sign off the aft head. Forward pukes vs the nukes.
What would be the space equivalent of King Neptune?
I'd love to have had a shrink on one of our cruises; but I want a low number in the pool on how long he goes before *he* wants off.
Doesn't that qualify as a "work for hire?
Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. 17 U.S.C. sec 101
No, since they are not your employees; and the contract typically does not assign you the rights.
The copyrights should be owned by the person who paid the photographer
It can, but that generally costs more than just prints w/o copyright. You, in essence, pay only for what you want. If you want the rights you pay extra for them. The photographer is balancing future print profits vs a one time fee if you get the copyrights so the one time fee will be higher.
Novel is still free to distribute gplV2 software; the article states that they haven't decided what to do and the ban would only apply to V3 licensed versions:
"f the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March."
Which means Novell would be free to fork v2 and keep anything they do under v2 as well as prevent it from being incorporated in any v3 licensed version; since they could limit it to v2 and earlier licenses.
In addition, the ban would only apply to FSF's copyrighted code; since they can't release other's v2 code only under v3 without violating v2's license provision.
While MS probably doesn't want to take on the FSF for PR reasons, they could bury them with lawsuits if they wanted to - so even if the FSF wins in the end they could very well be litigated out of existence. More likely; MS could help Novell fork the code significantly and develop programs (such as office for Linux) that would only run on the forked code; since the changes would be under a V2 they could preclude them from being incorporated in any v3 licensed versions, marginalizing v3.
While I understand the FSF wants to avoid such a scenario, picking a fight with MS/Novell is probably not the way to do it.
Interestingly enough, someone owns the copyright to that picture - and I f=doubt the consumerist web site has teh owner's permission to use it. So independent of how you feel about the issue they are still subject to copyright rules and "fair use" isn't exactly applicable - they are not commenting on or criticizing the photograph; nor is it parody; nor did they use a small portion since they took the entire paragraph.
I'm surprised no one has played the copyright card yet. In theory the original photographer could sue for damages.
I don't understand why "under the table" cash is even necessary. Why do that if they can just get a discount? Do public filings even show which company is getting Dell's money? I don't think they are broken down that far.
Well, while I think such a payment should be used to reduce the cost of the components and as a result widen the profit margin (and hence the taxes paid) Dell may want to account for it differently. They could, for example, be offering copay money to advertise Intel chips; which would be a different accounting treatment.
In addition, if Intel discounts then they will have to offer the same discount to any other company that they have a "best price" contract in place; so a discount will cost more than just what they give Dell. Therefor, they sell at list and pay cash to lower the price without offering a "discount."
It's called a rebate.
No, if it was they'd have to submit all of the UPCs and receipts; and then get an email denying the rebate because they forgot to send in the left bottom flap from all of the boxes.
lawsuit. If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry (much as McDonald's does with Mc in fast food). OTOH, if they work out a license agreement then that risk is gone.
If they lose, then they need to rename the iPhone; with all the attendant costs.
Seems to me that an agreement is less risky than a lawsuit.
Possibly because you're not legally allowed to say anything bad about a former employee when acting as a reference. You can either say something good, or refuse to comment.
While that is not technically correct; many companies, in the US at least, have policies against saying anything and will merely verify employment. They don't want to be sued, whether it is by an ex-employee who has a different interpretation of the "facts" or by another company who hired someone you said was great but turns out to be a criminal. It's simply safer to say nothing in the US' litigious society.
What does she have to do with philosophy? Crowds, otoh, I can understand.
In practice, the stricter of the two applies. Thus, if your state's minimum wage is lower than the federal, you must pay at least the federal minimum. If, however, the opposite is true and you pay exactly the federal minimum, you're still in violation of state law.
True, because you can meet both by meeting one; however the GA law appears to conflict with federal law so the federal law would trump state law.
How about letting kids in the mall only with written permission?
Been to a mall lately? I could go for that; plus require two forms of ID.
While I don't think the law is a good one it seems to me a workaround for the federal law saying only an account creator can have access is to only allow minors to create pages on accounts their parent creates.
I believe federal law trumps state law. The fine state senator in GA should be aware of that; someone from Ohio drove home that point a while ago.
And if shill bidders drive the price above what you want to pay, just move along and wait for the next time that item comes up - they ALWAYS do!
Or watch the item and snipe in at the last second - that way you limit the impact of shills on your price. While a shill may already have raised the price you at least get a shot at seeing if the price is close to what you want to pay.
I also always turn down second chance offers - unless they will sell at my very first accepted bid. None have, but that's not my problem.
My guess is that their are enough people who checkout eBay for potential bargains, bid up an item to what they still think is a steal, then drop out - which really isn't shilling but has the same effect of driving up a price (the whole purpose of auctions). I've done that myself for art and camera stuff.