So, the "freedom to choose" may be your philosophy, or Tim O'Reilly's philosophy [oreillynet.com], but it is not that of free software or open source.
As soon as an idea is kicked out into the public domain the people at large can modify and adapt it as they so please - and come up with a new version.
No one owns the concepts of open source or free software, or free speach or such. They are out there and open for interpretation.
Freedom is in the mind of the individual. I don't feel 'free' because I have taxes to pay. A guy working on a sugar plantation in mozambique doesn't feel free because he earns a dollar 50 a day and has a family of 9 to feed because his brothers were all shot. You don't feel free because propreitary software exists.
Free software and open source do not have a philosophy - every individual has one!
I think the point here is less about hurting MS, and more about hurting their monopoly of the desktop. If everyone that buys a new Dell or HP machine has to get used to using 'notMS' software it will be far easier for another piece of 'notMS' software to be accepted by them.
In this case, Liquid Audio has a duty to liquidate (no pun intended) their assets and reimburse the shareholders
Where is that written in stone, other than in your mind? As someone who has operated his own business for the past 6 years I have switched models 3 times, in order to capitalise on changing markets, and to minimise the damage of competitors massively undercutting us.
If you look at what we started out doing, and what we do now, there is a link - but the model and technology is utterly changed. My backers have been happy to change, indeed they saw it as my duty to come up with a way to change or they would have replaced me! Certainly I have replaced people who didn't keep us competitive, it's still the same company because the objectives of my backers are unchanged - MAKE MONEY!
If Liquid Audio can MAKE MONEY it is fulfilling its obligations to the shareholders. Period. They dont care how, just make money. Why do you think Monsanto is such a popular investment? Hardly because of their ethical policy!
A workable business model. Businesses switch model every five minutes. To say that they should stop and start to change their model is naive in the extreme!
average professional company management is a little more
Well. Yes. Average people get poor to average results. You need TALENT to make capital dance.
So Stelios had family money. So Michael Dell had family money. So Richard Branson and a dozen others all had family moneey. WGAF. Thousands of better educated, richer people with better looks and bigger willies have started companies that bombed in a year.
And if Stelios told you he left because he was bored, and that it had nothing to do with shareholder confidence... he's a big fat liar! Cinema?!? Cinema!!! You can bet a pund to a pinch of shit he'd rather run an airline than a cinema!
'did you enjoy your flight to nice?' 'did you enjoy spy kids 2'
Some of you may have heard about it already, but it's worth repeating. Lars Ramquist, head of the board of directors at Skandia, the highly successful Swedish insurance company (well a bit more than insurance company actually - is there really an insurance industry?), recently got a phone call. The guy on the other end of the line was Jan Karendi who runs Skandia's US operations. The conversation may have gone something like this:
- Hi it's Jan. - Hello Jan, how are you? - Fine, and the company is doing great too. How are things back home? - You know - the weather and the politicians and so on... So, why are you calling? - Hmm, let me cut to the chase. I had a meeting with our top people here last week and... well, they told me that they want eight percent of the company. - WHAT!!! - Is there something wrong with the line? - WHAT DID YOU SAY!!! - They want eight percent of the company. I want you to tell the stockholders that they will have to hand over eight percent of ownership to our top people, otherwise they are threatening to leave... -...
Of course, Skandia's stockholders started twisting and turning, whining and screaming like babies without their comforters. And darn it, they will probably succeed - they will win. The top people at Skandia will most certainly not get more than 6,4 or 7,2 (tops) percent of the company. But, we have a hypothesis. In two or three years time, Mr. Ramquist will get another phone call. This time, the employees are going to demand 12 percent or even 14 percent. What will he do then? What will the stockholders say?
Skandia is not alone. Indeed, the list of companies having to realize that power now belongs to their people is getting longer by the minute. At Nokia, the estimated costs of the stock-option program is more than 10 billion dollars. Robin Hood is not dead. This time though, he's not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Now, money flows directly from the capital investors right down into the pockets of the intellectual investors. Because in an age where competitive advantages weigh no more and no less than the dreams of a little butterfly - there is only one thing that makes capital dance: TALENT. You can either reward talent accordingly and watch the capital dance or commit commercial suicide (slowly). Listen up CWIs (Capitalists Without Ideas) of the Funky Village: there is no alternative.
The best thing is to find a new board of directors WHO HAVE A CLUE!
Take easyJet. One of the most profitable and successful companies to come out of the internet age. All tickets booked online, along with some other innovations, allowed far cheaper seats, leading to a massive chunk of market share, even buying Go recently (Go was the British Airways budget airline).
Stelios, the guy that set up easyJet, has left his position at the head of the company and will completely leave next year. EasyJet has brought in a team and a headman who know how to RUN a business, not just START IT UP. Stelios is off to start another business, easyJet is on its way to another successful year.
With that kind of cash reserve, even with no IPR, facilities, or brand, you simply need an ambitious board with some GOOD ideas and the capability to pull it off.
Then the shareholders should get much more than $1 for every $.7 in return. Easier said than done of course.
Why is anyone surprised by this? After all, practically none of the dot coms had a viable business model -- it was all "get customers now and make it up later (on volume!). The only thing that made it possible in the first place was the billions upon billions of dollars that venture captial threw into the pot...
Now. To a degree, every business model in the history of the universe is based on this principle. You spend some money on establishment, you sell at a massive loss to your first customer, and your second and third, but you have a break even point.
The problem with the dot coms was not that they used VC to fund the establishment phase, or that they couldn't make money out of a small number of cutomers. The problem was that they set their break even point too high - because they did the old "Okay, so if we get 0.1% of web surfers to buy a book once a year thats more books than are sold in Europe!!! WOOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWWOOOOOOHHHHH we can't fail!!! Bitchin'"
But, actually, the flaw wasn't in aiming for 0.1% of the web. The flaw was in underestimating the difficulty of doing this.
Remember - if, back a while, you heard Bill Gates claiming he would have 50% of all business systems expenditure going to his company you'd think he was mad. Same for Dell, Same for Starbucks, same for Aunt Jemima.
The web is irrelevent here - most businesses fail. The dot coms were just highly visible as they failed.
A two minute download and install process. A 5 min learning curve and I typed this post using it with only a couple of dead ends making me think. What fun. And Im not even a spazzy!
"fundamentalism = the root of all the evil that money isn't the root of"
I can't remember who said that - Einstein or Dr King or someone. Anyway. The point is. I cant be bothered with fundamentalist spam haters any more.
In a free society anything that prevents me from sending a message to someone is anti democratic. Spam sucks, but its a basic right to be able to communicate openly, so it has to be allowed.
Unsolicited bulk e-mail is not a viable form of advertising
I'm not arguing for BULK email, but for highly targeted unsolicited stuff. If someone searches the web and finds out that I am a purchasing director for a retailer I'd rather they emailed me a 'look at our warehouse info' spam than sent me a bunch of paper, called me direct, or knocked on my door.
I like some kinds of spam, I dislike others. I think anyone that claims to hate spam is exaggerating or hasn't really had anything to hate in life ever.
Useful, informative information is good spam. Offers of bigger boobs is bad spam.
I understand your point but my best sound system, the only one that you could actually hear the 4.7 gig difference, is on my computer.
I doubt that. I'm no golden-ear, but my audio-bore mates all rant on about how they need 3 ft of lead around their amp if theres a computer on in the house to get a decent sound out of it. So quite apart from the fact your average 'sound souped' PC has a shitty amp in the first place, the noise (electrical, not fan hum) from your machine will fuck up the sound anyway.
The good thing about political spam is that it is really easy to trace - at least so far. All the political spam I've received has been straight-up about who sent it (usually their campaign office).
In my book - this isn't SPAM. If I can call, write, email, or personally visit the guy who sent it, then I really dont class it alongside 'send $10 to PO BOX 666 for a hot babe' type SPAM.
Email from hagkjhkj@hotmail.com offering viagra is SO different from 'hi - vote for me'.
Politicians have a duty to inform the public - email is an excellent, cost effective, environmentally friendly way to do this. Drop your SPAM IS EVIL mindset for 2 seconds and see the wider picture.
The one killer answer is that companies cn get voted out of office (profitability) almost overnight by the people just boycotting their products.
People are scum, however. No matter how often we tell them that McDonalds food is shit, business practices are shit, and environmental activties are shit, they still vote for them.
People are scum, however. No matter how many times we tell them that President Bush is a twat that should be in jail, not the whitehouse (we even give them an EXAMPLE in his father and they dont listen) they still vote the fucker in.
Its all a lost cause - arguing the merits of democracy over the free market is pretty well pointless.
It's odd how so often a business that succeeds by breaking the mold will eventually form itself almost perfectly to that same mold.
Dell start by selling cheap, quality, configurable machines direct to customers providing value and quality of service. The big boys were selling through retil channels with all the supply lag, cost increases, etc... that entails.
Now that Dell IS the big boys they start selling this way because there is more money to be made quickly. Its easier to make $100 selling a pallet of non-configurables to wal-mart than selling a pallet of individually specced machines to SMEs.
Take almost any innovative company and this will happen. So... the question is... who are stepping into Dells shoes?
The key distinction here is between spam, and targeted email marketing.
I get a lot of targeted direct mail in my post box. This morning I got info from two banks (that we dont use) and a mail order service. 3
I get a lot of targeted direct email in my mail box from identifiable companies offering things that might be interesting. This morning I got stuff from Security, Project Management, a few games sites. 4
I get a lot of Spam. This morning I was offered a big knob, hot babes, viagra, hair, part time work, katie, investment opportunities... etc... 46
The first and last of these I hate. The first because of the wasted paper, the second because its a pain in the arse.
The middle one I don't have the slightest problem with. I can always unsubscribe and sometimes they are useful / interesting.
Most people have a good common sense idea what distinguishes FREE OFFER!!! from New at ComponentSource
Slashdot Mirror
This is an issue for your lawyer(s) to resolve, not Slashdot.
/. to resolve! I can't think of any!
How about a list of stuff that IS for
Other than what kind of cereal should be favoured while fragging.
So, the "freedom to choose" may be your philosophy, or Tim O'Reilly's philosophy [oreillynet.com], but it is not that of free software or open source.
As soon as an idea is kicked out into the public domain the people at large can modify and adapt it as they so please - and come up with a new version.
No one owns the concepts of open source or free software, or free speach or such. They are out there and open for interpretation.
Freedom is in the mind of the individual. I don't feel 'free' because I have taxes to pay. A guy working on a sugar plantation in mozambique doesn't feel free because he earns a dollar 50 a day and has a family of 9 to feed because his brothers were all shot. You don't feel free because propreitary software exists.
Free software and open source do not have a philosophy - every individual has one!
Doesn't MS own 25% of everything??
I think the point here is less about hurting MS, and more about hurting their monopoly of the desktop. If everyone that buys a new Dell or HP machine has to get used to using 'notMS' software it will be far easier for another piece of 'notMS' software to be accepted by them.
In this case, Liquid Audio has a duty to liquidate (no pun intended) their assets and reimburse the shareholders
Where is that written in stone, other than in your mind? As someone who has operated his own business for the past 6 years I have switched models 3 times, in order to capitalise on changing markets, and to minimise the damage of competitors massively undercutting us.
If you look at what we started out doing, and what we do now, there is a link - but the model and technology is utterly changed. My backers have been happy to change, indeed they saw it as my duty to come up with a way to change or they would have replaced me! Certainly I have replaced people who didn't keep us competitive, it's still the same company because the objectives of my backers are unchanged - MAKE MONEY!
If Liquid Audio can MAKE MONEY it is fulfilling its obligations to the shareholders. Period. They dont care how, just make money. Why do you think Monsanto is such a popular investment? Hardly because of their ethical policy!
Tea!!
... leave ... the ... machine...
Shit - you expect me to boil a kettle and dunk a bag (or even heat the pot) - thats dangerous no? and I'd have to
Does it come in self heating cans yet? I have to be able to stack SOMETHING up to show off how much I can drink in a year!
Guess what one of the GOOD IDEAS would be??
Thats right!
A workable business model. Businesses switch model every five minutes. To say that they should stop and start to change their model is naive in the extreme!
average professional company management is a little more
Well. Yes. Average people get poor to average results. You need TALENT to make capital dance.
So Stelios had family money. So Michael Dell had family money. So Richard Branson and a dozen others all had family moneey. WGAF. Thousands of better educated, richer people with better looks and bigger willies have started companies that bombed in a year.
And if Stelios told you he left because he was bored, and that it had nothing to do with shareholder confidence... he's a big fat liar!
Cinema?!? Cinema!!! You can bet a pund to a pinch of shit he'd rather run an airline than a cinema!
'did you enjoy your flight to nice?'
'did you enjoy spy kids 2'
http://www.funkybusiness.com/inside/funkytimes.htm l#epilogue
...
Talent makes capital dance: an epilogue
Some of you may have heard about it already, but it's worth repeating. Lars Ramquist, head of the board of directors at Skandia, the highly successful Swedish insurance company (well a bit more than insurance company actually - is there really an insurance industry?), recently got a phone call. The guy on the other end of the line was Jan Karendi who runs Skandia's US operations. The conversation may have gone something like this:
- Hi it's Jan.
- Hello Jan, how are you?
- Fine, and the company is doing great too. How are things back home?
- You know - the weather and the politicians and so on... So, why are you calling?
- Hmm, let me cut to the chase. I had a meeting with our top people here last week and... well, they told me that they want eight percent of the company.
- WHAT!!!
- Is there something wrong with the line?
- WHAT DID YOU SAY!!!
- They want eight percent of the company. I want you to tell the stockholders that they will have to hand over eight percent of ownership to our top people, otherwise they are threatening to leave...
-
Of course, Skandia's stockholders started twisting and turning, whining and screaming like babies without their comforters. And darn it, they will probably succeed - they will win. The top people at Skandia will most certainly not get more than 6,4 or 7,2 (tops) percent of the company. But, we have a hypothesis. In two or three years time, Mr. Ramquist will get another phone call. This time, the employees are going to demand 12 percent or even 14 percent. What will he do then? What will the stockholders say?
Skandia is not alone. Indeed, the list of companies having to realize that power now belongs to their people is getting longer by the minute. At Nokia, the estimated costs of the stock-option program is more than 10 billion dollars. Robin Hood is not dead. This time though, he's not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Now, money flows directly from the capital investors right down into the pockets of the intellectual investors. Because in an age where competitive advantages weigh no more and no less than the dreams of a little butterfly - there is only one thing that makes capital dance: TALENT. You can either reward talent accordingly and watch the capital dance or commit commercial suicide (slowly). Listen up CWIs (Capitalists Without Ideas) of the Funky Village: there is no alternative.
Wrong.
The best thing is to find a new board of directors WHO HAVE A CLUE!
Take easyJet. One of the most profitable and successful companies to come out of the internet age. All tickets booked online, along with some other innovations, allowed far cheaper seats, leading to a massive chunk of market share, even buying Go recently (Go was the British Airways budget airline).
Stelios, the guy that set up easyJet, has left his position at the head of the company and will completely leave next year. EasyJet has brought in a team and a headman who know how to RUN a business, not just START IT UP. Stelios is off to start another business, easyJet is on its way to another successful year.
With that kind of cash reserve, even with no IPR, facilities, or brand, you simply need an ambitious board with some GOOD ideas and the capability to pull it off.
Then the shareholders should get much more than $1 for every $.7 in return. Easier said than done of course.
Why is anyone surprised by this? After all, practically none of the dot coms had a viable business model -- it was all "get customers now and make it up later (on volume!). The only thing that made it possible in the first place was the billions upon billions of dollars that venture captial threw into the pot...
Now. To a degree, every business model in the history of the universe is based on this principle. You spend some money on establishment, you sell at a massive loss to your first customer, and your second and third, but you have a break even point.
The problem with the dot coms was not that they used VC to fund the establishment phase, or that they couldn't make money out of a small number of cutomers. The problem was that they set their break even point too high - because they did the old "Okay, so if we get 0.1% of web surfers to buy a book once a year thats more books than are sold in Europe!!! WOOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWWOOOOOOHHHHH we can't fail!!! Bitchin'"
But, actually, the flaw wasn't in aiming for 0.1% of the web. The flaw was in underestimating the difficulty of doing this.
Remember - if, back a while, you heard Bill Gates claiming he would have 50% of all business systems expenditure going to his company you'd think he was mad. Same for Dell, Same for Starbucks, same for Aunt Jemima.
The web is irrelevent here - most businesses fail. The dot coms were just highly visible as they failed.
A two minute download and install process. A 5 min learning curve and I typed this post using it with only a couple of dead ends making me think. What fun. And Im not even a spazzy!
I suggest you get a little less anal!
Also, get a dictionary and look up paraphrase. Sheesh!
"fundamentalism = the root of all the evil that money isn't the root of"
I can't remember who said that - Einstein or Dr King or someone. Anyway. The point is. I cant be bothered with fundamentalist spam haters any more.
In a free society anything that prevents me from sending a message to someone is anti democratic. Spam sucks, but its a basic right to be able to communicate openly, so it has to be allowed.
money = root of all evil
Advertising, direct mail, etc.. all cause measurable environmental damage - SPAM causes significantly less.
Money / Nice healthy planet... hmmm... fuck it, I'll take the money!
Unsolicited bulk e-mail is not a viable form of advertising
I'm not arguing for BULK email, but for highly targeted unsolicited stuff. If someone searches the web and finds out that I am a purchasing director for a retailer I'd rather they emailed me a 'look at our warehouse info' spam than sent me a bunch of paper, called me direct, or knocked on my door.
Where is THAT wrong?
So lets start defining good spam and bad spam!
I like some kinds of spam, I dislike others. I think anyone that claims to hate spam is exaggerating or hasn't really had anything to hate in life ever.
Useful, informative information is good spam.
Offers of bigger boobs is bad spam.
simple
I understand your point but my best sound system, the only one that you could actually hear the 4.7 gig difference, is on my computer.
I doubt that. I'm no golden-ear, but my audio-bore mates all rant on about how they need 3 ft of lead around their amp if theres a computer on in the house to get a decent sound out of it. So quite apart from the fact your average 'sound souped' PC has a shitty amp in the first place, the noise (electrical, not fan hum) from your machine will fuck up the sound anyway.
The good thing about political spam is that it is really easy to trace - at least so far. All the political spam I've received has been straight-up about who sent it (usually their campaign office).
In my book - this isn't SPAM. If I can call, write, email, or personally visit the guy who sent it, then I really dont class it alongside 'send $10 to PO BOX 666 for a hot babe' type SPAM.
Email from hagkjhkj@hotmail.com offering viagra is SO different from 'hi - vote for me'.
Politicians have a duty to inform the public - email is an excellent, cost effective, environmentally friendly way to do this. Drop your SPAM IS EVIL mindset for 2 seconds and see the wider picture.
How quickly could we catch up with Voyager using 2002 technology?
Killjoy
First off - name the baby killer company.
The one killer answer is that companies cn get voted out of office (profitability) almost overnight by the people just boycotting their products.
People are scum, however. No matter how often we tell them that McDonalds food is shit, business practices are shit, and environmental activties are shit, they still vote for them.
People are scum, however. No matter how many times we tell them that President Bush is a twat that should be in jail, not the whitehouse (we even give them an EXAMPLE in his father and they dont listen) they still vote the fucker in.
Its all a lost cause - arguing the merits of democracy over the free market is pretty well pointless.
It's odd how so often a business that succeeds by breaking the mold will eventually form itself almost perfectly to that same mold.
Dell start by selling cheap, quality, configurable machines direct to customers providing value and quality of service. The big boys were selling through retil channels with all the supply lag, cost increases, etc... that entails.
Now that Dell IS the big boys they start selling this way because there is more money to be made quickly. Its easier to make $100 selling a pallet of non-configurables to wal-mart than selling a pallet of individually specced machines to SMEs.
Take almost any innovative company and this will happen. So... the question is... who are stepping into Dells shoes?
Ask yourself this. How do you get your message out to prospective customers when you finally start that wee software company to build that killer app?
Ads on slashdot? - EVIL
Emailshots? - EVIL
Direct snail? - EVIL
Get real
The key distinction here is between spam, and targeted email marketing.
I get a lot of targeted direct mail in my post box. This morning I got info from two banks (that we dont use) and a mail order service. 3
I get a lot of targeted direct email in my mail box from identifiable companies offering things that might be interesting. This morning I got stuff from Security, Project Management, a few games sites. 4
I get a lot of Spam. This morning I was offered a big knob, hot babes, viagra, hair, part time work, katie, investment opportunities... etc... 46
The first and last of these I hate. The first because of the wasted paper, the second because its a pain in the arse.
The middle one I don't have the slightest problem with. I can always unsubscribe and sometimes they are useful / interesting.
Most people have a good common sense idea what distinguishes FREE OFFER!!! from New at ComponentSource
The ad that was showing was for The Discovery Channel's Shark week
Isn't it Shark week EVERY week on Discovery???
I'd have been more worried if the ad HADN'T been for shark week. Then something would be seriously wrong.