I'll second that. I have the benefit of working for a company that has photocopiers that will scan to PDF as well as a print shop on-site. Sometimes I travel so it's handy to have my books in a PDF form so I don't have to lug the real books around with me.
I take my text books to the print shop and ask them to cut the binding off the books.
I then spend an hour or two loading the pages in the photocopier to do the scanning and PDFing.
Then I take the cut up books back to the print shop to have them spiral-bound.
Now I a pretty good e-copy (OCR is not perfect, but pretty good!) and the hard-copy will now lay flat, which is typically an improvement.
Wow! How much bandwidth does it take to handle a time-card function? Are they having to transmit their entire genome as part of the identification process?
When I was little, my dad's workplace had one of those clunky time clocks where you put the punch-card in and it would stamp the time on the card. If he took me when he had to catch up some work on a weekend, I always liked getting to put the card in with the ka-chunk sound it made. That had a card with each worker's name and the hours they worked that week.
So seriously, how much bandwidth does it take to handle a transaction like "Bob started work at 8:05AM", "Bob left work at 5:03PM"?
Another interesting consideration are the places that automatically "round" time away from the employee in 15 minute increments. A local teaching hospital does that. If you clock in at 8:00:01, it actually records 8:15. And if you left at 5:14:59, it actually records 5:00, so the employee can lose up to 29:58 minutes of work each day. I really don't understand how that can be legal or why the union there would tolerate it.
The right comparison, IMHO, should be between how much your salary costs, compared to how much would be spent if everyone did by themselves the work you do. Compare the productivity of office jobs supported by a well trained professional to the productivity of unsupported amateurs.
I used to work in an engineering school that also had the CS department (I was one of the IT guys). At one of the faculty staff meetings they were trying to find ways to save money and someone proposed that the CS profs take over IT so they could get rid of me and my boss.
One of the CS profs retorted that it would be just fine and they'd be happy to do it when the civil engineers cleaned the toilets, the mechanical engineers fixed the windows, doors, and heating system, and the electrical engineers changed the lightbulbs. Thankfully, the proposal died a quick and quiet death.
You could also justify "in house" IT by evaluating the costs of outsourcing all the work to contractors.
When computers are outlawed, only outlaws will have computers!!
That reminds me that the US has (or had) tight restrictions on what kinds of computer technology could be exported to "countries we don't like". They were regulated under "Arms Control" because they could be used to do nuclear weapons simulations and difficult-to-crack cryptography. The limits were at one point low enough that some game consoles qualified for the restrictions.
Seems to me that then makes computers something that can be protected under the 2nd amendment. If they're regulated under "arms control" then they must be "arms" that are clearly covered by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
And with the recent supreme court case that determined that it is indeed a "individual right" and not a "collective right" then I think we USians may actually get to keep our computers...
I've been up to 14,500 feet, with no ill effects (although that high you do start to feel a little mental degradation).
Ah, that's nothing. My town's at about 50 feet, and I can experience mental degradation just by walking to my favorite pub (the Widmer Gasthaus)... no need for all the heavy exertion.
Posts like yours place the blame here on the hypermilers, but the blame should reside elsewhere.
Traffic is a system. I'm not blaming just the hypermilers. I'm blaming anyone who intentionally strives to optimize their own trip while not giving a damn for how that impacts the system as a whole.
I've written and used simulations on traffic and it's pretty easy to demonstrate that one slow driver (one who's slow to accelerate, drives below the speed limit, and/or decelerates slowly) at the head of a pack of traffic will impede the flow of traffic for the entire pack causing the cars behind be stopped behind more lights and spend more time waiting at lights. That one driver may experience better gas mileage but it's at the cost of all the other drivers.
That doesn't even take into account the psychological aspects where the behavior of the slow lead car can result in greater irritation of the drivers behind him and probably erratic driving on the part of one or more of them. If you're going to say that slow driver bears no responsibility in this, then you must also accept that the guy who races up the right hand side and merges late, causing a pile-up behind him also bears no responsibility for the crashes and carnage behind him - for clearly it was the other drivers who didn't respond properly./sarcasm
A hypermiler's behaviour only impacts how other drivers _think_ they are doing in terms of making good time to their destination.
This is not correct. Let's assume in a case it takes the slow guy 20 seconds to get "up to speed" once a light turns green and the average driver 10 seconds to get up to speed. That slow driver has "eaten up" 10 seconds of the next green light. Had he not been in the way, 10 more seconds of cars could have made it through the next light before it turned red. That means 10 seconds of cars now idling at one more additional light.
You have the wrong feeling. Driving the speed limit is a good idea. Driving far below the speed limit (as the submitter specified people going 30 MPH in a 45 MPH zone) is risky and detrimental to good traffic flow and traffic safety as a whole.
The driver going far below the speed limit is likely to incite someone who is less patient to recklessly try to pass them, and that slow driver is responsible for helping to create that situation. To say otherwise is to tell someone poking a bee hive with a stick is not responsible for the stings they receive - that it's only the bees that should be blamed.
In my eyes, anyone who intentionally drives in ways that are counter to how a traffic system has been designed and implemented is putting the rest of us at risk... that means excessive speeding as well as excessive slow driving.
I've studied traffic a lot over the years and what I do know is that it only takes a few drivers driving in selfish ways to really screw things for everyone else. The guy racing ahead on the right to merge at the last minute tends to be the same guy bitching when someone else cuts them off.
And to say "I'm getting better gas mileage, everyone and everything else be damned" is just more of the kind of thinking that leads to all of us getting screwed.
This is just another case where people don't realize (or care) that trying to maximize the performance of one part of the system (their commute) ends up diminishing the performance of the overall system.
Only a few people doing this slow driving will result in large numbers of other driver stuck waiting at more lights. Even worse, this kind of slow driving will result in some other drivers driving recklessly trying to get around the slow drivers. It won't take many crashes, injuries, and deaths to completely wipe out any savings made to the economy by a few people driving slowly (if only from traffic backups due to crashes).
Using these kinds of hypermiling techniques are just fine for an individual who doesn't have any regard for how their behavior impacts others.
You might check out Virgin Mobile. Inexpensive phones and a variety of plans... minute by minute or month-to-month... all without a contract. I've happily used them for about 4 years. The only hard part is picking one of their phones that don't make you look like you're trying to be a teenager... which is fine, I guess, if you're a teenager (I'm a couple decades past that...)
The piggyback on Sprint's network, so they work pretty well wherever Sprint works.
It's because the government is granting them use of scarce public resources (bandwidth, rights of way for towers and wires). Because AT&T gets use of a piece of spectrum, nobody else can and thus can't compete.
Plus there is the oversight functions of government designed to prevent competitors from collaborating to raise prices.
Actually it sucks to be the car owner. The thief has only invested a little time and can easily write it off. The car owner now has $100 in repairs (if he's lucky, that's all the thief broke). Thieves don't seem to mind bashing out a $200 window to get a handful of dimes and pennies in the ashtray.
A bank account is a loan to the bank in exchange for money or services. If the bank is defrauded out of some money, why is it the account holder who loses out?
Sadly, it's because the bank has much more resources than the individual. Sure, the individual could hire lawyers and mount an attack, but the bank is big enough, has enough political ties, and has so many more resources that they're probably able to just weather the attack until the individual is spent. Even worse, the bank probably has the laws on its side in these instances.
It's certainly not right in any moral way but it's simply the facts as they are.
That said, he should have swallowed some of his wall street pride and hired an accountant to manage his bank accounts and make sure this kind of thing wasn't happening. I have virtually no money but I check my account activity and balances on my checking account almost daily and with my other accounts at least once a week. But then again, I can't afford to have $2000 (let alone $20,000) disappear in a month.
It is ghastly looking but the key is that they appear to be filling the hole and keeping the other stones from falling out of place. And more importantly, it's completely undo-able, which is an important value in any kind of preservation/restoration work dealing with relics.
With this ugly patch, its obvious what is old and new and it can be undone by just plucking them out.
Hopefully it's just a stop-gap with more significant repairs to follow that will be more aesthetically pleasing.
Wanting to skirt around some laws and send a bunch of e-mail to make money has nothing to do with killing people.
The problem is that his behavior was much more than simply skirting the law to make some money. His actions show a total and blatant disregard for safety and wellbeing of other people. He was glib about the problems he caused by clogging up mail servers and he had no problem sending e-mails for scam medicines that could actually endanger people's lives. His actions indicate that he was probably a psychopath. It's so much more than just being selfish or a moderate criminal. His behaviors and patterns of thinking indicate a total lack of regard for other human beings.
It's then not much of a leap to extrapolate from his ordinary disregard for human life when he's "feeling good" to taking out his family when he's under extreme stress.
but the cowards that they are they prefer roadside bombs, because they they cant be captured/killed or interrogated if they aren't shot dead... it still might find practical use.
It's funny, the British officers during the American Insurrection complained that the Americans wouldn't line up in "proper ranks" when they fought. Instead they would shoot from behind trees in a very disorganized way that made it very tough for the British troops to fight back.
Are you saying that if given the option between standing on the side of the road and shooting at an enemy or planting a bomb that can be set off remotely that you'd take the "stand on the side of the road" option?
Welcome to asymmetric warfare and insurgency. If you can't hack it, don't invade a country.
As for this weapon, I wonder how it holds up when it's filled with sand, mud, and blood... and now instead of just needing socks and bullets (an old platoon sgt of mine liked to say that's all you needed to pack into battle) you have to also carry some kind of mixing fluid?
Personally, I've always found anything that said that the Earth would die ridiculous. It might become totally unsuited to human life, but that's our own fault.
Don't underestimate humans and our potential to make a planet entirely inhospitable for all life. Once given a challenge of that magnitude, there's little that could stop our drive to achieve it.
Basically to keep honest people honest... just like padlocks on gym lockers and deadbolts on your front door. They're not a true barrier to anyone who's determined to get in (and has a little bit of skill or a good toolset). But they do stop the casual snoop.
It seems like I read some research once that demonstrated that aggressive password polices (regular changes, difficult words) just caused people to write the passwords down next to their computers and ended up being less secure.
So, your question is a good question.
As for encrypted file systems, I've only used truecrypt for data - can it be used to encrypt a system disk as well? At that point, I would ask if it's worth the trouble and risk. Lock the servers in a server room to restrict physical access. An encrypted volume is only really useful against physical inspection. If someone can hack into the machine while it's running on an encrypted drive, they probably already have remote access to the data on that drive.
What's more, if he choose a REALLY good password, brute force decrypt might take a *long* time...
Most of the password circumventions I've seen for windows don't actually crack the password but let you overwrite it with a new one. It's not so great for undetected access but it's just fine for taking control of a system that has been locked up by a disgruntled employee.
I worked at a school district once where an art teacher got canned due to budget cuts. Before she left, she changed the passwords to a bunch of computers she managed to get for the school district on a special grant. I have to admit, I felt bad as I removed the passwords using a linux password breaking floppy, but the computers did belong to the school.
Big iron is another story - but that's where your maintenance contracts should allow for the vendors to come in and undo the damage. There must be a way to connect its OS drive to another computer and make changes to whatever password/shadow files are there to allow for access once it's booted up again.
All those right-wingers and Bush supporters have been yapping about WMDs and a nuclear program. It's good to see that all this low-grade uranium has only been there for a couple decades and fully accounted for most of that time.
I can't wait for them to repent for wanting to go to war over a pretense.
If you're singing just for yourself, you're really wasting your time.
I have to disagree with that... at least for me. When I'm suffering from a bout of depression, I can often pick myself up by singing. It works better for me than many other things (even other musical things like playing piano). I put on one of my favorite Jazz musicians (Kurt Elling) and sing along where I can (he has quite a range). 20 minutes of that does wonders for my mood.
A few of my close friends have heard me sing and say I have a nice voice, but I don't particularly like sing in front of other people. But singing for myself does make me feel better. So, it's not entirely a waste of time.
Maybe it's not the singing but just the increased oxygen from breathing more deeply. Maybe I'll try reading the dictionary loudly next time I'm feeling the need for a pick-me-up.
No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.
Actually, their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Adidas could make a lot of profit (for a while) by firing most of their employees and licensing their brand for use on all kinds of things like power drinks, car air fresheners, condoms, and breath mints. This would, however, diminish the brand as well as the value of the company to the shareholders.
While value and profitability are closely linked, they are not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll second that. I have the benefit of working for a company that has photocopiers that will scan to PDF as well as a print shop on-site. Sometimes I travel so it's handy to have my books in a PDF form so I don't have to lug the real books around with me.
I take my text books to the print shop and ask them to cut the binding off the books.
I then spend an hour or two loading the pages in the photocopier to do the scanning and PDFing.
Then I take the cut up books back to the print shop to have them spiral-bound.
Now I a pretty good e-copy (OCR is not perfect, but pretty good!) and the hard-copy will now lay flat, which is typically an improvement.
300Kbps for 8 people to log into their timecard.
Wow! How much bandwidth does it take to handle a time-card function? Are they having to transmit their entire genome as part of the identification process?
When I was little, my dad's workplace had one of those clunky time clocks where you put the punch-card in and it would stamp the time on the card. If he took me when he had to catch up some work on a weekend, I always liked getting to put the card in with the ka-chunk sound it made. That had a card with each worker's name and the hours they worked that week.
So seriously, how much bandwidth does it take to handle a transaction like "Bob started work at 8:05AM", "Bob left work at 5:03PM"?
Another interesting consideration are the places that automatically "round" time away from the employee in 15 minute increments. A local teaching hospital does that. If you clock in at 8:00:01, it actually records 8:15. And if you left at 5:14:59, it actually records 5:00, so the employee can lose up to 29:58 minutes of work each day. I really don't understand how that can be legal or why the union there would tolerate it.
The right comparison, IMHO, should be between how much your salary costs, compared to how much would be spent if everyone did by themselves the work you do. Compare the productivity of office jobs supported by a well trained professional to the productivity of unsupported amateurs.
I used to work in an engineering school that also had the CS department (I was one of the IT guys). At one of the faculty staff meetings they were trying to find ways to save money and someone proposed that the CS profs take over IT so they could get rid of me and my boss.
One of the CS profs retorted that it would be just fine and they'd be happy to do it when the civil engineers cleaned the toilets, the mechanical engineers fixed the windows, doors, and heating system, and the electrical engineers changed the lightbulbs. Thankfully, the proposal died a quick and quiet death.
You could also justify "in house" IT by evaluating the costs of outsourcing all the work to contractors.
Why should I need anything besides text?!
The porn isn't as good?
Bravo!
When computers are outlawed, only outlaws will have computers!!
That reminds me that the US has (or had) tight restrictions on what kinds of computer technology could be exported to "countries we don't like". They were regulated under "Arms Control" because they could be used to do nuclear weapons simulations and difficult-to-crack cryptography. The limits were at one point low enough that some game consoles qualified for the restrictions.
Seems to me that then makes computers something that can be protected under the 2nd amendment. If they're regulated under "arms control" then they must be "arms" that are clearly covered by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
And with the recent supreme court case that determined that it is indeed a "individual right" and not a "collective right" then I think we USians may actually get to keep our computers...
I've been up to 14,500 feet, with no ill effects (although that high you do start to feel a little mental degradation).
Ah, that's nothing. My town's at about 50 feet, and I can experience mental degradation just by walking to my favorite pub (the Widmer Gasthaus)... no need for all the heavy exertion.
Posts like yours place the blame here on the hypermilers, but the blame should reside elsewhere.
Traffic is a system. I'm not blaming just the hypermilers. I'm blaming anyone who intentionally strives to optimize their own trip while not giving a damn for how that impacts the system as a whole.
I've written and used simulations on traffic and it's pretty easy to demonstrate that one slow driver (one who's slow to accelerate, drives below the speed limit, and/or decelerates slowly) at the head of a pack of traffic will impede the flow of traffic for the entire pack causing the cars behind be stopped behind more lights and spend more time waiting at lights. That one driver may experience better gas mileage but it's at the cost of all the other drivers.
That doesn't even take into account the psychological aspects where the behavior of the slow lead car can result in greater irritation of the drivers behind him and probably erratic driving on the part of one or more of them. If you're going to say that slow driver bears no responsibility in this, then you must also accept that the guy who races up the right hand side and merges late, causing a pile-up behind him also bears no responsibility for the crashes and carnage behind him - for clearly it was the other drivers who didn't respond properly. /sarcasm
A hypermiler's behaviour only impacts how other drivers _think_ they are doing in terms of making good time to their destination.
This is not correct. Let's assume in a case it takes the slow guy 20 seconds to get "up to speed" once a light turns green and the average driver 10 seconds to get up to speed. That slow driver has "eaten up" 10 seconds of the next green light. Had he not been in the way, 10 more seconds of cars could have made it through the next light before it turned red. That means 10 seconds of cars now idling at one more additional light.
You have the wrong feeling. Driving the speed limit is a good idea. Driving far below the speed limit (as the submitter specified people going 30 MPH in a 45 MPH zone) is risky and detrimental to good traffic flow and traffic safety as a whole.
The driver going far below the speed limit is likely to incite someone who is less patient to recklessly try to pass them, and that slow driver is responsible for helping to create that situation. To say otherwise is to tell someone poking a bee hive with a stick is not responsible for the stings they receive - that it's only the bees that should be blamed.
In my eyes, anyone who intentionally drives in ways that are counter to how a traffic system has been designed and implemented is putting the rest of us at risk... that means excessive speeding as well as excessive slow driving.
I've studied traffic a lot over the years and what I do know is that it only takes a few drivers driving in selfish ways to really screw things for everyone else. The guy racing ahead on the right to merge at the last minute tends to be the same guy bitching when someone else cuts them off.
And to say "I'm getting better gas mileage, everyone and everything else be damned" is just more of the kind of thinking that leads to all of us getting screwed.
This is just another case where people don't realize (or care) that trying to maximize the performance of one part of the system (their commute) ends up diminishing the performance of the overall system.
Only a few people doing this slow driving will result in large numbers of other driver stuck waiting at more lights. Even worse, this kind of slow driving will result in some other drivers driving recklessly trying to get around the slow drivers. It won't take many crashes, injuries, and deaths to completely wipe out any savings made to the economy by a few people driving slowly (if only from traffic backups due to crashes).
Using these kinds of hypermiling techniques are just fine for an individual who doesn't have any regard for how their behavior impacts others.
You might check out Virgin Mobile. Inexpensive phones and a variety of plans... minute by minute or month-to-month... all without a contract. I've happily used them for about 4 years. The only hard part is picking one of their phones that don't make you look like you're trying to be a teenager... which is fine, I guess, if you're a teenager (I'm a couple decades past that...)
The piggyback on Sprint's network, so they work pretty well wherever Sprint works.
It's because the government is granting them use of scarce public resources (bandwidth, rights of way for towers and wires). Because AT&T gets use of a piece of spectrum, nobody else can and thus can't compete.
Plus there is the oversight functions of government designed to prevent competitors from collaborating to raise prices.
Actually it sucks to be the car owner. The thief has only invested a little time and can easily write it off. The car owner now has $100 in repairs (if he's lucky, that's all the thief broke). Thieves don't seem to mind bashing out a $200 window to get a handful of dimes and pennies in the ashtray.
A bank account is a loan to the bank in exchange for money or services. If the bank is defrauded out of some money, why is it the account holder who loses out?
Sadly, it's because the bank has much more resources than the individual. Sure, the individual could hire lawyers and mount an attack, but the bank is big enough, has enough political ties, and has so many more resources that they're probably able to just weather the attack until the individual is spent. Even worse, the bank probably has the laws on its side in these instances.
It's certainly not right in any moral way but it's simply the facts as they are.
That said, he should have swallowed some of his wall street pride and hired an accountant to manage his bank accounts and make sure this kind of thing wasn't happening. I have virtually no money but I check my account activity and balances on my checking account almost daily and with my other accounts at least once a week. But then again, I can't afford to have $2000 (let alone $20,000) disappear in a month.
If you sue more people, more people will become lawyers.
This must be why they call economics the dismal science.
It is ghastly looking but the key is that they appear to be filling the hole and keeping the other stones from falling out of place. And more importantly, it's completely undo-able, which is an important value in any kind of preservation/restoration work dealing with relics.
With this ugly patch, its obvious what is old and new and it can be undone by just plucking them out.
Hopefully it's just a stop-gap with more significant repairs to follow that will be more aesthetically pleasing.
Wanting to skirt around some laws and send a bunch of e-mail to make money has nothing to do with killing people.
The problem is that his behavior was much more than simply skirting the law to make some money. His actions show a total and blatant disregard for safety and wellbeing of other people. He was glib about the problems he caused by clogging up mail servers and he had no problem sending e-mails for scam medicines that could actually endanger people's lives. His actions indicate that he was probably a psychopath. It's so much more than just being selfish or a moderate criminal. His behaviors and patterns of thinking indicate a total lack of regard for other human beings.
It's then not much of a leap to extrapolate from his ordinary disregard for human life when he's "feeling good" to taking out his family when he's under extreme stress.
I was thinking, why not give them their own little sandbox, where only users marked as 'troll' could see posts by other trolls?
Isn't that essentially what CraigsList is now?
but the cowards that they are they prefer roadside bombs, because they they cant be captured/killed or interrogated if they aren't shot dead... it still might find practical use.
It's funny, the British officers during the American Insurrection complained that the Americans wouldn't line up in "proper ranks" when they fought. Instead they would shoot from behind trees in a very disorganized way that made it very tough for the British troops to fight back.
Are you saying that if given the option between standing on the side of the road and shooting at an enemy or planting a bomb that can be set off remotely that you'd take the "stand on the side of the road" option?
Welcome to asymmetric warfare and insurgency. If you can't hack it, don't invade a country.
As for this weapon, I wonder how it holds up when it's filled with sand, mud, and blood... and now instead of just needing socks and bullets (an old platoon sgt of mine liked to say that's all you needed to pack into battle) you have to also carry some kind of mixing fluid?
Personally, I've always found anything that said that the Earth would die ridiculous. It might become totally unsuited to human life, but that's our own fault.
Don't underestimate humans and our potential to make a planet entirely inhospitable for all life. Once given a challenge of that magnitude, there's little that could stop our drive to achieve it.
So why use passwords at all?
Basically to keep honest people honest... just like padlocks on gym lockers and deadbolts on your front door. They're not a true barrier to anyone who's determined to get in (and has a little bit of skill or a good toolset). But they do stop the casual snoop.
It seems like I read some research once that demonstrated that aggressive password polices (regular changes, difficult words) just caused people to write the passwords down next to their computers and ended up being less secure.
So, your question is a good question.
As for encrypted file systems, I've only used truecrypt for data - can it be used to encrypt a system disk as well? At that point, I would ask if it's worth the trouble and risk. Lock the servers in a server room to restrict physical access. An encrypted volume is only really useful against physical inspection. If someone can hack into the machine while it's running on an encrypted drive, they probably already have remote access to the data on that drive.
What's more, if he choose a REALLY good password, brute force decrypt might take a *long* time...
Most of the password circumventions I've seen for windows don't actually crack the password but let you overwrite it with a new one. It's not so great for undetected access but it's just fine for taking control of a system that has been locked up by a disgruntled employee.
I worked at a school district once where an art teacher got canned due to budget cuts. Before she left, she changed the passwords to a bunch of computers she managed to get for the school district on a special grant. I have to admit, I felt bad as I removed the passwords using a linux password breaking floppy, but the computers did belong to the school.
Big iron is another story - but that's where your maintenance contracts should allow for the vendors to come in and undo the damage. There must be a way to connect its OS drive to another computer and make changes to whatever password/shadow files are there to allow for access once it's booted up again.
I agree completely!
All those right-wingers and Bush supporters have been yapping about WMDs and a nuclear program. It's good to see that all this low-grade uranium has only been there for a couple decades and fully accounted for most of that time.
I can't wait for them to repent for wanting to go to war over a pretense.
If you're singing just for yourself, you're really wasting your time.
I have to disagree with that... at least for me. When I'm suffering from a bout of depression, I can often pick myself up by singing. It works better for me than many other things (even other musical things like playing piano). I put on one of my favorite Jazz musicians (Kurt Elling) and sing along where I can (he has quite a range). 20 minutes of that does wonders for my mood.
A few of my close friends have heard me sing and say I have a nice voice, but I don't particularly like sing in front of other people. But singing for myself does make me feel better. So, it's not entirely a waste of time.
Maybe it's not the singing but just the increased oxygen from breathing more deeply. Maybe I'll try reading the dictionary loudly next time I'm feeling the need for a pick-me-up.
No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.
Actually, their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Adidas could make a lot of profit (for a while) by firing most of their employees and licensing their brand for use on all kinds of things like power drinks, car air fresheners, condoms, and breath mints. This would, however, diminish the brand as well as the value of the company to the shareholders.
While value and profitability are closely linked, they are not the same thing.